Vaccination with SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern protects mice from challenge with wild-type virus.

Funder: open philanthropy projectFunder: jpb foundationVaccines against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been highly efficient in protecting against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the emergence of viral variants that are more transmissible and, in some cases, escape from neutralizing antibody responses has raised concerns. Here, we evaluated recombinant protein spike antigens derived from wild-type SARS-CoV-2 and from variants B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 for their immunogenicity and protective effect in vivo against challenge with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in the mouse model. All proteins induced high neutralizing antibodies against the respective viruses but also induced high cross-neutralizing antibody responses. The decline in neutralizing titers between variants was moderate, with B.1.1.7-vaccinated animals having a maximum fold reduction of 4.8 against B.1.351 virus. P.1 induced the most cross-reactive antibody responses but was also the least immunogenic in terms of homologous neutralization titers. However, all antigens protected from challenge with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 in a mouse model

Quantifying Absolute Neutralization Titers against SARS-CoV-2 by a Standardized Virus Neutralization Assay Allows for CrossCohort Comparisons of COVID-19 Sera

The global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has mobilized efforts to develop vaccines and antibody-based therapeutics, including convalescent-phase plasma therapy, that inhibit viral entry by inducing or transferring neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike glycoprotein (CoV2-S). However, rigorous efficacy testing requires extensive screening with live virus under onerous biosafety level 3 (BSL3) conditions, which limits high-throughput screening of patient and vaccine sera. Myriad BSL2-compatible surrogate virus neutralization assays (VNAs) have been developed to overcome this barrier. Yet, there is marked variability between VNAs and how their results are presented, making intergroup comparisons difficult. To address these limitations, we developed a standardized VNA using CoV2-S pseudotyped particles (CoV2pp) based on vesicular stomatitis virus bearing the Renilla luciferase gene in place of its G glyco-protein (VSVDG); this assay can be robustly produced at scale and generate accurate neutralizing titers within 18 h postinfection. Our standardized CoV2pp VNA showed a strong positive correlation with CoV2-S enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) results and live-virus neutralizations in confirmed convalescent-patient sera. Three independent groups subsequently validated our standardized CoV2pp VNA (n . 120). Our data (i) show that absolute 50% inhibitory concentration (absIC50), absIC80, and absIC90 values can be legitimately compared across diverse cohorts, (ii) highlight the substantial but consistent variability in neutralization potency across these cohorts, and (iii) support the use of the absIC80 as a more meaningful metric for assessing the neutralization potency of a vaccine or convalescent-phase sera. Lastly, we used our CoV2pp in a screen to identify ultrapermissive 293T clones that stably express ACE2 or ACE2 plus TMPRSS2. When these are used in combination with our CoV2pp, we can produce CoV2pp sufficient for 150,000 standardized VNAs/week. IMPORTANCE Vaccines and antibody-based therapeutics like convalescent-phase plasma therapy are premised upon inducing or transferring neutralizing antibodies that inhibit SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. Virus neutralization assays (VNAs) for measuring neutralizing antibody titers (NATs) are an essential part of determining vaccine or therapeutic efficacy. However, such efficacy testing is limited by the inherent dangers of working with the live virus, which requires specialized high-level biocontainment facilities. We there-fore developed a standardized replication-defective pseudotyped particle system that mimics the entry of live SARS-CoV-2. This tool allows for the safe and efficient measurement of NATs, determination of other forms of entry inhibition, and thorough investigation of virus entry mechanisms. Four independent labs across the globe validated our standardized VNA using diverse cohorts. We argue that a standardized and scalable assay is necessary for meaningful comparisons of the myriad of vaccines and antibody-based therapeutics becoming available. Our data provide generalizable metrics for assessing their efficacy.Fil: Oguntuyo, Kasopefoluwa. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Stevens, Christian S.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Hung, Chuan Tien. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Ikegame, Satoshi. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Acklin, Joshua A.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Kowdle, Shreyas S.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Carmichael, Jillian C.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Chiu, Hsin Ping. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Azarm, Kristopher D.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Haas, Griffin D.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Amanat, Fatima. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Klingler, Jéromine. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Baine, Ian. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Arinsburg, Suzanne. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Bandres, Juan C.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Siddiquey, Mohammed N. A.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Schilke, Robert M.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Woolard, Matthew D.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Zhang, Hongbo. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Duty, Andrew J.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Kraus, Thomas A.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Moran, Thomas M.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Tortorella, Domenico. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Lim, Jean K.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Gamarnik, Andrea Vanesa. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; Argentina. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Hioe, Catarina E.. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Zolla Pazner, Susan. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Ivanov, Stanimir S.. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Kamil, Jeremy. State University of Louisiana; Estados UnidosFil: Krammer, Florian. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Lee, Benhur. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai; Estados UnidosFil: Ojeda, Diego Sebastian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Houssay. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Medicina. Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas en Retrovirus y Sida; ArgentinaFil: González López Ledesma, María Mora. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Costa Navarro, Guadalupe Soledad. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Pallarés, H. M.. No especifíca;Fil: Sanchez, Lautaro Nicolas. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Oficina de Coordinación Administrativa Parque Centenario. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires. Fundación Instituto Leloir. Instituto de Investigaciones Bioquímicas de Buenos Aires; ArgentinaFil: Perez, P.. No especifíca;Fil: Ostrowsk, M.. No especifíca;Fil: Villordo, S. M.. No especifíca;Fil: Alvarez, D. E.. No especifíca;Fil: Caramelo, J. J.. No especifíca;Fil: Carradori, J.. No especifíca;Fil: Yanovsky, M. J.. No especifíca

Systems serology detects functionally distinct coronavirus antibody features in children and elderly

The hallmarks of COVID-19 are higher pathogenicity and mortality in the elderly compared to children. Examining baseline SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive immunological responses, induced by circulating human coronaviruses (hCoVs), is needed to understand such divergent clinical outcomes. Here we show analysis of coronavirus antibody responses of pre-pandemic healthy children (n = 89), adults (n = 98), elderly (n = 57), and COVID-19 patients (n = 50) by systems serology. Moderate levels of cross-reactive, but non-neutralizing, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are detected in pre-pandemic healthy individuals. SARS-CoV-2 antigen-specific Fcγ receptor binding accurately distinguishes COVID-19 patients from healthy individuals, suggesting that SARS-CoV-2 infection induces qualitative changes to antibody Fc, enhancing Fcγ receptor engagement. Higher cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG are observed in healthy elderly, while healthy children display elevated SARS-CoV-2 IgM, suggesting that children have fewer hCoV exposures, resulting in less-experienced but more polyreactive humoral immunity. Age-dependent analysis of COVID-19 patients, confirms elevated class-switched antibodies in elderly, while children have stronger Fc responses which we demonstrate are functionally different. These insights will inform COVID-19 vaccination strategies, improved serological diagnostics and therapeutics

International longitudinal registry of patients with atrial fibrillation and treated with rivaroxaban: RIVaroxaban Evaluation in Real life setting (RIVER)

Background Real-world data on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are essential in determining whether evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials translate into meaningful clinical benefits for patients in everyday practice. RIVER (RIVaroxaban Evaluation in Real life setting) is an ongoing international, prospective registry of patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and at least one investigator-determined risk factor for stroke who received rivaroxaban as an initial treatment for the prevention of thromboembolic stroke. The aim of this paper is to describe the design of the RIVER registry and baseline characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed NVAF who received rivaroxaban as an initial treatment. Methods and results Between January 2014 and June 2017, RIVER investigators recruited 5072 patients at 309 centres in 17 countries. The aim was to enroll consecutive patients at sites where rivaroxaban was already routinely prescribed for stroke prevention. Each patient is being followed up prospectively for a minimum of 2-years. The registry will capture data on the rate and nature of all thromboembolic events (stroke / systemic embolism), bleeding complications, all-cause mortality and other major cardiovascular events as they occur. Data quality is assured through a combination of remote electronic monitoring and onsite monitoring (including source data verification in 10% of cases). Patients were mostly enrolled by cardiologists (n = 3776, 74.6%), by internal medicine specialists 14.2% (n = 718) and by primary care/general practice physicians 8.2% (n = 417). The mean (SD) age of the population was 69.5 (11.0) years, 44.3% were women. Mean (SD) CHADS2 score was 1.9 (1.2) and CHA2DS2-VASc scores was 3.2 (1.6). Almost all patients (98.5%) were prescribed with once daily dose of rivaroxaban, most commonly 20 mg (76.5%) and 15 mg (20.0%) as their initial treatment; 17.9% of patients received concomitant antiplatelet therapy. Most patients enrolled in RIVER met the recommended threshold for AC therapy (86.6% for 2012 ESC Guidelines, and 79.8% of patients according to 2016 ESC Guidelines). Conclusions The RIVER prospective registry will expand our knowledge of how rivaroxaban is prescribed in everyday practice and whether evidence from clinical trials can be translated to the broader cross-section of patients in the real world