Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33382764›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

Nathan Post, Danielle Eddy, Catherine Huntley, May C I van Schalkwyk, Madhumita Shrotri, David Leeman, Samuel Rigby, Sarah V Williams, William H Bermingham, Paul Kellam and 5 more

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 240 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
240citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05205746 phase2completednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Phase II Study to Evaluate Immunogenicity and Safety in Subjects With Evidence of Prior Immunity to SARS-CoV-2 of a Single Intramuscular or Intranasal Dose of the Live Recombinant Newcastle Disease Virus Based AVX/COVID-12 Vaccine

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaboratorio Avi-Mex, S.A. de C.V.Ran2021 to 2023Enrolled158ConditionsSARS CoV 2 InfectionArmsRecombinant NDV Vectored Vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, Placebo
NCT05710783 phase2 / phase3completednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Phase II/III Parallel, Double-blind, Non-inferiority Study With Active Control, to Evaluate the Immunogenicity and Safety of a Booster Immunization Scheme With a Single Intramuscular Dose of the Recombinant Vaccine Against SARS-CoV-2

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaboratorio Avi-Mex, S.A. de C.V.Ran2022 to 2023Enrolled4,065ConditionsSARS-CoV-2 InfectionArmsAVX-COVID/12, ChAdOx-1-S[recombinant]
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

240 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 385 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. COVID-19 pandemic: the delta variant, T-cell responses, and the efficacy of developing vaccines.Inflammation research : official journal of the European Histamine Research Society ... [et al.] · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

180 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Nathan PostFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Danielle EddyNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Catherine HuntleyFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
May C I van SchalkwykDepartment of Public Health, Environments and Society, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Madhumita ShrotriFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
David LeemanNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2517-1474
Samuel RigbyFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Sarah V WilliamsFaculty of Public Health and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
William H BerminghamDepartment of Clinical Immunology, University Hospitals Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2213-5574
Paul KellamDepartment of Infectious Disease, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
John MaherSchool of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Studies, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Adrian M ShieldsClinical Immunology Service, Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Gayatri AmirthalingamNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Sharon J PeacockNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.
Sharif A IsmailNational Infection Service, Public Health England, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-7337
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBPublic Health England · GBRoyal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · GBImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBNIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre · GBUniversity of Birmingham · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 215654/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProgress 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.

methodsSystematic 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.

results150 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.

conclusionsLiterature 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.

Indexed as

Antibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, ViralAntibody FormationCOVID-19SARS-CoV-2Cross ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleAntibodies, NeutralizingAntibodies, Viral

Identifiers

PMID33382764
PMCPMC7775097
OpenAlexW4241518937

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.