Nathan Post1, Danielle Eddy2, Catherine Huntley1, May C I van Schalkwyk3, Madhumita Shrotri1,3, David Leeman2, Samuel Rigby1, Sarah V Williams1, William H Bermingham4, Paul Kellam5, John Maher6,7, Adrian M Shields8, Gayatri Amirthalingam2, Sharon J Peacock2,9, Sharif A Ismail2,10,11. 1. Faculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 2. National Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 4. Department of Clinical Immunology, University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 5. Department of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 6. School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Studies, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Immunology, Eastbourne Hospital, Eastbourne, United Kingdom. 8. Clinical Immunology Service, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 10. Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. 11. Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.
BACKGROUND: Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response toSARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other humancoronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on antibody responses toSARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.
Authors: Christoph Kreer; Matthias Zehner; Timm Weber; Meryem S Ercanoglu; Lutz Gieselmann; Cornelius Rohde; Sandro Halwe; Michael Korenkov; Philipp Schommers; Kanika Vanshylla; Veronica Di Cristanziano; Hanna Janicki; Reinhild Brinker; Artem Ashurov; Verena Krähling; Alexandra Kupke; Hadas Cohen-Dvashi; Manuel Koch; Jan Mathis Eckert; Simone Lederer; Nico Pfeifer; Timo Wolf; Maria J G T Vehreschild; Clemens Wendtner; Ron Diskin; Henning Gruell; Stephan Becker; Florian Klein Journal: Cell Date: 2020-09-17 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Davide F Robbiani; Christian Gaebler; Frauke Muecksch; Julio C C Lorenzi; Zijun Wang; Alice Cho; Marianna Agudelo; Christopher O Barnes; Anna Gazumyan; Shlomo Finkin; Thomas Hägglöf; Thiago Y Oliveira; Charlotte Viant; Arlene Hurley; Hans-Heinrich Hoffmann; Katrina G Millard; Rhonda G Kost; Melissa Cipolla; Kristie Gordon; Filippo Bianchini; Spencer T Chen; Victor Ramos; Roshni Patel; Juan Dizon; Irina Shimeliovich; Pilar Mendoza; Harald Hartweger; Lilian Nogueira; Maggi Pack; Jill Horowitz; Fabian Schmidt; Yiska Weisblum; Eleftherios Michailidis; Alison W Ashbrook; Eric Waltari; John E Pak; Kathryn E Huey-Tubman; Nicholas Koranda; Pauline R Hoffman; Anthony P West; Charles M Rice; Theodora Hatziioannou; Pamela J Bjorkman; Paul D Bieniasz; Marina Caskey; Michel C Nussenzweig Journal: Nature Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 69.504
Authors: Johanna Hansen; Alina Baum; Kristen E Pascal; Vincenzo Russo; Stephanie Giordano; Elzbieta Wloga; Benjamin O Fulton; Ying Yan; Katrina Koon; Krunal Patel; Kyung Min Chung; Aynur Hermann; Erica Ullman; Jonathan Cruz; Ashique Rafique; Tammy Huang; Jeanette Fairhurst; Christen Libertiny; Marine Malbec; Wen-Yi Lee; Richard Welsh; Glen Farr; Seth Pennington; Dipali Deshpande; Jemmie Cheng; Anke Watty; Pascal Bouffard; Robert Babb; Natasha Levenkova; Calvin Chen; Bojie Zhang; Annabel Romero Hernandez; Kei Saotome; Yi Zhou; Matthew Franklin; Sumathi Sivapalasingam; David Chien Lye; Stuart Weston; James Logue; Robert Haupt; Matthew Frieman; Gang Chen; William Olson; Andrew J Murphy; Neil Stahl; George D Yancopoulos; Christos A Kyratsous Journal: Science Date: 2020-06-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Ryan M Hulteen; Bryan Terlizzi; T Cade Abrams; Ryan S Sacko; An De Meester; Caterina Pesce; David F Stodden Journal: Sports Med Date: 2022-08-23 Impact factor: 11.928
Authors: Rico Ballmann; Sven-Kevin Hotop; Federico Bertoglio; Stephan Steinke; Philip Alexander Heine; M Zeeshan Chaudhry; Dieter Jahn; Boas Pucker; Fausto Baldanti; Antonio Piralla; Maren Schubert; Luka Čičin-Šain; Mark Brönstrup; Michael Hust; Stefan Dübel Journal: Viruses Date: 2022-06-17 Impact factor: 5.818
Authors: Santiago Romero-Brufau; Ayush Chopra; Alex J Ryu; Esma Gel; Ramesh Raskar; Walter Kremers; Karen S Anderson; Jayakumar Subramanian; Balaji Krishnamurthy; Abhishek Singh; Kalyan Pasupathy; Yue Dong; John C O'Horo; Walter R Wilson; Oscar Mitchell; Thomas C Kingsley Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-05-12
Authors: Maurice Steenhuis; Gerard van Mierlo; Ninotska Il Derksen; Pleuni Ooijevaar-de Heer; Simone Kruithof; Floris L Loeff; Lea C Berkhout; Federica Linty; Chantal Reusken; Johan Reimerink; Boris Hogema; Hans Zaaijer; Leo van de Watering; Francis Swaneveld; Marit J van Gils; Berend Jan Bosch; S Marieke van Ham; Anja Ten Brinke; Gestur Vidarsson; Ellen C van der Schoot; Theo Rispens Journal: Clin Transl Immunology Date: 2021-05-16
Authors: Bo Zhai; Karen Clarke; David L Bauer; Krissy K Moehling Geffel; Saran Kupul; Lucas J Schratz; M Patricia Nowalk; Anita K McElroy; James B McLachlan; Richard K Zimmerman; John F Alcorn Journal: J Immunol Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Antoine Lewin; Steven J Drews; Ryanne Lieshout-Krikke; Christian Erikstrup; Sahar Saeed; Helen Fady; Samra Uzicanin; Brian Custer; Sheila F O'Brien Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.996
Authors: Sebastian Bertram; Thiemo Pfab; Christian Albert; Sven Schmidt; Jürgen Passfall; Martin Haesner; Maximilian Seidel; Bodo Hölzer; Felix S Seibert; Adrian Doevelaar; Benjamin Rohn; Panagiota Zgoura; Nina Babel; Timm H Westhoff Journal: Ther Apher Dial Date: 2022-03-29 Impact factor: 2.195