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.

BackgroundPolyclonal convalescent plasma may be obtained from donors who have recovered from coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). The efficacy of this plasma in preventing serious complications in outpatients with recent-onset Covid-19 is uncertain.MethodsIn this multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Covid-19 convalescent plasma, as compared with control plasma, in symptomatic adults (≥18 years of age) who had tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, regardless of their risk factors for disease progression or vaccination status. Participants were enrolled within 8 days after symptom onset and received a transfusion within 1 day after randomization. The primary outcome was Covid-19-related hospitalization within 28 days after transfusion.ResultsParticipants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, through October 1, 2021. A total of 1225 participants underwent randomization, and 1181 received a transfusion. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a transfusion, the primary outcome occurred in 17 of 592 participants (2.9%) who received convalescent plasma and 37 of 589 participants (6.3%) who received control plasma (absolute risk reduction, 3.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 1.0 to 5.8; P = 0.005), which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 54%. Evidence of efficacy in vaccinated participants cannot be inferred from these data because 53 of the 54 participants with Covid-19 who were hospitalized were unvaccinated and 1 participant was partially vaccinated. A total of 16 grade 3 or 4 adverse events (7 in the convalescent-plasma group and 9 in the control-plasma group) occurred in participants who were not hospitalized.ConclusionsIn participants with Covid-19, most of whom were unvaccinated, the administration of convalescent plasma within 9 days after the onset of symptoms reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. (Funded by the Department of Defense and others; CSSC-004 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04373460.).

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of an ongoing pandemic that has infected over 36 million and killed over 1 million people. Informed implementation of government public health policies depends on accurate data on SARS-CoV-2 immunity at a population scale. We hypothesized that detection of SARS-CoV-2 salivary antibodies could serve as a noninvasive alternative to serological testing for monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 infection and seropositivity at a population scale. We developed a multiplex SARS-CoV-2 antibody immunoassay based on Luminex technology that comprised 12 CoV antigens, mostly derived from SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S). Saliva and sera collected from confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases and from the pre-COVID-19 era were tested for IgG, IgA, and IgM to the antigen panel. Matched saliva and serum IgG responses (n = 28) were significantly correlated. The salivary anti-N IgG response resulted in the highest sensitivity (100%), exhibiting a positive response in 24/24 reverse transcription-PCR (RT-PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 cases sampled at >14 days post-symptom onset (DPSO), whereas the salivary anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG response yielded 100% specificity. Temporal kinetics of IgG in saliva were consistent with those observed in blood and indicated that most individuals seroconvert at around 10 DPSO. Algorithms employing a combination of the IgG responses to N and S antigens result in high diagnostic accuracy (100%) by as early as 10 DPSO. These results support the use of saliva-based antibody testing as a noninvasive and scalable alternative to blood-based antibody testing.

Severe outcomes and death from the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) appear to be characterized by an exaggerated immune response with hypercytokinemia leading to inflammatory infiltration of the lungs and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes is consistently lower in women than men worldwide, suggesting that female biological sex is instrumental in protection. This mini-review discusses the immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory actions of high physiological concentrations of the steroids 17β-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P4). We review how E2 and P4 favor a state of decreased innate immune inflammatory response while enhancing immune tolerance and antibody production. We discuss how the combination of E2 and P4 may improve the immune dysregulation that leads to the COVID-19 cytokine storm. It is intended to stimulate novel consideration of the biological forces that are protective in women compared to men, and to therapeutically harness these factors to mitigate COVID-19 morbidity and mortality.

SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy is associated with severe COVID-19 and adverse fetal outcomes, but the underlying mechanisms remain poorly understood. Moreover, clinical studies assessing therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 in pregnancy are limited. To address these gaps, we developed a mouse model of SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Outbred CD1 mice were infected at E6, E10, or E16 with a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 (maSCV2) virus. Outcomes were gestational age-dependent, with greater morbidity, reduced antiviral immunity, greater viral titers, and impaired fetal growth and neurodevelopment occurring with infection at E16 (third trimester equivalent) than with infection at either E6 (first trimester equivalent) or E10 (second trimester equivalent). To assess the efficacy of ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir, which is recommended for individuals who are pregnant with COVID-19, we treated E16-infected dams with mouse-equivalent doses of nirmatrelvir and ritonavir. Treatment reduced pulmonary viral titers, decreased maternal morbidity, and prevented offspring growth restriction and neurodevelopmental impairments. Our results highlight that severe COVID-19 during pregnancy and fetal growth restriction is associated with heightened virus replication in maternal lungs. Ritonavir- boosted nirmatrelvir mitigated maternal morbidity along with fetal growth and neurodevelopment restriction after SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings prompt the need for further consideration of pregnancy in preclinical and clinical studies of therapeutics against viral infections., Introduction Pregnancy is a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19, with individuals who are pregnant at increased risk of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation, and mortality compared with patients who are not [...]

The host innate immune response to influenza virus is a key determinant of pathogenic outcomes and long-term protective immune responses against subsequent exposures. Here, we present a direct contrast of the host responses in primary differentiated human nasal epithelial cell (hNEC) cultures following infection with either a seasonal H3N2 influenza virus (WT) or the antigenically-matched live-attenuated vaccine (LAIV) strain. Comparison of the transcriptional profiles obtained 24 and 36h post-infection showed that the magnitude of gene expression was greater in LAIV infected relative to that observed in WT infected hNEC cultures. Functional enrichment analysis revealed that the antiviral and inflammatory responses were largely driven by type III IFN induction in both WT and LAIV infected cells. However, the enrichment of biological pathways involved in the recruitment of mononuclear leukocytes, antigen-presenting cells, and T lymphocytes was uniquely observed in LAIV infected cells. These observations were reflective of the host innate immune responses observed in individuals acutely infected with influenza viruses. These findings indicate that cell-intrinsic type III IFN-mediated innate immune responses in the nasal epithelium are not only crucial for viral clearance and attenuation, but may also play an important role in the induction of protective immune responses with live-attenuated vaccines.

Uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant persons is lower than the general population. This scoping review explored pregnant people's attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine, reasons for vaccine hesitancy, and whether attitudes about COVID-19 vaccines differ by country of origin. A scoping review was conducted across PubMed, Embase, CINHAL, and Scopus. Inclusion criteria were articles published in English from 2019–2022 focused on attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant persons. Data analysis was done via the 5Cs framework for vaccine hesitancy: Constraints, Complacency, Calculation, Confidence, and Collective Responsibility. 44 articles were extracted. A lack of confidence in vaccine safety was the most prevalent theme of hesitancy among pregnant persons. This was largely driven by a lack of access to information about the vaccine as well as mistrust of the vaccine and medical professionals. Meanwhile, vaccine acceptance was mostly driven by a desire to protect themselves and their loved ones. Overall, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among pregnant persons continues to be high. Vaccine hesitancy is primarily driven by fear of the unknown side effects of the vaccine on pregnant persons and their fetuses along with a lack of information and medical mistrust. Some differences can be seen between high income and low- and middle-income countries regarding vaccine hesitancy, showing that a single solution cannot be applied to all who are vaccine hesitant. General strategies, however, can be utilized to reduce vaccine hesitancy, including advocating for inclusion of pregnant persons in clinical trials and incorporating consistent COVID-19 vaccine counseling during prenatal appointments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Active and passive surveillance studies have found that a greater proportion of females report adverse events (AE) following receipt of either the COVID-19 or seasonal influenza vaccine compared to males. In a predominately young adult female population of healthcare workers, we sought to determine the intersection of biological sex and sociocultural gender differences in prospective active reporting of vaccine outcomes, which remains poorly characterized. Methods: This cohort study enrolled Johns Hopkins Health System healthcare workers (HCWs) who were recruited from the mandatory annual fall 2019–2022 influenza vaccine and the fall 2022 COVID-19 bivalent vaccine campaigns. Vaccine recipients were enrolled the day of vaccination and AE surveys were administered two days post-vaccination for bivalent COVID-19 and influenza vaccine recipients. Data were collected regarding the presence of a series of solicited local and systemic AEs. Open-ended answers about participants' experiences with AEs also were collected for the COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Results: Females were more likely to report local AEs after either influenza (OR = 2.28, p = 0.001) or COVID-19 (OR = 2.57, p = 0.008) vaccination compared to males, regardless of age or race. Males and females had comparable probabilities of reporting systemic AEs after either influenza (OR = 1.18, p = 0.552) or COVID-19 (OR = 0.96, p = 0.907) vaccination. Hormonal birth control use did not impact the rates of reported AEs following influenza vaccination among reproductive-aged female HCWs. Women reported more interruptions in their daily routine following COVID-19 vaccination than men and were more likely to seek out self-treatment. More women than men scheduled their COVID-19 vaccination before their days off in anticipation of AEs. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for sex- and gender-inclusive policies to inform more effective mandatory occupational health vaccination strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the potential disruption of AEs on occupational responsibilities following mandated vaccination for healthcare workers, a predominately female population, and to more fully characterize the post-vaccination behavioral differences between men and women. Plain English summary: Research that addresses both the sex and gender differences of vaccine outcomes and behaviors is lacking. In this survey study of healthcare workers, comprised of mostly reproductive-aged females/women, we investigated biological sex (male/female) and gender (man/woman) differences in vaccine adverse events and outcomes following either influenza or bivalent COVID-19 vaccination. Regardless of age or race, females were more likely to report local (at injection site), but not systemic (whole body), adverse events than males, consistent across influenza and bivalent COVID-19 vaccine cohorts. Sex hormones are hypothesized to play a role in the differences in immune response following vaccination between males and females. We investigated if hormonal birth control use among females may be associated with differences in vaccine adverse events among the influenza vaccine cohort. However, there was no difference in the likelihood of reporting adverse events between birth control users and non-users. Based on open-ended responses to survey questions, women were found to report more interruptions to their daily routine than men following COVID-19 vaccination. Women were also more likely to seek out self-treatment with over-the-counter medication and intentionally schedule their vaccination around days off in anticipation of adverse events. With nearly 80% of healthcare jobs held by women, even higher for direct patient care positions like nursing, females/women may be disproportionately impacted by mandated annual vaccinations. Vaccinations are necessary for the prevention of disease transmission; however, our findings highlight a need for more equitable occupational vaccine strategies that consider both sex and gender differences. Highlights: • Research that addresses both the sex and gender disparities of vaccine outcomes and behaviors is lacking. • This active reporting study implements both logistic regression and thematic analyses to examine sex and gender differences in AEs following influenza or bivalent COVID-19 vaccination among a cohort of predominately female, reproductive-aged healthcare workers. • Females report more local adverse events than males following either influenza or bivalent COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of age or race. • Women report more disruptions to their daily routines than men. Women also are more likely to seek out self-treatment and schedule their vaccinations around days off in anticipation of adverse events. • Sex and gender differences in vaccine AEs and outcomes should drive the development of more equitable vaccine strategies and policies in occupational health settings, particularly for mandated vaccinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Convalescent plasma is a leading treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but there is a paucity of data identifying its therapeutic efficacy. Among 126 potential convalescent plasma donors, the humoral immune response was evaluated using a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus neutralization assay with Vero-E6- TMPRSS2 cells; a commercial IgG and IgA ELISA to detect the spike (S) protein S1 domain (EUROIMMUN); IgA, IgG, and IgM indirect ELISAs to detect the full-length S protein or S receptor-binding domain (S-RBD); and an IgG avidity assay. We used multiple linear regression and predictive models to assess the correlations between antibody responses and demographic and clinical characteristics. IgG titers were greater than either IgM or IgA titers for S1, full-length S, and S-RBD in the overall population. Of the 126 plasma samples, 101 (80%) had detectable neutralizing antibody (nAb) titers. Using nAb titers as the reference, the IgG ELISAs confirmed 95%-98% of the nAb-positive samples, but 20%-32% of the nAb-negative samples were still IgG ELISA positive. Male sex, older age, and hospitalization for COVID-19 were associated with increased antibody responses across the serological assays. There was substantial heterogeneity in the antibody response among potential convalescent plasma donors, but sex, age, and hospitalization emerged as factors that can be used to identify individuals with a high likelihood of having strong antiviral antibody responses., Introduction Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), emerged in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Following the rapid, global spread of SARS-CoV-2 [...]