IgG Seroconversion and Pathophysiology in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection

Staines, Henry M.; Kirwan, Daniela E.; Clark, David J.; Adams, Emily; Augustin, Yolanda; Byrne, Rachel L; Cocozza, Michael; Cubas-Atienzar, Ana I; Cuevas, Luís E.; Cusinato, Martina; Davies, Benedict M O; Davis, Mark M.; Davis, Paul J.; Duvoix, Annelyse; Eckersley, Nicholas M; Forton, Daniel; Fraser, Alice; Garrod, Gala; Hadcocks, Linda; Hu, Qinxue; Johnson, Michael; Kay, Grant A; Klekotko, Kesja; Lewis, Zawditu; Macallan, Derek C.; Mensah-Kane, Josephine; Menzies, Stefanie K.; Monahan, Irene; Moore, Catherine; Nebe-von-Caron, Gerhard; Owen, Sophie I; Sainter, Chris; Sall, Amadou Alpha; Schouten, James; Williams, Christopher T; Wilkins, John A.; Woolston, Kevin; Fitchett, Joseph R; Krishna, Sanjeev; Planche, Tim

doi:10.3201/eid2701.203074

Cited by 42 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(2) 45 cross-sectional or cohort studies [18][19][20][21][22][23]25,26,29,31,32,35,37,[39][40][41][42][43][44]47,48,[51][52][53][54][55][56][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][67][68][69]71,[74][75][76][77][78][79][80] characterizing the antibody response (i.e., antibody types, levels, and duration) among adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection; and 317 studies validating the diagnostic performance of one or more immunoassays. 16,17,24,27,…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15,21,22,29,32,40,42,51,56,57,59,63,64,71 Four cross-section and cohort studies 29,51,56,59 that controlled for comorbidities and markers of COVID-19 severity (such as the number or type of symptoms) and one immunoassay validation study 57 evaluated the association of age and seroprevalence and found no difference (Appendix Table C -5). Separately from prevalence, eight studies 15,21,22,32,40,42,59,64 compared antibody levels by age. Six 15,22,32,42,59,64 found that older age was associated with higher antibody levels while two studies 21,40 found no difference.…”

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Age Sex and Racmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Separately from prevalence, eight studies 15,21,22,32,40,42,59,64 compared antibody levels by age. Six 15,22,32,42,59,64 found that older age was associated with higher antibody levels while two studies 21,40 found no difference. Overall, the ability to synthesize results is limited by variability in the definitions of older age as well as by variability in outcomes (IgG levels were studied most frequently, followed by IgM and neutralizing antibodies).…”

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Age Sex and Racmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With regard to variation in antibody levels by sex, six studies found no difference. 32,40,59,63,64,71 However, two studies detected a statistically significant difference: the Icelandic study, 15 which found that levels of anti-S1-RBD pan-Ig and anti-S1 IgA were lower in women, and a large Chinese study 21 of hospitalized adults which found that found that anti-S and anti-N IgM titers were higher in men compared with women (but IgG titers were no different).…”

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Age Sex and Racmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, among six studies 15,24,29,48,51,59 that considered whether weight (body mass index or obesity) was associated with antibody prevalence or levels, four 15,29,51,59 found an association with higher weight and higher neutralizing antibody activity, higher seroconversion rates, or higher IgM, IgG and IgA antibody levels. Two studies 24,48 found no difference.…”

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Comorbiditiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Mackey

Arkhipova-Jenkins

Armstrong

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

 Evidence suggests that the majority of adults develop detectable levels of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies following infection with SARS-CoV-2 (moderate strength of evidence* [SoE]).  IgM levels peak approximately 20 days after symptom onset or RT-PCR diagnosis and subsequently decline. IgG levels peak approximately 25 days after symptom onset or RT-PCR diagnosis and may remain detectable for at least 120 days (moderate SoE*).  Almost all adults develop neutralizing antibodies in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, and these antibodies may remain detectable for at least 152 days (low SoE*).  A small percentage of people do not develop antibodies in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection for reasons that are largely unclear but may be related to less severe disease or absence of symptoms.  Antibody prevalence does not appear to vary by age or sex, but older age may be associated with higher antibody levels (low SoE*). Non-White race may be associated with higher antibody prevalence and levels (low SoE*). COVID-19 severity and presence of symptoms may also be associated with higher antibody prevalence or levels (low SoE*). More evidence is needed to draw stronger conclusions regarding how the antibody response varies by patient characteristics and disease factors.  Studies to date have not established the relationship between the development of antibodies after RT-PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of reinfection. Studies based on index serologic testing suggest that the presence of antibodies is associated with a lower risk of a subsequent positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Age Sex and Racmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Age Sex and Racmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Age Sex and Racmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Variation In Anti-sars-cov-2 Antibodies By Comorbiditiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Mackey

Arkhipova-Jenkins

Armstrong

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Effect of Bamlanivimab vs Placebo on Incidence of COVID-19 Among Residents and Staff of Skilled Nursing and Assisted Living Facilities

Cohen

Nirula²,

Mulligan

et al. 2021

JAMA

183

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Preventive interventions are needed to protect residents and staff of skilled nursing and assisted living facilities from COVID-19 during outbreaks in their facilities. Bamlanivimab, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody against SARS-CoV-2, may confer rapid protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19.OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of bamlanivimab on the incidence of COVID-19 among residents and staff of skilled nursing and assisted living facilities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, double-blind, single-dose, phase 3 trial that enrolled residents and staff of 74 skilled nursing and assisted living facilities in the United States with at least 1 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case. A total of 1175 participants enrolled in the study from August 2 to November 20, 2020. Database lock was triggered on January 13, 2021, when all participants reached study day 57.INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to receive a single intravenous infusion of bamlanivimab, 4200 mg (n = 588), or placebo (n = 587). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was incidence of COVID-19, defined as the detection of SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction and mild or worse disease severity within 21 days of detection, within 8 weeks of randomization. Key secondary outcomes included incidence of moderate or worse COVID-19 severity and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTSThe prevention population comprised a total of 966 participants (666 staff and 300 residents) who were negative at baseline for SARS-CoV-2 infection and serology (mean age, 53.0 [range, 18-104] years; 722 [74.7%] women). Bamlanivimab significantly reduced the incidence of COVID-19 in the prevention population compared with placebo (8.5% vs 15.2%; odds ratio, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.28-0.68]; P < .001; absolute risk difference, −6.6 [95% CI, −10.7 to −2.6] percentage points). Five deaths attributed to COVID-19 were reported by day 57; all occurred in the placebo group. Among 1175 participants who received study product (safety population), the rate of participants with adverse events was 20.1% in the bamlanivimab group and 18.9% in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were urinary tract infection (reported by 12 participants [2%] who received bamlanivimab and 14 [2.4%] who received placebo) and hypertension (reported by 7 participants [1.2%] who received bamlanivimab and 10 [1.7%] who received placebo).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among residents and staff in skilled nursing and assisted living facilities, treatment during August-November 2020 with bamlanivimab monotherapy reduced the incidence of COVID-19 infection. Further research is needed to assess preventive efficacy with current patterns of viral strains with combination monoclonal antibody therapy.

show abstract

Risk of Covid-19 Severe Outcomes and Mortality in Migrants and Ethnic Minorities Compared to the General Population in the European WHO Region: a Systematic Review

Mazzalai

Giannini

Tosti

et al. 2023

Int. Migration & Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a major impact on migrants and ethnic minorities (MEMs). Socio-economic factors and legal, administrative and language barriers are among the reasons for this increased susceptibility. The aim of the study is to investigate the impact of Covid-19 on MEMs compared to the general population in terms of serious outcomes. We conducted a systematic review collecting studies on the impact of Covid-19 on MEMs compared to the general population in the WHO European Region regarding hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mortality, published between 01/01/2020 and 19/03/2021. Nine researchers were involved in selection, study quality assessment and data extraction. Of the 82 studies included, 15 of the 16 regarding hospitalisation for Covid-19 reported an increased risk for MEMs compared to the white and/or native population and 22 out of the 28 studies focusing on the ICU admission rates found an increased risk for MEMs. Among the 65 studies on mortality, 43 report a higher risk for MEMs. An increased risk of adverse outcomes was reported for MEMs. Social determinants of health are among the main factors involved in the genesis of health inequalities: a disadvantaged socio-economic status, a framework of structural racism and asymmetric access to healthcare are linked to increased susceptibility to the consequences of Covid-19. These findings underline the need for policymakers to consider the socio-economic barriers when designing prevention plans.

show abstract

IgG Seroconversion and Pathophysiology in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection

Cited by 42 publications

References 13 publications

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Antibody Response Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Implications for Immunity: A Rapid Living Review

Effect of Bamlanivimab vs Placebo on Incidence of COVID-19 Among Residents and Staff of Skilled Nursing and Assisted Living Facilities

Risk of Covid-19 Severe Outcomes and Mortality in Migrants and Ethnic Minorities Compared to the General Population in the European WHO Region: a Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About