Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs are present in ~4% of uninfected individuals over 70 years old and account for ~20% of COVID-19 deaths

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 The Authors, some rights reserved.Circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing high concentrations (10 ng/ml; in plasma diluted 1:10) of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are found in about 10% of patients with critical COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pneumonia but not in individuals with asymptomatic infections. We detect auto-Abs neutralizing 100-fold lower, more physiological, concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega (100 pg/ml; in 1:10 dilutions of plasma) in 13.6% of 3595 patients with critical COVID-19, including 21% of 374 patients >80 years, and 6.5% of 522 patients with severe COVID-19. These antibodies are also detected in 18% of the 1124 deceased patients (aged 20 days to 99 years; mean: 70 years). Moreover, another 1.3% of patients with critical COVID-19 and 0.9% of the deceased patients have auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-beta. We also show, in a sample of 34,159 uninfected individuals from the general population, that auto-Abs neutralizing high concentrations of IFN-alpha and/or IFN-omega are present in 0.18% of individuals between 18 and 69 years, 1.1% between 70 and 79 years, and 3.4% >80 years. Moreover, the proportion of individuals carrying auto-Abs neutralizing lower concentrations is greater in a subsample of 10,778 uninfected individuals: 1% of individuals 80 years. By contrast, auto-Abs neutralizing IFN-beta do not become more frequent with age. Auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs predate SARS-CoV-2 infection and sharply increase in prevalence after the age of 70 years. They account for about 20% of both critical COVID-19 cases in the over 80s and total fatal COVID-19 cases.Peer reviewe

Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with critical influenza pneumonia

In an international cohort of 279 patients with hypoxemic influenza pneumonia, we identified 13 patients (4.6%) with autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-alpha and/or -omega, which were previously reported to underlie 15% cases of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia and one third of severe adverse reactions to live-attenuated yellow fever vaccine. Autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) can underlie critical COVID-19 pneumonia and yellow fever vaccine disease. We report here on 13 patients harboring autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-alpha 2 alone (five patients) or with IFN-omega (eight patients) from a cohort of 279 patients (4.7%) aged 6-73 yr with critical influenza pneumonia. Nine and four patients had antibodies neutralizing high and low concentrations, respectively, of IFN-alpha 2, and six and two patients had antibodies neutralizing high and low concentrations, respectively, of IFN-omega. The patients' autoantibodies increased influenza A virus replication in both A549 cells and reconstituted human airway epithelia. The prevalence of these antibodies was significantly higher than that in the general population for patients 70 yr of age (3.1 vs. 4.4%, P = 0.68). The risk of critical influenza was highest in patients with antibodies neutralizing high concentrations of both IFN-alpha 2 and IFN-omega (OR = 11.7, P = 1.3 x 10(-5)), especially those <70 yr old (OR = 139.9, P = 3.1 x 10(-10)). We also identified 10 patients in additional influenza patient cohorts. Autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs account for similar to 5% of cases of life-threatening influenza pneumonia in patients <70 yr old

Vaccine breakthrough hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia in patients with auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs

Life-threatening `breakthrough' cases of critical COVID-19 are attributed to poor or waning antibody response to the SARS- CoV-2 vaccine in individuals already at risk. Pre-existing autoantibodies (auto-Abs) neutralizing type I IFNs underlie at least 15% of critical COVID-19 pneumonia cases in unvaccinated individuals; however, their contribution to hypoxemic breakthrough cases in vaccinated people remains unknown. Here, we studied a cohort of 48 individuals ( age 20-86 years) who received 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine and developed a breakthrough infection with hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia 2 weeks to 4 months later. Antibody levels to the vaccine, neutralization of the virus, and auto- Abs to type I IFNs were measured in the plasma. Forty-two individuals had no known deficiency of B cell immunity and a normal antibody response to the vaccine. Among them, ten (24%) had auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs (aged 43-86 years). Eight of these ten patients had auto-Abs neutralizing both IFN-a2 and IFN-., while two neutralized IFN-omega only. No patient neutralized IFN-ss. Seven neutralized 10 ng/mL of type I IFNs, and three 100 pg/mL only. Seven patients neutralized SARS-CoV-2 D614G and the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) efficiently, while one patient neutralized Delta slightly less efficiently. Two of the three patients neutralizing only 100 pg/mL of type I IFNs neutralized both D61G and Delta less efficiently. Despite two mRNA vaccine inoculations and the presence of circulating antibodies capable of neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, auto-Abs neutralizing type I IFNs may underlie a significant proportion of hypoxemic COVID-19 pneumonia cases, highlighting the importance of this particularly vulnerable population

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies

SignificanceThere is growing evidence that preexisting autoantibodies neutralizing type I interferons (IFNs) are strong determinants of life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia. It is important to estimate their quantitative impact on COVID-19 mortality upon SARS-CoV-2 infection, by age and sex, as both the prevalence of these autoantibodies and the risk of COVID-19 death increase with age and are higher in men. Using an unvaccinated sample of 1,261 deceased patients and 34,159 individuals from the general population, we found that autoantibodies against type I IFNs strongly increased the SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rate at all ages, in both men and women. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs are strong and common predictors of life-threatening COVID-19. Testing for these autoantibodies should be considered in the general population

The risk of COVID-19 death is much greater and age dependent with type I IFN autoantibodies

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection fatality rate (IFR) doubles with every 5 y of age from childhood onward. Circulating autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α, IFN-ω, and/or IFN-β are found in ∼20% of deceased patients across age groups, and in ∼1% of individuals aged 4% of those >70 y old in the general population. With a sample of 1,261 unvaccinated deceased patients and 34,159 individuals of the general population sampled before the pandemic, we estimated both IFR and relative risk of death (RRD) across age groups for individuals carrying autoantibodies neutralizing type I IFNs, relative to noncarriers. The RRD associated with any combination of autoantibodies was higher in subjects under 70 y old. For autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, the RRDs were 17.0 (95% CI: 11.7 to 24.7) and 5.8 (4.5 to 7.4) for individuals <70 y and ≥70 y old, respectively, whereas, for autoantibodies neutralizing both molecules, the RRDs were 188.3 (44.8 to 774.4) and 7.2 (5.0 to 10.3), respectively. In contrast, IFRs increased with age, ranging from 0.17% (0.12 to 0.31) for individuals <40 y old to 26.7% (20.3 to 35.2) for those ≥80 y old for autoantibodies neutralizing IFN-α2 or IFN-ω, and from 0.84% (0.31 to 8.28) to 40.5% (27.82 to 61.20) for autoantibodies neutralizing both. Autoantibodies against type I IFNs increase IFRs, and are associated with high RRDs, especially when neutralizing both IFN-α2 and IFN-ω. Remarkably, IFRs increase with age, whereas RRDs decrease with age. Autoimmunity to type I IFNs is a strong and common predictor of COVID-19 death.The Laboratory of Human Genetics of Infectious Diseases is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; The Rockefeller University; the St. Giles Foundation; the NIH (Grants R01AI088364 and R01AI163029); the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards program (Grant UL1 TR001866); a Fast Grant from Emergent Ventures; Mercatus Center at George Mason University; the Yale Center for Mendelian Genomics and the Genome Sequencing Program Coordinating Center funded by the National Human Genome Research Institute (Grants UM1HG006504 and U24HG008956); the Yale High Performance Computing Center (Grant S10OD018521); the Fisher Center for Alzheimer’s Research Foundation; the Meyer Foundation; the JPB Foundation; the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the “Investments for the Future” program (Grant ANR-10-IAHU-01); the Integrative Biology of Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory of Excellence (Grant ANR-10-LABX-62-IBEID); the French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM) (Grant EQU201903007798); the French Agency for Research on AIDS and Viral hepatitis (ANRS) Nord-Sud (Grant ANRS-COV05); the ANR GENVIR (Grant ANR-20-CE93-003), AABIFNCOV (Grant ANR-20-CO11-0001), CNSVIRGEN (Grant ANR-19-CE15-0009-01), and GenMIS-C (Grant ANR-21-COVR-0039) projects; the Square Foundation; Grandir–Fonds de solidarité pour l’Enfance; the Fondation du Souffle; the SCOR Corporate Foundation for Science; The French Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation (Grant MESRI-COVID-19); Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), REACTing-INSERM; and the University Paris Cité. P. Bastard was supported by the FRM (Award EA20170638020). P. Bastard., J.R., and T.L.V. were supported by the MD-PhD program of the Imagine Institute (with the support of Fondation Bettencourt Schueller). Work at the Neurometabolic Disease lab received funding from Centre for Biomedical Research on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) (Grant ACCI20-767) and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 824110 (EASI Genomics). Work in the Laboratory of Virology and Infectious Disease was supported by the NIH (Grants P01AI138398-S1, 2U19AI111825, and R01AI091707-10S1), a George Mason University Fast Grant, and the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation. The Infanta Leonor University Hospital supported the research of the Department of Internal Medicine and Allergology. The French COVID Cohort study group was sponsored by INSERM and supported by the REACTing consortium and by a grant from the French Ministry of Health (Grant PHRC 20-0424). The Cov-Contact Cohort was supported by the REACTing consortium, the French Ministry of Health, and the European Commission (Grant RECOVER WP 6). This work was also partly supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, NIH (Grants ZIA AI001270 to L.D.N. and 1ZIAAI001265 to H.C.S.). This program is supported by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (Grant ANR-10-LABX-69-01). K.K.’s group was supported by the Estonian Research Council, through Grants PRG117 and PRG377. R.H. was supported by an Al Jalila Foundation Seed Grant (Grant AJF202019), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and a COVID-19 research grant (Grant CoV19-0307) from the University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. S.G.T. is supported by Investigator and Program Grants awarded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and a University of New South Wales COVID Rapid Response Initiative Grant. L.I. reports funding from Regione Lombardia, Italy (project “Risposta immune in pazienti con COVID-19 e co-morbidità”). This research was partially supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Grant COV20/0968). J.R.H. reports funding from Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (Grant HHSO10201600031C). S.O. reports funding from Research Program on Emerging and Re-emerging Infectious Diseases from Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (Grant JP20fk0108531). G.G. was supported by the ANR Flash COVID-19 program and SARS-CoV-2 Program of the Faculty of Medicine from Sorbonne University iCOVID programs. The 3C Study was conducted under a partnership agreement between INSERM, Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2 University, and Sanofi-Aventis. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also supported by the Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction générale de la Santé, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut de la Longévité, Conseils Régionaux of Aquitaine and Bourgogne, Fondation de France, and Ministry of Research–INSERM Program “Cohortes et collections de données biologiques.” S. Debette was supported by the University of Bordeaux Initiative of Excellence. P.K.G. reports funding from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, under Contract 75N91019D00024, Task Order 75N91021F00001. J.W. is supported by a Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO) Fundamental Clinical Mandate (Grant 1833317N). Sample processing at IrsiCaixa was possible thanks to the crowdfunding initiative YoMeCorono. Work at Vall d’Hebron was also partly supported by research funding from Instituto de Salud Carlos III Grant PI17/00660 cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF/FEDER). C.R.-G. and colleagues from the Canarian Health System Sequencing Hub were supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Grants COV20_01333 and COV20_01334), the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (RTC-2017-6471-1; AEI/FEDER, European Union), Fundación DISA (Grants OA18/017 and OA20/024), and Cabildo Insular de Tenerife (Grants CGIEU0000219140 and “Apuestas científicas del ITER para colaborar en la lucha contra la COVID-19”). T.H.M. was supported by grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Grants NNF20OC0064890 and NNF21OC0067157). C.M.B. is supported by a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Health Professional-Investigator Award. P.Q.H. and L. Hammarström were funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Antibody Therapy Against Coronavirus consortium, Grant 101003650). Work at Y.-L.L.’s laboratory in the University of Hong Kong (HKU) was supported by the Society for the Relief of Disabled Children. MBBS/PhD study of D.L. in HKU was supported by the Croucher Foundation. J.L.F. was supported in part by the Evaluation-Orientation de la Coopération Scientifique (ECOS) Nord - Coopération Scientifique France-Colombie (ECOS-Nord/Columbian Administrative department of Science, Technology and Innovation [COLCIENCIAS]/Colombian Ministry of National Education [MEN]/Colombian Institute of Educational Credit and Technical Studies Abroad [ICETEX, Grant 806-2018] and Colciencias Contract 713-2016 [Code 111574455633]). A. Klocperk was, in part, supported by Grants NU20-05-00282 and NV18-05-00162 issued by the Czech Health Research Council and Ministry of Health, Czech Republic. L.P. was funded by Program Project COVID-19 OSR-UniSR and Ministero della Salute (Grant COVID-2020-12371617). I.M. is a Senior Clinical Investigator at the Research Foundation–Flanders and is supported by the CSL Behring Chair of Primary Immunodeficiencies (PID); by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven C1 Grant C16/18/007; by a Flanders Institute for Biotechnology-Grand Challenges - PID grant; by the FWO Grants G0C8517N, G0B5120N, and G0E8420N; and by the Jeffrey Modell Foundation. I.M. has received funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (Grant Agreement 948959). E.A. received funding from the Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (Grant INTERFLU 1574). M. Vidigal received funding from the São Paulo Research Foundation (Grant 2020/09702-1) and JBS SA (Grant 69004). The NH-COVAIR study group consortium was supported by a grant from the Meath Foundation.Peer reviewe

A third vaccine dose equalises the levels of effectiveness and immunogenicity of heterologous or homologous COVID-19 vaccine regimens, Lyon, France, December 2021 to March 2022

Background To cope with the persistence of the COVID-19 epidemic and the decrease in antibody levels following vaccination, a third dose of vaccine has been recommended in the general population. However, several vaccine regimens had been used initially for the primary vaccination course, and the heterologous Vaxzevria/Comirnaty regimen had shown better efficacy and immunogenicity than the homologous Comirnaty/Comirnaty regimen.Aim We wanted to determine if this benefit was retained after a third dose of an mRNA vaccine. Methods We combined an observational epidemiological study of SARS-CoV-2 infections among vaccinated healthcare workers at the University Hospital of Lyon, France, with a prospective cohort study to analyse immunological parameters before and after the third mRNA vaccine dose.Results Following the second vaccine dose, heterologous vaccination regimens were more protective against infection than homologous regimens (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.88; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.18-3.00; p = 0.008), but this was no longer the case after the third dose (adjusted HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02; p = 0.082). Receptor-binding domain-specific IgG levels and serum neutralisation capacity against different SARS-CoV-2 variants were higher after the third dose than after the second dose in the homologous regimen group, but not in the heterologous group.Conclusion The advantage conferred by heterologous vaccination was lost after the third dose in terms of both protection and immunogenicity. Immunological measurements 1 month after vaccination suggest that heterologous vaccination induces maximal immunity after the second dose, whereas the third dose is required to reach the same level in individuals with a homologous regimen

Antibodies against type I interferon: detection and association with severe clinical outcome in COVID‐19 patients

International audienceObjectives: Impairment of type I interferon (IFN-I) immunity has been reported in critically ill COVID-19 patients. This defect can be explained in a subset of patients by the presence of circulating autoantibodies (auto-Abs) against IFN-I. We set out to improve the detection and the quantification of IFN-I auto-Abs in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients, in order to better evaluate the prevalence of these Abs as the pandemic progresses, and how they correlate with the clinical course of the disease.Methods: The concentration of anti-IFN-α2 Abs was determined in the serum of 84 critically ill COVID-19 patients who were admitted to ICU in Hospices Civils de Lyon, France, using a commercially available kit (Thermo Fisher, Catalog #BMS217).Results: A total of 21 of 84 (25%) critically ill COVID-19 patients had circulating anti-IFN-α2 Abs above cut-off (> 34 ng mL-1). Among them, 15 of 21 had Abs with neutralising activity against IFN-α2, that is 15 of 84 (18%) critically ill patients. In addition, we noticed an impairment of the IFN-I response in the majority of patients with neutralising anti-IFN-α2 Abs. There was no significant difference in the clinical characteristics or outcome of with or without neutralising anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs. We detected anti-IFN-α2 auto-Abs in COVID-19 patients' sera throughout their ICU stay. Finally, we also found auto-Abs against multiple subtypes of IFN-I including IFN-ω.Conclusions: We reported that 18% of critically ill COVID-19 patients were positive for IFN-I auto-Abs, whereas all mild COVID-19 patients were negative, confirming that the presence of these antibodies is associated with a higher risk of developing a critical COVID-19 form

Evaluation of commercial Anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody assays in seropositive subjects

International audienceThe virus neutralization test (VNT) is the reference for the assessment of the functional ability of neutralizing antibodies (NAb) to block SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells. New competitive immunoassays measuring antibodies preventing interaction between the spike protein and its cellular receptor are proposed as surrogate VNT (sVNT). We tested three commercial sVNT (a qualitative immunochromatographic test and two quantitative immunoassays named YHLO and TECO) together with a conventional anti-spike IgG assay (bioMérieux) in comparison with an in-house plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT50) using the original 19A strain and different variants of concern (VOC), on a panel of 306 sera from naturally-infected or vaccinated patients. The qualitative test was rapidly discarded because of poor sensitivity and specificity. Areas under the curve of YHLO and TECO assays were, respectively, 85.83 and 84.07 (p-value >0.05) using a positivity threshold of 20 for PRNT50, and 95.63 and 90.35 (p-value =0.02) using a threshold of 80. However, the performances of YHLO and bioMérieux were very close for both thresholds, demonstrating the absence of added value of sVNT compared to a conventional assay for the evaluation of the presence of NAb in seropositive subjects. In addition, the PRNT50 assay showed a reduction of NAb titers towards different VOC in comparison to the 19A strain that could not be appreciated by the commercial tests. Despite the good correlation between the anti-spike antibody titer and the titer of NAb by PRNT50, our results highlight the difficulty to distinguish true NAb among the anti-RBD antibodies with commercial user-friendly immunoassays

Evaluation of commercial anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays and comparison of standardized titers in vaccinated healthcare workers.

International audienceWith the availability of vaccines, commercial assays detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Ab) evolved towards quantitative assays directed to the spike glycoprotein or its receptor binding domain (RBD). The main objective of the present study was to compare the Ab titers obtained with quantitative commercial binding Ab assays, after 1 dose (convalescent individuals) or 2 doses (naïve individuals) of vaccine, in healthcare workers (HCW). Antibody titers were measured in 255 sera (from 150 HCW) with 5 quantitative immunoassays (Abbott RBD IgG II quant, bioMérieux RBD IgG, DiaSorin Trimeric spike IgG, Siemens Healthineers RBD IgG, Wantai RBD IgG). One qualitative total antibody anti RBD detection assay (Wantai) was used to detect previous infection before vaccination. The results are presented in binding Ab units (BAU)/mL after application, when possible, of a conversion factor provided by the manufacturers and established from a World Health Organization (WHO) internal standard. There was a 100% seroconversion with all assays evaluated after two doses of vaccine. With assays allowing BAU/ml correction, Ab titers were correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient, ρ, range: 0.85-0.94). The titer differences varied by a mean of 10.6% between Siemens and bioMérieux assays to 60.9% between Abbott and DiaSorin assays. These results underline the importance of BAU conversion for the comparison of Ab titer obtained with the different quantitative assays. However, significant differences persist, notably, between kits detecting Ab against the different antigens. A true standardization of the assays would be to include the International Standard in the calibration of each assays to express the results in IU/m

Six-month antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers assessed by virus neutralization and commercial assays

Since the SARS-CoV-2 emergence in December 2019, one of the major concerns has been the duration of immune protection after a first episode. This question is of paramount importance for healthcare workers (HCWs), who are a highly exposed population and among the first targets of vaccination programmes. To date, the persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCWs 6 months after disease onset (ADO) has not been studied with both a virus neutralisation btest and commercial assays