Search

In October 2020, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) was established to study the immune response to COVID-19, and "to develop, validate, improve, and implement serological testing and associated technologies" (https://www.cancer.gov/research/key-initiatives/covid-19/coronavirus-research-initiatives/serological-sciences-network). SeroNet is comprised of 25 participating research institutions partnering with the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research (FNLCR) and the SeroNet Coordinating Center. Since its inception, SeroNet has supported collaborative development and sharing of COVID-19 serological assay procedures and has set forth plans for assay harmonization. To facilitate collaboration and procedure sharing, a detailed survey was sent to collate comprehensive assay details and performance metrics on COVID-19 serological assays within SeroNet. In addition, FNLCR established a protocol to calibrate SeroNet serological assays to reference standards, such as the U.S. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology standard reference material and first WHO international standard (IS) for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin (20/136), to facilitate harmonization of assay reporting units and cross-comparison of study data. SeroNet institutions reported development of a total of 27 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) methods, 13 multiplex assays, and 9 neutralization assays and use of 12 different commercial serological methods. FNLCR developed a standardized protocol for SeroNet institutions to calibrate these diverse serological assays to reference standards. In conclusion, SeroNet institutions have established a diverse array of COVID-19 serological assays to study the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. Calibration of SeroNet serological assays to harmonize results reporting will facilitate future pooled data analyses and study cross-comparisons. IMPORTANCE SeroNet institutions have developed or implemented 61 diverse COVID-19 serological assays and are collaboratively working to harmonize these assays using reference materials to establish standardized reporting units. This will facilitate clinical interpretation of serology results and cross-comparison of research data.

BackgroundGlobal efforts are needed to elucidate the epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the underlying cause of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including seroprevalence, risk factors, and long-term sequelae, as well as immune responses after vaccination across populations and the social dimensions of prevention and treatment strategies.MethodsIn the United States, the National Cancer Institute in partnership with the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, established the SARS-CoV-2 Serological Sciences Network (SeroNet) as the nation's largest coordinated effort to study coronavirus disease 2019. The network comprises multidisciplinary researchers bridging gaps and fostering collaborations among immunologists, epidemiologists, virologists, clinicians and clinical laboratories, social and behavioral scientists, policymakers, data scientists, and community members. In total, 49 institutions form the SeroNet consortium to study individuals with cancer, autoimmune disease, inflammatory bowel diseases, cardiovascular diseases, human immunodeficiency virus, transplant recipients, as well as otherwise healthy pregnant women, children, college students, and high-risk occupational workers (including healthcare workers and first responders).ResultsSeveral studies focus on underrepresented populations, including ethnic minorities and rural communities. To support integrative data analyses across SeroNet studies, efforts are underway to define common data elements for standardized serology measurements, cellular and molecular assays, self-reported data, treatment, and clinical outcomes.ConclusionsIn this paper, we discuss the overarching framework for SeroNet epidemiology studies, critical research questions under investigation, and data accessibility for the worldwide scientific community. Lessons learned will help inform preparedness and responsiveness to future emerging diseases.

The WHO recommends hepatitis B birth‐dose vaccination (HepB‐BD), but it is not routinely given in most sub‐Saharan African countries. We aimed to assess the immunogenicity of HepB‐BD in addition to the existing hepatitis B vaccine (HepB3) schedule in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo among HBV‐unexposed and HBV‐exposed infants. Using an open‐label, randomised, controlled design, HBV‐unexposed infants were randomised (1:1) to receive the standard HepB3 vaccine series (group U3), or to receive HepB‐BD in addition to HepB3 (group U4). A supplemental cohort of HBV‐exposed infants (group E4) received HepB‐BD and HepB3. We compared the proportion of infants with protective antibodies against HBV (HBV surface antibody ≥ 10 mIU/mL) between groups U3 and U4 and groups U4 and E4 at 12 months of age. Between August 20 and October 9, 2019, we enrolled 281 mother/infant dyads; 88 (31.3%) returned at 12 months. Most infants had protective antibodies against HBV at 12 months: 92.9% (75.7%–98.2%) in group U3, 85.7% (67.5%–94.5%) in group U4 and 96.9% (95% CI: 81.2%–99.6%) in group E4. Trends held in estimates adjusted for loss‐to‐follow‐up (LTFU) and baseline imbalance across groups. In this first randomised trial assessing the addition of HepB‐BD to the hepatitis B vaccine schedule in SSA, we found that HBV‐unexposed infants who received the 3‐dose and 4‐dose vaccine series had similar immunogenicity against HBV at 12 months. A high proportion of infants, and notably HBV‐exposed infants, had protective antibodies. Though extrapolation of findings may be limited by LTFU, this study adds real‐world evidence regarding HepB‐BD implementation in sub‐Saharan Africa. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03897946 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 disproportionately affected minorities, while research barriers to engage underserved communities persist. Serological studies reveal infection and vaccination histories within these communities, however lack of consensus on downstream evaluation methods impede meta-analyses and dampen the broader public health impact. To reveal the impact of COVID-19 and vaccine uptake among diverse communities and to develop rigorous serological downstream evaluation methods, we engaged racial and ethnic minorities in Massachusetts in a cross-sectional study (April—July 2022), screened blood and saliva for SARS-CoV-2 and human endemic coronavirus (hCoV) antibodies by bead-based multiplex assay and point-of-care (POC) test and developed across-plate normalization and classification boundary methods for optimal qualitative serological assessments. Among 290 participants, 91.4% reported receiving at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, while 41.7% reported past SARS-CoV-2 infections, which was confirmed by POC- and multiplex-based saliva and blood IgG seroprevalences. We found significant differences in antigen-specific IgA and IgG antibody outcomes and indication of cross-reactivity with hCoV OC43. Finally, 26.5% of participants reported lingering COVID-19 symptoms, mostly middle-aged Latinas. Hence, prolonged COVID-19 symptoms were common among our underserved population and require public health attention, despite high COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Saliva served as a less-invasive sample-type for IgG-based serosurveys and hCoV cross-reactivity needed to be evaluated for reliable SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey results. The use of the developed rigorous downstream qualitative serological assessment methods will help standardize serosurvey outcomes and meta-analyses for future serosurveys beyond SARS-CoV-2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evaluating the performance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serological assays and clearly articulating the utility of selected antigens, isotypes, and thresholds is crucial to understanding the prevalence of infection within selected communities., Methods: This cross-sectional study, implemented in 2020, screened PCRconfirmed coronavirus disease 2019 patients (n 86), banked prepandemic and negative samples (n 96), healthcare workers and family members (n 552), and university employees (n 327) for antiSARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain, trimeric spike protein, and nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA antibodies with a laboratory-developed enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and tested how antigen, isotype and threshold choices affected the seroprevalence outcomes. The following threshold methods were evaluated: (i) mean 3 standard deviations of the negative controls; (ii) 100 specificity for each antigen-isotype combination; and (iii) the maximal Youden index., Results: We found vastly different seroprevalence estimates depending on selected antigens and isotypes and the applied threshold method, ranging from 0.0 to 85.4. Subsequently, we maximized specificity and reported a seroprevalence, based on more than one antigen, ranging from 9.3 to 25.9., Conclusions: This study revealed the importance of evaluating serosurvey tools for antigen-, isotype-, and threshold-specific sensitivity and specificity, to interpret qualitative serosurvey outcomes reliably and consistently across studies., (The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)