How to interpret and use COVID-19 serology and immunology tests

BackgroundAlthough molecular tests are considered the reference standard for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostics, serological and immunological tests may be useful in specific settings.ObjectivesThis review summarizes the underlying principles and performance of COVID-19 serological and immunological testing.SourcesSelected peer-reviewed publications on COVID-19 related serology and immunology published between December 2019 and March 2021.ContentSerological tests are highly specific but heterogeneous in their sensitivity for the diagnosis of COVID-19. For certain indications, including delayed disease presentations, serological tests can have added value. The presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may indicate a recent or past COVID-19 infection. Lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) antibody tests have the advantages of being easy and fast to perform, but many have a low sensitivity in acute settings. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) have higher sensitivities. Besides humoral immunity, cellular immunity is also essential for successful host defences against viruses. Enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISpot) assays can be used to measure T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. The presence of cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells in never exposed patients suggests the possibility of cellular immunity induced by other circulating coronaviruses. T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 have also been detected in recovered COVID-19 patients with no detectable antibodies.ImplicationsSerological and immunological tests are primarily applied for population-based seroprevalence studies to evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 control measures and increase our understanding of the immunology behind COVID-19. Combining molecular diagnostics with serological tests may optimize the detection of COVID-19. As not all infected patients will develop antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, assessment of cellular immunity may provide complementary information on whether a patient has been previously infected with COVID-19. More studies are needed to understand the correlations of these serological and immunological parameters with protective immunity, taking into account the different circulating virus variants.     

Divergent SARS-CoV-2-specific T- and B-cell responses in severe but not mild COVID-19 patients

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Understanding the immune response that provides specific immunity but may also lead to immunopathology is crucial for the design of potential preventive and therapeutic strategies. Here, we characterized and quantified SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses in patients with different clinical courses. Compared to individuals with a mild clinical presentation, CD4⁺ T-cell responses were qualitatively impaired in critically ill patients. Strikingly, however, in these patients the specific IgG antibody response was remarkably strong. Furthermore, in these critically ill patients, a massive influx of circulating T cells into the lungs was observed, overwhelming the local T-cell compartment, and indicative of vascular leakage. The observed disparate T- and B-cell responses could be indicative of a deregulated immune response in critically ill COVID-19 patients.     

Activation or exhaustion of CD8+ T cells in patients with COVID-19

In addition to CD4⁺ T cells and neutralizing antibodies, CD8⁺ T cells contribute to protective immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), an ongoing pandemic disease. In patients with COVID-19, CD8⁺ T cells exhibiting activated phenotypes are commonly observed, although the absolute number of CD8⁺ T cells is decreased. In addition, several studies have reported an upregulation of inhibitory immune checkpoint receptors, such as PD-1, and the expression of exhaustion-associated gene signatures in CD8⁺ T cells from patients with COVID-19. However, whether CD8⁺ T cells are truly exhausted during COVID-19 has been a controversial issue. In the present review, we summarize the current understanding of CD8⁺ T-cell exhaustion and describe the available knowledge on the phenotypes and functions of CD8⁺ T cells in the context of activation and exhaustion. We also summarize recent reports regarding phenotypical and functional analyses of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8⁺ T cells and discuss long-term SARS-CoV-2-specific CD8⁺ T-cell memory.Keywords: CD8⁺ T cell, Activation, T-cell exhaustion, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19Subject terms: Cellular immunity, Infection     

B- and T-cell immune responses elicited by the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine in nursing-home residents

ObjectivesThe immunogenicity of the Comirnaty® vaccine against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has not been adequately studied in elderly people with comorbidities. We assessed antibody and T-cell responses targeted to the S protein of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) following full vaccination in nursing-home residents.MethodsSixty nursing-home residents (44 female, age 53–100 years), of whom ten had previously been diagnosed with COVID-19, and 18 healthy controls (15 female, age 27–54 years) were recruited. Pre- and post-vaccination blood specimens were available for quantification of total antibodies binding the SARS-CoV-2 S protein and for enumeration of SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive IFN-γ CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells by flow cytometry.ResultsThe seroconversion rate in (presumably) SARS-CoV-2-naïve nursing-home residents (41/43, 95.3%) was similar to that in controls (17/18, 94.4%). A booster effect was documented in post-vaccination samples of nursing-home residents with prior COVID-19. Plasma antibody levels were higher (p < 0.01) in recovered nursing-home residents (all 2500 IU/mL) than in individuals across the other two groups (median 1120 IU/mL in naïve nursing-home residents and 2211 IU/ml in controls). A large percentage of nursing-home residents had SARS-CoV-2 S-reactive IFN-γ CD8⁺ (naïve 31/49, 63.2%; recovered 8/10, 80%) or CD4⁺ T cells (naïve 35/49, 71.4%; recovered 7/10, 70%) at baseline, in contrast to healthy controls (3/17, 17.6% and 5/17, 29%, respectively). SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T-cell responses were documented in 88% (15/17) and all control subjects after vaccination, respectively, but only in 65.5% (38/58) and 22.4% (13/58) of nursing-home residents. Overall, the median frequency of SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ CD8⁺ and CD4⁺ T cells in nursing-home residents decreased in post-vaccination specimens, whereas it increased in controls.ConclusionThe Comirnaty COVID-19 vaccine elicits robust SARS-CoV-2 S antibody responses in nursing-home residents. Nevertheless, the rate and frequency of detectable SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ T-cell responses after vaccination was lower in nursing-home residents than in controls.     

High-affinity FcγRIIIa genetic variants and potent NK cell-mediated antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) responses contributing to severe COVID-19

PurposeHost genetic variants in activating natural killer (NK) cell receptors may contribute to differences in severity of COVID-19. NK cell-mediated antibody-mediated cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) responses play, however, a controversial role in SARS-CoV-2 infections. It is unclear whether proinflammatory and cytotoxic SARS-CoV-2-specific ADCC responses limit disease severity or rather contribute to the immunopathogenesis of severe COVID-19.MethodsUsing a genetic association approach and subsequent in vitro antibody-dependent NK cell activation experiments, we investigated whether genetic variants in the FcγRIIIa-encoding FCGR3A gene, resulting in expression of either a low-affinity or high-affinity variant, and individual SARS-CoV-2-specific ADCC response contribute to COVID-19 severity.ResultsIn our study, we showed that the high-affinity variant of the FcγRIIIa receptor, 158-V/V, is significantly over-represented in hospitalized and deceased patients with COVID-19, whereas the low-affinity FcγRIIIa-158-F/F variant occurs more frequently in patients with mild COVID-19 (P < .0001). Furthermore, functional SARS-CoV-2 antibody-specific NK cell-mediated ADCC assays revealed that significantly higher proinflammatory ADCC responses occur in hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and are especially observed in NK cells expressing the FcγRIIIa-158-V/V variant (P < .0001).ConclusionOur study provides evidence that pronounced SARS-CoV-2-specific NK cell-mediated ADCC responses are influenced by NK cell FcγRIIIa genetic variants and are a hallmark of severe COVID-19.     

Evaluation of the correlation between the access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests with the SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test

Fully automated immunoassays for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies that are strongly correlated with neutralization antibodies (nAbs) are clinically important because they enable the assessment of humoral immunity after infection and vaccination. Access SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) II antibody tests are semi-quantitative, fully automated immunoassays that detect anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) antibodies and might reflect nAb levels in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, no studies have investigated the clinical utility of these tests in association with nAbs to date. To evaluate the clinical utility of Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests and their correlation with the SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) that measures nAbs in patients with COVID-19, we analyzed 54 convalescent serum samples from COVID-19 patients and 89 serum samples from non-COVID-19 patients. The presence of anti-RBD antibodies was detected using Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests, while nAbs were measured by sVNT. The sensitivity and specificity of sVNT were 94.4% and 98.9%, respectively. There were strong positive correlations between the inhibition values of sVNT and the results of the Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM (R = 0.95, R² = 0.90, p < 0.001) and IgG II antibody tests (R = 0.96, R² = 0.92, p < 0.001). In terms of the presence of nAbs, the sensitivity and specificity were 98.1% and 98.9% in the IgM assay and 100.0% and 100.0% in the IgG II assay, respectively. The Access SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG II antibody tests showed high sensitivity and specificity for the detection of nAbs in COVID-19 patients and might be alternatives for measuring nAbs.     

SARS-CoV-2 specific T-cell immunity in COVID-19 convalescent patients and unexposed controls measured by ex vivo ELISpot assay

ObjectivesSARS-CoV-2 T-cell response characterization represents a crucial issue for defining the role of immune protection against COVID-19. The aim of the study was to assess the SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response in a cohort of COVID-19 convalescent patients and in a group of unexposed subjects.MethodsSARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was quantified from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) of 87 COVID-19 convalescent subjects (range 7–239 days after symptom onset) and 33 unexposed donors by ex vivo ELISpot assay. Follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was performed in ten subjects up to 12 months after symptom onset. The role of SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4 and CD8 T cells was characterized in a group of COVID-19 convalescent subjects. Moreover, neutralizing antibodies were determined in serum samples.ResultsIn 14/33 (42.4%) unexposed donors and 85/87 (97.7%) COVID-19 convalescent subjects a positive result for at least one SARS-CoV-2 antigen was observed. A positive response was observed up to 12 months after COVID-19 infection (median 246 days after symptom onset; range 118–362 days). Of note, SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response seems to be mainly mediated by CD4 T cells. A weak positive correlation was observed between Spike-specific T-cell response and neutralizing antibody titre (p 0.0028; r² = 0.2891) and positive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response was observed in 8/9 (88.9%) COVID-19 convalescent subjects with undetectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies.DiscussionCross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response in uninfected patients may be due to previous infections with other common coronaviruses. Our data suggest that long-term SARS-CoV-2 T-cell response might accompany a waning humoral response.     

Immune repertoire sequencing reveals an abnormal adaptive immune system in COVID-19 survivors

Accumulating evidence suggests that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) impairs the adaptive immune system during acute infection. Still, it remains largely unclear whether the frequency and functions of T and B cells return to normal after the recovery of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Here, we analyzed immune repertoires and SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralization antibodies in a prospective cohort of 40 COVID-19 survivors with a 6-month follow-up after hospital discharge. Immune repertoire sequencing revealed abnormal T- and B-cell expression and function with large T cell receptor/B cell receptor clones, decreased diversity, abnormal class-switch recombination, and somatic hypermutation. A decreased number of B cells but an increased proportion of CD19⁺CD138⁺ B cells were found in COVID-19 survivors. The proportion of CD4⁺ T cells, especially circulating follicular helper T (cTfh) cells, was increased, whereas the frequency of CD3⁺CD4⁻ T cells was decreased. SARS-CoV-2-specific neutralization IgG and IgM antibodies were identified in all survivors, especially those recorded with severe COVID-19 who showed a higher inhibition rate of neutralization antibodies. All severe cases complained of more than one COVID-19 sequelae after 6 months of recovery. Overall, our findings indicate that SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies remain detectable even after 6 months of recovery. Because of their abnormal adaptive immune system with a low number of CD3⁺CD4⁻ T cells and high susceptibility to infections, COVID-19 patients might need more time and medical care to fully recover from immune abnormalities and tissue damage.     

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causes lung inflammation and injury

BackgroundAs of 14 October 2021, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected more than 246 million individuals and caused more than 4.9 million deaths worldwide. COVID-19 has caused significant damage to the health, economy and lives of people worldwide. Although severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is not as lethal as SARS coronavirus or Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus, its high transmissibility has had disastrous consequences for public health and health-care systems worldwide given the lack of effective treatment at present.ObjectivesTo clarify the mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 caused lung inflammation and injury, from the molecular mechanism to lung damage and tissue repair, from research to clinical practice, and then presented clinical requirements.SourcesReferences for this review were identified through searches ‘(COVID-19 [Title]) OR (SARS-CoV-2 [Title])’ on PubMed, and focused on the pathological damage and clinical practice of COVID-19.ContentWe comprehensively reviewed the process of lung inflammation and injury during SARS-CoV-2 infection, including pyroptosis of alveolar epithelial cells, cytokine storm and thrombotic inflammatory mechanisms.ImplicationsThis review describes SARS-CoV-2 in comparison to SARS and explores why most people have mild inflammatory responses, even asymptomatic infections, and only a few develop severe disease. It suggests that future therapeutic strategies may be targeted antiviral therapy, the pathogenic pathways in the lung inflammatory response, and enhancing repair and regeneration in lung injury.     

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels in relation to disease severity of COVID-19

The durability of infection-induced severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunity has crucial implications for reinfection and vaccine effectiveness. However, the relationship between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and long-term anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody level is poorly understood. Here, we measured the longevity of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG antibodies in survivors who had recovered from COVID-19 1 year previously. In a cohort of 473 survivors with varying disease severity (asymptomatic, mild, moderate, or severe), we observed a positive correlation between virus-specific IgG antibody titers and COVID-19 severity. In particular, the highest virus-specific IgG antibody titers were observed in patients with severe COVID-19. By contrast, 74.4% of recovered asymptomatic carriers had negative anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG test results, while many others had very low virus-specific IgG antibody titers. Our results demonstrate that SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG persistence and titer depend on COVID-19 severity.     

SARS-CoV-2-reactive T-cell receptors isolated from convalescent COVID-19 patients confer potent T-cell effector function

Both B cells and T cells are involved in an effective immune response to SARS-CoV-2, the disease-causing virus of COVID-19. While B cells—with the indispensable help of CD4⁺ T cells—are essential to generate neutralizing antibodies, T cells on their own have been recognized as another major player in effective anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity. In this report, we provide insights into the characteristics of individual HLA-A*02:01- and HLA-A*24:02-restricted SARS-CoV-2-reactive TCRs, isolated from convalescent COVID-19 patients. We observed that SARS-CoV-2-reactive T-cell populations were clearly detectable in convalescent samples and that TCRs isolated from these T cell clones were highly functional upon ectopic re-expression. The SARS-CoV-2-reactive TCRs described in this report mediated potent TCR signaling in reporter assays with low nanomolar EC50 values. We further demonstrate that these SARS-CoV-2-reactive TCRs conferred powerful T-cell effector function to primary CD8⁺ T cells as evident by a robust anti-SARS-CoV-2 IFN-γ response and in vitro cytotoxicity. We also provide an example of a long-lasting anti-SARS-CoV-2 memory response by reisolation of one of the retrieved TCRs 5 months after initial sampling. Taken together, these findings contribute to a better understanding of anti-SARS-CoV-2 T-cell immunity and may contribute to paving the way toward immunotherapeutics approaches targeting SARS-CoV-2.     

SARS-CoV-2 antibody dynamics and B-cell memory response over time in COVID-19 convalescent subjects

ObjectivesThe worldwide spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) highlights the need for assessment of long-term humoral immunity in convalescent subjects. Our objectives were to evaluate long-term IgG antibody response to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and B-cell memory response in COVID-19 convalescent subjects.MethodsBlood samples were collected from a cohort of subjects recovering from COVID-19 and from healthy subjects who donated blood. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies were quantitatively detected by ELISA using anti-S1 spike IgG. SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgG memory B cells were evaluated by reversed B-cell FluroSpot based on human IgG SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain in a randomly selected group of subjects recovering from COVID-19. Statistical analysis was performed with clinical variables and time post COVID-19 infection.ResultsAntibody response was not detected in 26 of 392 COVID-19 convalescent subjects (6.6%). Over a period of 9 months, the level of antibodies decreased by 50% but stabilized at 6 months, and a protective level prevailed for up to 9 months. No differences were found regarding IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for age, gender, and major blood types over time. Over time, asymptomatic COVID-19 subjects did not differ in antibody level from subjects with mild to severe disease. Repeated paired IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibody level analyses disclosed that, over 6 and 9 months, 15.3% (nine of 59) and 15.8% (three of 19) of subjects became SARS-CoV-2 IgG-seronegative, respectively, all with a low antibody level at 3 months. Rate of antibody decline was not affected by age, gender, or clinical symptomatology. In a subgroup of recovering subjects, memory B-cell response up to 9 months post-COVID-19 infection was undetectable in 31.8% of subjects (14/44), and there was no correlation with age, SARS-CoV-2 antibody level, or time post infection.ConclusionsThe majority of convalescent COVID-19 subjects develop an IgG SARS-CoV-2 antibody response and a protective level prevails over a period of up to 9 months, regardless of age, gender, major blood types or clinical symptomatology.     

Impact of dexamethasone on SARS-CoV-2 concentration kinetics and antibody response in hospitalized COVID-19 patients: results from a prospective observational study

ObjectivesDexamethasone has become the standard of care for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but its virological impact is poorly understood. The objectives of this work were to characterize the kinetics of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) concentration in the upper respiratory tract (URT) and the antibody response in patients with (D⁺) and without (D^–) dexamethasone treatment.MethodsData and biosamples from hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19, enrolled between 4th March and 11th December 2020 in a prospective observational study, were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 virus concentration in serial URT samples was measured using RT-PCR. SARS-CoV-2-specific immunoglobulins A and G (IgA and IgG) were measured in serum samples using S1-ELISA.ResultsWe compared 101 immunocompetent patients who received dexamethasone (according to the inclusion criteria and dosage determined in the RECOVERY trial) to 93 immunocompetent patients with comparable disease severity from the first months of the pandemic, who had not been treated with dexamethasone or other glucocorticoids. We found no inter-group differences in virus concentration kinetics, duration of presence of viral loads >10⁶ viral copies/mL (D⁺ median 17 days (IQR 13–24), D^– 19 days (IQR 13–29)), or time from symptom onset until seroconversion (IgA: D⁺ median 11.5 days (IQR 11–12), D^– 14 days (IQR 11.5–15.75); IgG: D⁺ 13 days (IQR 12–14.5), D^– 12 days (IQR 11–15)).ConclusionDexamethasone does not appear to lead to a change in virus clearance or a delay in antibody response in immunocompetent patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19.     

Long-term coexistence of SARS-CoV-2 with antibody response in COVID-19 patients

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide. Whether antibodies are important for the adaptive immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be determined. Here, 26 cases of COVID-19 in Jinan, China, were examined and shown to be mild or with common clinical symptoms, and no case of severe symptoms was found among these patients. Strikingly, a subset of these patients had SARS-CoV-2 and virus-specific IgG coexist for an unexpectedly long time, with two cases for up to 50 days. One COVID-19 patient who did not produce any SARS-CoV-2–bound IgG successfully cleared SARS-CoV-2 after 46 days of illness, revealing that without antibody-mediated adaptive immunity, innate immunity alone may still be powerful enough to eliminate SARS-CoV-2. This report may provide a basis for further analysis of both innate and adaptive immunity in SARS-CoV-2 clearance, especially in nonsevere cases.     

Comparing COVID-19 vaccines for their characteristics,efficacy and effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern: a narrative review

BackgroundVaccines are critical cost-effective tools to control the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the emergence of variants of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) may threaten the global impact of mass vaccination campaigns.AimsThe objective of this study was to provide an up-to-date comparative analysis of the characteristics, adverse events, efficacy, effectiveness and impact of the variants of concern for 19 COVID-19 vaccines.SourcesReferences for this review were identified through searches of PubMed, Google Scholar, BioRxiv, MedRxiv, regulatory drug agencies and pharmaceutical companies' websites up to 22nd September 2021.ContentOverall, all COVID-19 vaccines had a high efficacy against the original strain and the variants of concern, and were well tolerated. BNT162b2, mRNA-1273 and Sputnik V after two doses had the highest efficacy (>90%) in preventing symptomatic cases in phase III trials. mRNA vaccines, AZD1222, and CoronaVac were effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 and severe infections against Alpha, Beta, Gamma or Delta variants. Regarding observational real-life data, full immunization with mRNA vaccines and AZD1222 seems to effectively prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection against the original strain and Alpha and Beta variants but with reduced effectiveness against the Delta strain. A decline in infection protection was observed at 6 months for BNT162b2 and AZD1222. Serious adverse event rates were rare for mRNA vaccines—anaphylaxis 2.5–4.7 cases per million doses, myocarditis 3.5 cases per million doses—and were similarly rare for all other vaccines. Prices for the different vaccines varied from $2.15 to $29.75 per dose.ImplicationsAll vaccines appear to be safe and effective tools to prevent severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death against all variants of concern, but the quality of evidence greatly varies depending on the vaccines considered. Questions remain regarding a booster dose and waning immunity, the duration of immunity, and heterologous vaccination. The benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks, despite rare serious adverse effects.     

Immunological response against SARS-CoV-2 following full-dose administration of Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine in nursing home residents

ObjectivesThe current study was aimed at examining SARS-CoV-2 immune responses following two doses of Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine among elderly people in nursing homes.MethodsA prospective cohort study in a representative sample from nursing homes in Valencia (n = 881; males: 271, females 610; median age, 86 years) recruited residents using a random one-stage cluster sampling approach. A lateral flow immunochromatography device (LFIC) (OnSite COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test; CTK BIOTECH, Poway, CA, USA) was used as the front-line test for detecting SARS-CoV-2-Spike (S)-specific antibodies in whole blood obtained using a fingerstick. Residents returning negative LFIC results underwent venipuncture and testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive antibodies and T cells using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (Diasorin S.p.A, Saluggia, Italy) and by flow cytometry, respectively.ResultsThe SARS-CoV-2-S antibody detection rate in nursing home residents was 99.6% (283/284) and 98.3% (587/597) for SARS-CoV-2 recovered and naïve residents, respectively, within a median of 99 days (range 17–125 days) after full vaccination. Three out of five residents lacking SARS-CoV-2-S antibodies had detectable S-reactive CD8⁺ and/or CD4⁺ T cells. In addition, 50/50 and 40/50 participants with detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies also had SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive interferon-γ-producing CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T cells, respectively.DiscussionThe Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine is highly immunogenic in nursing home residents.     

Effect of hydroxychloroquine pre-exposure on infection with SARS-CoV-2 in rheumatic disease patients: a population-based cohort study

ObjectivesEarly in vitro studies have suggested that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is a potentially useful drug against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. This study was conducted to determine whether HCQ had a preventive effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in rheumatic disease patients who were taking HCQ.MethodsWe conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using the records of the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment (HIRA) claim records. The clinical data of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 were investigated. We compared the attack rate of COVID-19 between those who underwent HCQ therapy within 14 days before the test for SARS-CoV-2 (HCQ users) and HCQ non-users. Data were analysed using logistic regression models, χ², and Student's t-tests.ResultsAs of 15th May 2020, 2066 patients with RA or SLE were tested for COVID-19. Among them, 31.4% (649/2066) were treated with HCQ. Most HCQ users (93.7%, 608/649) were taking 200–400 mg/day recommended for the treatment of rheumatic diseases. The attack rate of COVID-19 in the HCQ users (2.3%, 15/649) did not differ from that in the HCQ non-users (2.2%, 31/1417) (p 0.86).ConclusionsHCQ prophylactic use at a usual dose did not prevent COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease.     

Impaired innate antiviral defenses in COVID-19: Causes,consequences and therapeutic opportunities

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a recently emerged pathogen that has caused coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the worst pandemic of our times leading to tremendous loss of human life and unprecedented measures of social distancing. COVID-19 symptom manifestations range from asymptomatic disease to severe and lethal outcomes. Lack of previous exposure and immunity to SARS-CoV-2, and high infectivity of the virus have contributed to its broad spread across the globe. In the absence of specific adaptive immunity, innate immune mechanisms are crucial for efficient antiviral defenses and control of the infection. Accumulating evidence now suggests that the remarkable heterogeneity in COVID-19 disease manifestations is due to variable degrees of impairment of innate immune mechanisms. In this review, we summarize recent findings describing both viral and host intrinsic factors that have been linked to defective innate immune responses and account for severe COVID-19. We also discuss emerging therapeutic opportunities for targeting innate immunity for the treatment of COVID-19.     

Extremely low prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 among healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Israeli hospitals: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the prevalence of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) among clinical staff in designated COVID-19 units versus that among staff in similar units with no known or suspected COVID-19 patients.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of healthcare workers (HCWs) in eight Israeli general hospitals. The survey involved a questionnaire and a PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We surveyed HCWs in COVID-19 units and comparison units (internal medicine and cardiology) between 30th April and 7th May 2020.ResultsThere were 522 participants: 291 from COVID-19 units and 231 from comparison units. Only one participant (0.2%, 95%CI: 0.005–1.1%)—an asymptomatic nurse on a COVID-19 unit—tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In participating COVID-19 units there were two symptomatic HCWs with confirmed COVID-19 in the 2 weeks before the survey; both were infected by contact with a co-worker outside of the COVID-19 unit.ConclusionsThe low prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 among HCWs, coupled with an absence of symptomatic COVID-19 acquired during patient care, suggest that Israel's national guidelines for personal protective equipment, which are consistent with those of the World Health Organization, adequately protect HCWs.