RESUMO
BackgroundUnderstanding the immune response to natural infection by SARS-CoV-2 is key to pandemic management, especially in the current context of emerging variants. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and duration of natural immunity against reinfection. MethodWe conducted an observational prospective cohort study in Canadian healthcare workers (HCWs) with a history of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection to : (i) measure the average incidence rate of reinfection and (ii), describe the serological immune response to the primary infection. ResultsWe detected 5 cases of reinfection over 14 months of follow-up, for a reinfection incidence rate of 3.3 per 100 person-years. Median duration of seropositivity was 420 days in symptomatics at primary infection compared to 213 days in asymptomatics (p<0.0001). Other variables associated with prolonged seropositivity for IgG against the spike protein included age 55 and above, obesity, and non-Caucasian ethnicity. SummaryAmong healthcare workers, the incidence of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 following a primary infection remained rare, although our analysis predates the circulation of the Omicron variant.
RESUMO
BackgroundOur understanding of the global scale of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains incomplete: routine surveillance data underestimates infection and cannot infer on population immunity, there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in WHOs Unity protocol for general population seroepidemiological studies, two years into the pandemic, to estimate the extent of population infection and remaining susceptibility. Methods and FindingsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between 2020-01-01 and 2022-05-20. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies - those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol - were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with Risk of Bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate under-ascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being over-represented. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% LMIC) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/sub-national scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1-62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6-28.8] to 86.7% [84.6-88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3-11.0%] to 95.9% [92.6-97.8%] in Europe high-income countries in December 2021). After the emergence of Omicron, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0-54.9%] in EUR HIC and 33.7% [31.6-36.0%] in AMR HIC in March 2022. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0-9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20-29 (p<0.0001 and p=0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using pre-vaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p=0.02). ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation, however around 40 % of the global population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported COVID-19 cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.
RESUMO
Despite the availability of highly efficacious vaccines, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) lacks effective drug treatment which results in a high rate of mortality. To address this therapeutic shortcoming, we applied a system biology approach to the study of patients hospitalized with severe COVID. We show that, at the time of hospital admission, patients who were equivalent on the clinical ordinal scale displayed significant differential monocyte epigenetic and transcriptomic attributes between those who would survive and those who would succumb to COVID-19. We identified mRNA metabolism, RNA splicing, and interferon signaling pathways as key host responses overactivated by patients who would not survive. Those pathways are prime drug targets to reduce mortality of critically ill COVID-19 patients leading us to identify Tacrolimus, Zotatifin, and Nintedanib as three strong candidates for treatment of severely ill patients at the time of hospital admission. TeaserEpigenetics distinguishes COVID-19 survivors already at hospital admission: lessons for drug repurposing.
RESUMO
BackgroundWe aimed to assess the specificity of SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection assays among people with known tissue-borne parasitic infections. MethodsWe tested three SARS-CoV-2 antibody-detection assays (cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit, Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay, and STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo Rapid Test) among 559 pre-COVID-19 sera. ResultsThe specificity of assays was 95-98% overall. However, lower specificity was observed among sera from patients with protozoan infections of the reticuloendothelial system, such as human African trypanosomiasis (Abbott Architect; 88% [95%CI 75-95]), visceral leishmaniasis (SD RDT IgG; 80% [95%CI 30-99]), and from patients with recent malaria from a holoendemic area of Senegal (ranging from 91% for Abbott Architect and SD RDT IgM to 98-99% for cPass and SD RDT IgG). For specimens from patients with evidence of past or present helminth infection overall, test specificity estimates were all [≥] 96%. Sera collected from patients clinically suspected of parasitic infections that tested negative for these infections yielded a specificity of 98-100%. The majority (>85%) of false-positive results were positive by only one assay. ConclusionsThe specificity of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays among sera from patients with tissue-borne parasitic infections was below the threshold required for decisions about individual patient care. Specificity is markedly increased by the use of confirmatory testing with a second assay. Finally, the SD RDT IgG proved similarly specific to laboratory-based assays and provides an option in low-resource settings when detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG is indicated.
RESUMO
The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to impact humanity on a global scale with rising total morbidity and mortality. Despite the development of several effective vaccines, new products are needed to supply ongoing demand and the needs of specific populations. We report herein a pre-specified interim analysis of the phase 2 portion of an ongoing Phase 2/3, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of a coronavirus virus-like particle (CoVLP) vaccine candidate produced in plants that displays the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein adjuvanted with AS03 (NCT04636697). A total of 753 subjects were recruited between 25 November 2020 and 24 March 2021 into three groups: Healthy Adults (18-64 years: N=306), Older Adults ([≥] 65 years: N=282) and Adults with Comorbidities ([≥]18 years: N=165) and randomized 5:1 to receive two intramuscular doses of either vaccine CoVLP (3.75 g/dose + AS03) or placebo 21 days apart. This report presents safety, tolerability and immunogenicity data collected up to 21 days after the second dose. The immune outcomes presented include neutralizing antibody (NAb) titres and cellular (IFN-{gamma} and IL-4 ELISpot) responses. In this study, CoVLP+AS03 was well-tolerated and adverse events (AE) after each dose were generally mild to moderate and transient. Solicited AEs in Older Adults and Adults with Comorbidities were generally less frequent than in Healthy Adults. CoVLP+AS03 induced seroconversion in >35% of subjects in each group after the first dose and in [~]98% of subjects 21 days after the second dose. In all treatment groups, NAb levels were [~]10-fold higher than those in a panel of convalescent sera. A significant minority ([~]20%) of subjects had evidence of a pre-existing IFN-{gamma} response to the S protein and almost all subjects in all groups (>88%) had detectable cellular responses (IFN-{gamma}, IL-4 or both) at 21 days after the second dose. A Th1-biased response was most evident after the first dose and was still present after dose two. These data demonstrated that CoVLP+AS03 will likely be well-tolerated and highly immunogenic in adults [≥]18 years of age with and without comorbidities.
RESUMO
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 surrogate neutralization assays that obviate the need for viral culture offer substantial advantages regarding throughput and cost. The cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (Genscript) is the first such commercially available assay, detecting antibodies that block RBD/ACE-2 interaction. We aimed to evaluate cPass to inform its use and assess its added value compared to anti-RBD ELISA assays. MethodsSerum reference panels comprising 205 specimens were used to compare cPass to plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and a pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization (PLV) assay for detection of neutralizing antibodies. We assessed the correlation of cPass with an ELISA detecting anti-RBD IgG, IgM, and IgA antibodies at a single timepoint and across intervals from onset of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. ResultsCompared to PRNT-50, cPass sensitivity ranged from 77% - 100% and specificity was 95% - 100%. Sensitivity was also high compared to the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay (93% [95%CI 85-97]), but specificity was lower (58% [95%CI 48-67]). Highest agreement between cPass and ELISA was for anti-RBD IgG (r=0.823). Against the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay, anti-RBD IgG sensitivity (99% [95%CI 94-100]) was very similar to that of cPass, but overall specificity was lower (37% [95%CI 28-47]). Against PRNT-50, results of cPass and anti-RBD IgG were nearly identical. ConclusionsThe added value of cPass compared to an IgG anti-RBD ELISA was modest.
RESUMO
BackgroundMany studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making. MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. ResultsWe identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4-8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6 % in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64-4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96-3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01-32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60-2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18-64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11-1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28-3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9-38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames. DiscussionMost of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response. FundingPublic Health Agency of Canada through the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force.
RESUMO
IntroductionUse of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, especially in combination with azithromycin, has raised safety concerns. Here, we report safety data from three outpatient randomized clinical trials. MethodsWe conducted three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials investigating hydroxychloroquine as pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis and early treatment for COVID-19. We excluded individuals with contraindications to hydroxychloroquine. We collected side effects and serious adverse events. We report descriptive analyses of our findings. ResultsWe enrolled 2,795 participants. The median age of research participants was 40 (IQR 34-49) years, and 59% (1633/2767) reported no chronic medical conditions. Overall 2,324 (84%) participants reported side effect data, and 638 (27%) reported at least one medication side effect. Side effects were reported in 29% with daily, 36% with twice weekly, 31% with once weekly hydroxychloroquine compared to 19% with placebo. The most common side effects were upset stomach or nausea (25% with daily, 18% with twice weekly, 16% with weekly, vs. 10% for placebo), followed by diarrhea, vomiting, or abdominal pain (23% for daily, 16% twice weekly, 12% weekly, vs. 6% for placebo). Two individuals were hospitalized for atrial arrhythmias, one on placebo and one on twice weekly hydroxychloroquine. No sudden deaths occurred. ConclusionData from three outpatient COVID-19 trials demonstrated that gastrointestinal side effects were common but mild with the use of hydroxychloroquine, while serious side effects were rare. No deaths occurred related to hydroxychloroquine. Randomized clinical trials can safely investigate whether hydroxychloroquine is efficacious for COVID-19. Short SummaryData from three randomized clinical trials using hydroxychloroquine for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 did not suggest significant safety concerns. Gastrointestinal side effects were common but arrhythmias were rare. There were no sudden deaths in any trial.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in December 2019 causing the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Currently, there are a lack of evidence-based therapies to prevent COVID-19 following exposure, or to prevent worsening of symptoms following confirmed infection. We describe the design of a clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine for post-exposure prophylaxis and pre-emptive therapy for COVID-19. MethodsWe will conduct two nested multicenter international double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine for: 1) post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) of asymptomatic household contacts or healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 within the past four days, and 2) pre-emptive therapy (PET) for symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 with a total symptom duration of less than 4 days. We will recruit 1500 patients for each the PEP and PET trials. Participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive 5 days of hydroxychloroquine or placebo. The primary PEP trial outcome will be the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 disease. The primary PET trial outcome will be an ordinal scale of disease severity (not hospitalized; hospitalized without intensive care, hospitalization with intensive care, or death). Participant screening, informed consent, and follow up will be exclusively internet-based with appropriate regulatory and research ethics board approvals in Canada and the United States. DiscussionThese complementary randomized control trials are innovatively designed and adequately powered to rapidly answer urgent questions regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine to reduce transmission and disease severity of COVID-19 during a pandemic. In-person participant follow-up will not be conducted in order to facilitate social distancing strategies and reduce risks of exposure to study personnel. Innovative trial approaches are needed to urgently assess therapeutic options to mitigate the global impact of this pandemic. Trials Registrationclinicaltrials.gov (NCT04308668); 16 March 2020.
