Jennifer Taher

Laboratory testing has been a key tool in managing the SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic. While rapid antigen and PCR testing has proven useful for diagnosing acute SARS-CoV-2 infections, additional testing methods are required to understand the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infections on immune response. Serological testing, a well-documented laboratory practice, measures the presence of antibodies in a sample to uncover information about host immunity. Although proposed applications of serological testing for clinical use have previously been limited, current research into SARS-CoV-2 has shown growing utility for serological methods in these settings. To name a few, serological testing has been used to identify patients with past infections and long-term active disease and to monitor vaccine efficacy. Test utility and result interpretation, however, are often complicated by factors that include poor test sensitivity early in infection, lack of immune response in some individuals, overlying infection and vaccination responses, lack of standardization of antibody titers/levels between instruments, unknown titers that confer immune protection, and large between-individual biological variation following infection or vaccination. Thus, the three major components of this review will examine (1) factors that affect serological test utility: test performance, testing matrices, seroprevalence concerns and viral variants, (2) patient factors that affect serological response: timing of sampling, age, sex, body mass index, immunosuppression and vaccination, and (3) informative applications of serological testing: identifying past infection, immune surveillance to guide health practices, and examination of protective immunity. SARS-CoV-2 serological testing should be beneficial for clinical care if it is implemented appropriately. However, as with other laboratory developed tests, use of SARS-CoV-2 serology as a testing modality warrants careful consideration of testing limitations and evaluation of its clinical utility.

The GENCOV study aims to identify patient factors which affect COVID-19 severity and outcomes. Here, we aimed to evaluate patient characteristics, acute symptoms and their persistence, and associations with hospitalization. Participants were recruited at hospital sites across the Greater Toronto Area in Ontario, Canada. Patient-reported demographics, medical history, and COVID-19 symptoms and complications were collected through an intake survey. Regression analyses were performed to identify associations with outcomes including hospitalization and COVID-19 symptoms. In total, 966 responses were obtained from 1106 eligible participants (87% response rate) between November 2020 and May 2022. Increasing continuous age (aOR: 1.05 [95%CI: 1.01–1.08]) and BMI (aOR: 1.17 [95%CI: 1.10–1.24]), non-White/European ethnicity (aOR: 2.72 [95%CI: 1.22–6.05]), hypertension (aOR: 2.78 [95%CI: 1.22–6.34]), and infection by viral variants (aOR: 5.43 [95%CI: 1.45–20.34]) were identified as risk factors for hospitalization. Several symptoms including shortness of breath and fever were found to be more common among inpatients and tended to persist for longer durations following acute illness. Sex, age, ethnicity, BMI, vaccination status, viral strain, and underlying health conditions were associated with developing and having persistent symptoms. By improving our understanding of risk factors for severe COVID-19, our findings may guide COVID-19 patient management strategies by enabling more efficient clinical decision making.

Background: Vitamin D supplementation is common practice for neonates and infants due to limited stores of vitamin D at birth. Although not commonly encountered, vitamin D toxicity can occur due to over-supplementation. However, toxic concentrations are often not included in method validation experiments, and assays often are not validated in the neonatal population. Methods: We compared serial 25 hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] measurements in pre-term neonates receiving 25(OH)D supplementation and identified 12 patients wherein concentrations of 25(OH)D were above 50 ng/mL (125 nM) that required additional investigations as the 25(OH)D results did not match the clinical picture. Available samples were compared across 4 immunoassay platforms (LIAISON XL, Roche Cobas e602, Abbott Alinity i, and Siemens Centaur XP) and LC–MS/MS. Results: Concentrations of 25(OH)D observed on one individual immunoassay platform (LIAISON XL) fluctuated substantially between subsequent blood draws in select neonates with elevated concentrations. Serum samples from these patients showed variable agreement between LC–MS/MS and other immunoassay platforms. These fluctuations were not explained by the presence of 3-epimer-25(OH)D or 24,25(OH)2D. Conclusions: Although we were unable to identify a cause for the variable elevated results, our findings suggest that neonatal 25(OH)D measurements alone should not be used for assessment of nutritional monitoring, and that clinical correlation and other laboratory parameters including ionized calcium should be considered.

Differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific immune responses have been observed between individuals following natural infection or vaccination. In addition to already known factors, such as age, sex, COVID-19 severity, comorbidity, vaccination status, hybrid immunity, and duration of infection, inter-individual variations in SARS-CoV-2 immune responses may, in part, be explained by structural differences brought about by genetic variation in the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) molecules responsible for the presentation of SARS-CoV-2 antigens to T effector cells. While dendritic cells present peptides with HLA class I molecules to CD8+ T cells to induce cytotoxic T lymphocyte responses (CTLs), they present peptides with HLA class II molecules to T follicular helper cells to induce B cell differentiation followed by memory B cell and plasma cell maturation. Plasma cells then produce SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we review published data linking HLA genetic variation or polymorphisms with differences in SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses. While there is evidence that heterogeneity in antibody response might be related to HLA variation, there are conflicting findings due in part to differences in study designs. We provide insight into why more research is needed in this area. Elucidating the genetic basis of variability in the SARS-CoV-2 immune response will help to optimize diagnostic tools and lead to the development of new vaccines and therapeutics against SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases.