Cutaneous Pathology of COVID-19 as a Window into Immunologic Mechanisms of Disease.

Many skin manifestations of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection reflect activation of cutaneous and systemic immune responses involving effector pathways of both the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system. This article reviews evidence from the recent clinical and scientific literature that informs the current understanding of the consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced immune cell activation, as relevant to dermatology. Topics include the clinical consequences of autoantibody production in patients with COVID-19, immunologic evidence for chilblains as a manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and the relationship between type I interferons and COVID-19 disease severity

Bridging channel dendritic cells induce immunity to transfused red blood cells.

Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is a life-saving therapeutic tool. However, a major complication in transfusion recipients is the generation of antibodies against non-ABO alloantigens on donor RBCs, potentially resulting in hemolysis and renal failure. Long-lived antibody responses typically require CD4(+) T cell help and, in murine transfusion models, alloimmunization requires a spleen. Yet, it is not known how RBC-derived antigens are presented to naive T cells in the spleen. We sought to answer whether splenic dendritic cells (DCs) were essential for T cell priming to RBC alloantigens. Transient deletion of conventional DCs at the time of transfusion or splenic DC preactivation before RBC transfusion abrogated T and B cell responses to allogeneic RBCs, even though transfused RBCs persisted in the circulation for weeks. Although all splenic DCs phagocytosed RBCs and activated RBC-specific CD4(+) T cells in vitro, only bridging channel 33D1(+) DCs were required for alloimmunization in vivo. In contrast, deletion of XCR1(+)CD8(+) DCs did not alter the immune response to RBCs. Our work suggests that blocking the function of one DC subset during a narrow window of time during RBC transfusion could potentially prevent the detrimental immune response that occurs in patients who require lifelong RBC transfusion support. J Exp Med 2016 May 30; 213(6):887-9

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

Background:Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. Method:We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. Results:Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. Conclusion:Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies

Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serology assays reveals a range of test performance.

Appropriate use and interpretation of serological tests for assessments of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure, infection and potential immunity require accurate data on assay performance. We conducted a head-to-head evaluation of ten point-of-care-style lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two laboratory-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibodies in 5-d time intervals from symptom onset and studied the specificity of each assay in pre-coronavirus disease 2019 specimens. The percent of seropositive individuals increased with time, peaking in the latest time interval tested (>20 d after symptom onset). Test specificity ranged from 84.3% to 100.0% and was predominantly affected by variability in IgM results. LFA specificity could be increased by considering weak bands as negative, but this decreased detection of antibodies (sensitivity) in a subset of SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR-positive cases. Our results underline the importance of seropositivity threshold determination and reader training for reliable LFA deployment. Although there was no standout serological assay, four tests achieved more than 80% positivity at later time points tested and more than 95% specificity

Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

Background:Serological tests are crucial tools for assessments of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, infection and potential immunity. Their appropriate use and interpretation require accurate assay performance data. Method:We conducted an evaluation of 10 lateral flow assays (LFAs) and two ELISAs to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The specimen set comprised 128 plasma or serum samples from 79 symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals; 108 pre-COVID-19 negative controls; and 52 recent samples from individuals who underwent respiratory viral testing but were not diagnosed with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Samples were blinded and LFA results were interpreted by two independent readers, using a standardized intensity scoring system. Results:Among specimens from SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR-positive individuals, the percent seropositive increased with time interval, peaking at 81.8-100.0% in samples taken >20 days after symptom onset. Test specificity ranged from 84.3-100.0% in pre-COVID-19 specimens. Specificity was higher when weak LFA bands were considered negative, but this decreased sensitivity. IgM detection was more variable than IgG, and detection was highest when IgM and IgG results were combined. Agreement between ELISAs and LFAs ranged from 75.7-94.8%. No consistent cross-reactivity was observed. Conclusion:Our evaluation showed heterogeneous assay performance. Reader training is key to reliable LFA performance, and can be tailored for survey goals. Informed use of serology will require evaluations covering the full spectrum of SARS-CoV-2 infections, from asymptomatic and mild infection to severe disease, and later convalescence. Well-designed studies to elucidate the mechanisms and serological correlates of protective immunity will be crucial to guide rational clinical and public health policies