COVID-19 Vaccine Platforms: Challenges and Safety Contemplations.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a pandemic as of March 2020, creating a global crisis and claiming millions of lives. To halt the pandemic and alleviate its impact on society, economy, and public health, the development of vaccines and antiviral agents against SARS-CoV-2 was a dire need. To date, various platforms have been utilized for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, and over 200 vaccine candidates have been produced, many of which have obtained the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for emergency use. Despite this successful development and licensure, concerns regarding the safety and efficacy of these vaccines have arisen, given the unprecedented speed of vaccine development and the newly emerging SARS-CoV-2 strains and variants. In this review, we summarize the different platforms used for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine development, discuss their strengths and limitations, and highlight the major safety concerns and potential risks associated with each vaccine type.

COVID-19 Vaccination: The Mainspring of Challenges and the Seed of Remonstrance.

As of March 2020, the time when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) became a pandemic, our existence has been threatened and the lives of millions have been claimed. With this ongoing global issue, vaccines are considered of paramount importance in curtailing the outbreak and probably a prime gamble to bring us back to 'ordinary life'. To date, more than 200 vaccine candidates have been produced, many of which were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for emergency use, with the research and discovery phase of their production process passed over. Capering such a chief practice in COVID-19 vaccine development, and manufacturing vaccines at an unprecedented speed brought many challenges into play and raised COVID-19 vaccine remonstrance. In this review, we highlight relevant challenges to global COVID-19 vaccine development, dissemination, and deployment, particularly at the level of large-scale production and distribution. We also delineate public perception on COVID-19 vaccination and outline the main facets affecting people's willingness to get vaccinated.

Can commercial automated immunoassays be utilized to predict neutralizing antibodies after SARS-CoV-2 infection? A comparative study between three different assays.

Background: High-throughput assays that can infer neutralizing activity against SARS-CoV-2 are of great importance for assessing the immunity induced by natural infection and COVID-19 vaccines. We aimed to evaluate the performance and degree of correlation of three fully automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays with neutralization activity using a surrogate virus-neutralizing test (sVNT) from GenScript, targeting the receptor-binding domain. Methods: 110 sera collected from PCR-confirmed asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals were tested for neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) using the sVNT. Positive samples were tested on three automated immunoassays targeting different viral antigens: Mindray CL-900i®, Abbott Architect, and Ortho VITROS®. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, agreement, and correlation with the sVNT were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine optimal thresholds for predicting the presence of neutralizing activity by each assay. Results: All three assays showed 100% specificities. The highest sensitivity was 99.0%, demonstrated by VITROS®, followed by 94.3%, for CL-900i®, and 81.0%, for Architect. Both VITROS® and CL-900i® had the strongest correlation with the sVNT (ρ = 0.718 and ρ = 0.712, respectively), while Architect showed a moderate correlation (ρ = 0.618). ROC curve analysis indicated that the manufacturer's recommended cutoff values are adequate for predicting the presence of nAbs and providing a strong correlation with the sVNT. Conclusion: VITROS® and CL-900i® serological assays, which detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, could serve as reliable assays to predict neutralization activity after infection or vaccination.

Epidemiology of SARS-CoV2 in Qatar's primary care population aged 10 years and above.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to elucidate the epidemiology of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) and characterize its potential impact. Investing in characterising the SARS-CoV2 will help plan and improve the response to the pandemic. Furthermore, it will help identify the most efficient ways of managing the pandemic, avoiding public health policies and interventions that may be unduly restrictive of normal activity or unnecessarily costly. This paper describes the design and reports findings of a population based epidemiological study undertaken to characterise SARS-CoV2 in Qatar using limited resources in a timely manner. METHODS: Asymptomatic individuals ≥10 years registered with Qatar's publicly funded primary health provider were eligible. A stratified random sampling technique was utilized to identify the study sample. Participants were invited to an appointment where they completed a questionnaire and provided samples for polymerase chain reaction and Immunoglobulin M and G immunoassay tests. Data collected were analyzed to calculate point and period prevalence by sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 18,918 individuals invited for the study, 2084 participated (response rate 10.8%). The overall point prevalence and period prevalence were estimated to be 1.6% (95% CI 1.1-2.2) and 14.6% (95% CI 13.1-16.2) respectively. Period prevalence of SARS-CoV2 infection was not considerably different across age groups (9.7-19.8%). It was higher in males compared to females (16.2 and 12.7% respectively). A significant variation was observed by nationality (7.1 to 22.2%) and municipalities (6.9-35.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The study provides an example of a methodologically robust approach that can be undertaken in a timely manner with limited resources. It reports much-needed epidemiological data about the spread of SARS-CoV2. Given the low prevalence rates, majority of the population in Qatar remains susceptible. Enhanced surveillance must continue to be in place, particularly due to the large number of asymptomatic cases observed. Robust contact tracing and social distancing measures are key to prevent future outbreaks.

Evaluation of Antibody Response in Symptomatic and Asymptomatic COVID-19 Patients and Diagnostic Assessment of New IgM/IgG ELISA Kits.

This study aims to study the immune response and evaluate the performances of four new IgM and five IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kits for detecting anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies against different antigens in symptomatic and asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. A total of 291 samples collected from symptomatic and asymptomatic RT-PCR-confirmed patients were used to evaluate the ELISA kits' performance (EDI, AnshLabs, DiaPro, NovaLisa, and Lionex). The sensitivity was measured at three different time-intervals post symptoms onset or positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test (≤14, 14-30, >30 days). The specificity was investigated using 119 pre-pandemic serum samples. The sensitivity of all IgM kits gradually decreased with time, ranging from 48.7% (EDI)-66.4% (Lionex) at ≤14 days, 29.1% (NovaLisa)-61.8% (Lionex) at 14-30 days, and 6.0% (AnshLabs)-47.9% (Lionex) at >30 days. The sensitivity of IgG kits increased with time, peaking in the latest interval (>30 days) at 96.6% (Lionex). Specificity of IgM ranged from 88.2% (Lionex)-99.2% (EDI), while IgG ranged from 75.6% (DiaPro)-98.3% (Lionex). Among all RT-PCR-positive patients, 23 samples (7.9%) were seronegative by all IgG kits, of which only seven samples (30.4%) had detectable IgM antibodies. IgM assays have variable and low sensitivity, thus considered a poor marker for COVID-19 diagnosis. IgG assays can miss at least 8% of RT-PCR-positive cases.