Denali Boon

Bio: Denali Boon is an academic researcher from Johns Hopkins University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Virus & Public health. The author has an hindex of 11, co-authored 17 publications receiving 1606 citations. Previous affiliations of Denali Boon include National Institutes of Health.

Variation in False-Negative Rate of Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction-Based SARS-CoV-2 Tests by Time Since Exposure.

Abstract: Background Tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) based on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) are being used to "rule out" infection among high-risk persons, such as exposed inpatients and health care workers. It is critical to understand how the predictive value of the test varies with time from exposure and symptom onset to avoid being falsely reassured by negative test results. Objective To estimate the false-negative rate by day since infection. Design Literature review and pooled analysis. Setting 7 previously published studies providing data on RT-PCR performance by time since symptom onset or SARS-CoV-2 exposure using samples from the upper respiratory tract (n = 1330). Patients A mix of inpatients and outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Measurements A Bayesian hierarchical model was fitted to estimate the false-negative rate by day since exposure and symptom onset. Results Over the 4 days of infection before the typical time of symptom onset (day 5), the probability of a false-negative result in an infected person decreases from 100% (95% CI, 100% to 100%) on day 1 to 67% (CI, 27% to 94%) on day 4. On the day of symptom onset, the median false-negative rate was 38% (CI, 18% to 65%). This decreased to 20% (CI, 12% to 30%) on day 8 (3 days after symptom onset) then began to increase again, from 21% (CI, 13% to 31%) on day 9 to 66% (CI, 54% to 77%) on day 21. Limitation Imprecise estimates due to heterogeneity in the design of studies on which results were based. Conclusion Care must be taken in interpreting RT-PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection-particularly early in the course of infection-when using these results as a basis for removing precautions intended to prevent onward transmission. If clinical suspicion is high, infection should not be ruled out on the basis of RT-PCR alone, and the clinical and epidemiologic situation should be carefully considered. Primary funding source National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Johns Hopkins Health System, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Chimpanzees as an animal model for human norovirus infection and vaccine development

Abstract: Noroviruses are global agents of acute gastroenteritis, but the development of control strategies has been hampered by the absence of a robust animal model. Studies in chimpanzees have played a key role in the characterization of several fastidious hepatitis viruses, and we investigated the feasibility of such studies for the noroviruses. Seronegative chimpanzees inoculated i.v. with the human norovirus strain Norwalk virus (NV) did not show clinical signs of gastroenteritis, but the onset and duration of virus shedding in stool and serum antibody responses were similar to that observed in humans. NV RNA was detected in intestinal and liver biopsies concurrent with the detection of viral shedding in stool, and NV antigen expression was observed in cells of the small intestinal lamina propria. Two infected chimpanzees rechallenged 4, 10, or 24 mo later with NV were resistant to reinfection, and the presence of NV-specific serum antibodies correlated with protection. We evaluated the immunogenicity and efficacy of virus-like particles (VLPs) derived from NV (genogroup I, GI) and MD145 (genogroup II, GII) noroviruses as vaccines. Chimpanzees vaccinated intramuscularly with GI VLPs were protected from NV infection when challenged 2 and 18 mo after vaccination, whereas chimpanzees that received GII VLPs vaccine or a placebo were not. This study establishes the chimpanzee as a viable animal model for the study of norovirus replication and immunity, and shows that NV VLP vaccines could induce protective homologous immunity even after extended periods of time.

Comparative performance of five commercially available serologic assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and identify individuals with high neutralizing titers.

Abstract: Accurate serological assays to detect antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 are needed to characterize the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify potential candidates for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donation. This study compared the performance of commercial enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and neutralizing antibodies (nAb). The diagnostic accuracy of five commercially available EIAs (Abbott, Euroimmun, EDI, ImmunoDiagnostics, and Roche) to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was evaluated from cross-sectional samples of potential CCP donors that had prior molecular confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=214) and pre-pandemic emergency department patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=1,099). Of the 214 potential CCP donors, all were sampled >14 days since symptom onset and only a minority had been hospitalized due to COVID-19 (n=16 [7.5%]); 140 potential CCP donors were tested by all five EIAs and a microneutralization assay. When performed according to the manufacturers' protocol to detect IgG or total antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the sensitivity of each EIA ranged from 76.4% to 93.9%, and the specificity of each EIA ranged from 87.0% to 99.6%. Using a nAb titer cutoff of ≥160 as the reference positive test (n=140 CCP donors), the empirical area under receiver operating curve of each EIA ranged from 0.66 (Roche) to 0.90 (Euroimmun). Commercial EIAs with high diagnostic accuracy to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies did not necessarily have high diagnostic accuracy to detect high nAbs. Some but not all commercial EIAs may be useful in the identification of individuals with high nAbs in convalescent individuals.

Comparative Evolution of GII.3 and GII.4 Norovirus over a 31-Year Period

Abstract: Noroviruses are the most common cause of epidemic gastroenteritis. Genotype II.3 is one of the most frequently detected noroviruses associated with sporadic infections. We studied the evolution of the major capsid gene from seven archival GII.3 noroviruses collected during a cross-sectional study at the Children's Hospital in Washington, DC, from 1975 through 1991, together with capsid sequence from 56 strains available in GenBank. Evolutionary analysis concluded that GII.3 viruses evolved at a rate of 4.16 × 10(-3) nucleotide substitutions/site/year (strict clock), which is similar to that described for the more prevalent GII.4 noroviruses. The analysis of the amino acid changes over the 31-year period found that GII.3 viruses evolve at a relatively steady state, maintaining 4% distance, and have a tendency to revert back to previously used residues while preserving the same carbohydrate binding profile. In contrast, GII.4 viruses demonstrate increasing rates of distance over time because of the continued integration of new amino acids and changing HBGA binding patterns. In GII.3 strains, seven sites acting under positive selection were predicted to be surface-exposed residues in the P2 domain, in contrast to GII.4 positively selected sites located primarily in the shell domain. Our study suggests that GII.3 noroviruses caused disease as early as 1975 and that they evolve via a specific pattern, responding to selective pressures induced by the host rather than presenting a nucleotide evolution rate lower than that of GII.4 noroviruses, as previously proposed. Understanding the evolutionary dynamics of prevalent noroviruses is relevant to the development of effective prevention and control strategies.

B cell gene signature with massive intrahepatic production of antibodies to hepatitis B core antigen in hepatitis B virus–associated acute liver failure

Abstract: Hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated acute liver failure (ALF) is a dramatic clinical syndrome due to a sudden loss of hepatic cells leading to multiorgan failure. The mechanisms whereby HBV induces ALF are unknown. Here, we show that liver tissue collected at the time of liver transplantation in two patients with HBV-associated ALF is characterized by an overwhelming B cell response apparently centered in the liver with massive accumulation of plasma cells secreting IgG and IgM, accompanied by complement deposition. We demonstrate that the molecular target of these antibodies is the hepatitis B core antigen (HBcAg); that these anti-bodies display a restricted variable heavy chain (V(H)) repertoire and lack somatic mutations; and that these two unrelated individuals with ALF use an identical predominant V(H) gene with unmutated variable domain (IGHV1-3) for both IgG and IgM anti-HBc antibodies, indicating that HBcAg is the target of a germline human V(H) gene. These data suggest that humoral immunity may exert a primary role in the pathogenesis of HBV-associated ALF.

Pathophysiology, Transmission, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19): A Review.

Abstract: Importance The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, due to the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused a worldwide sudden and substantial increase in hospitalizations for pneumonia with multiorgan disease. This review discusses current evidence regarding the pathophysiology, transmission, diagnosis, and management of COVID-19. Observations SARS-CoV-2 is spread primarily via respiratory droplets during close face-to-face contact. Infection can be spread by asymptomatic, presymptomatic, and symptomatic carriers. The average time from exposure to symptom onset is 5 days, and 97.5% of people who develop symptoms do so within 11.5 days. The most common symptoms are fever, dry cough, and shortness of breath. Radiographic and laboratory abnormalities, such as lymphopenia and elevated lactate dehydrogenase, are common, but nonspecific. Diagnosis is made by detection of SARS-CoV-2 via reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing, although false-negative test results may occur in up to 20% to 67% of patients; however, this is dependent on the quality and timing of testing. Manifestations of COVID-19 include asymptomatic carriers and fulminant disease characterized by sepsis and acute respiratory failure. Approximately 5% of patients with COVID-19, and 20% of those hospitalized, experience severe symptoms necessitating intensive care. More than 75% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 require supplemental oxygen. Treatment for individuals with COVID-19 includes best practices for supportive management of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. Emerging data indicate that dexamethasone therapy reduces 28-day mortality in patients requiring supplemental oxygen compared with usual care (21.6% vs 24.6%; age-adjusted rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.92]) and that remdesivir improves time to recovery (hospital discharge or no supplemental oxygen requirement) from 15 to 11 days. In a randomized trial of 103 patients with COVID-19, convalescent plasma did not shorten time to recovery. Ongoing trials are testing antiviral therapies, immune modulators, and anticoagulants. The case-fatality rate for COVID-19 varies markedly by age, ranging from 0.3 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 5 to 17 years to 304.9 deaths per 1000 cases among patients aged 85 years or older in the US. Among patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit, the case fatality is up to 40%. At least 120 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are under development. Until an effective vaccine is available, the primary methods to reduce spread are face masks, social distancing, and contact tracing. Monoclonal antibodies and hyperimmune globulin may provide additional preventive strategies. Conclusions and Relevance As of July 1, 2020, more than 10 million people worldwide had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Many aspects of transmission, infection, and treatment remain unclear. Advances in prevention and effective management of COVID-19 will require basic and clinical investigation and public health and clinical interventions.

Replication of human noroviruses in stem cell–derived human enteroids

Abstract: The major barrier to research and development of effective interventions for human noroviruses (HuNoVs) has been the lack of a robust and reproducible in vitro cultivation system. HuNoVs are the leading cause of gastroenteritis worldwide. We report the successful cultivation of multiple HuNoV strains in enterocytes in stem cell–derived, nontransformed human intestinal enteroid monolayer cultures. Bile, a critical factor of the intestinal milieu, is required for strain-dependent HuNoV replication. Lack of appropriate histoblood group antigen expression in intestinal cells restricts virus replication, and infectivity is abrogated by inactivation (e.g., irradiation, heating) and serum neutralization. This culture system recapitulates the human intestinal epithelium, permits human host-pathogen studies of previously noncultivatable pathogens, and allows the assessment of methods to prevent and treat HuNoV infections.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen and molecular-based tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Abstract: Background Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection could contribute to clinical and public health strategies to manage the COVID‐19 pandemic. Point‐of‐care antigen and molecular tests to detect current infection could increase access to testing and early confirmation of cases, and expediate clinical and public health management decisions that may reduce transmission. Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of point‐of‐care antigen and molecular‐based tests for diagnosis of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Search methods Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID‐19 Study Register and the COVID‐19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 30 Sept 2020. We checked repositories of COVID‐19 publications and included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the Diagnostics Global Health website to 16 Nov 2020. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included studies of people with either suspected SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen or molecular tests suitable for a point‐of‐care setting (minimal equipment, sample preparation, and biosafety requirements, with results within two hours of sample collection). We included all reference standards that define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR) tests and established diagnostic criteria). Data collection and analysis Studies were screened independently in duplicate with disagreements resolved by discussion with a third author. Study characteristics were extracted by one author and checked by a second; extraction of study results and assessments of risk of bias and applicability (made using the QUADAS‐2 tool) were undertaken independently in duplicate. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and pooled data using the bivariate model separately for antigen and molecular‐based tests. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. Main results Seventy‐eight study cohorts were included (described in 64 study reports, including 20 pre‐prints), reporting results for 24,087 samples (7,415 with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2). Studies were mainly from Europe (n = 39) or North America (n = 20), and evaluated 16 antigen and five molecular assays. We considered risk of bias to be high in 29 (37%) studies because of participant selection; in 66 (85%) because of weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection; and in 29 (37%) for participant flow and timing. Studies of antigen tests were of a higher methodological quality compared to studies of molecular tests, particularly regarding the risk of bias for participant selection and the index test. Characteristics of participants in 35 (45%) studies differed from those in whom the test was intended to be used and the delivery of the index test in 39 (50%) studies differed from the way in which the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (97%) defined the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 based on a single RT‐PCR result, and none included participants meeting case definitions for probable COVID‐19. Antigen tests Forty‐eight studies reported 58 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies. There were differences between symptomatic (72.0%, 95% CI 63.7% to 79.0%; 37 evaluations; 15530 samples, 4410 cases) and asymptomatic participants (58.1%, 95% CI 40.2% to 74.1%; 12 evaluations; 1581 samples, 295 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (78.3%, 95% CI 71.1% to 84.1%; 26 evaluations; 5769 samples, 2320 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (51.0%, 95% CI 40.8% to 61.0%; 22 evaluations; 935 samples, 692 cases). Sensitivity was high in those with cycle threshold (Ct) values on PCR ≤25 (94.5%, 95% CI 91.0% to 96.7%; 36 evaluations; 2613 cases) compared to those with Ct values >25 (40.7%, 95% CI 31.8% to 50.3%; 36 evaluations; 2632 cases). Sensitivity varied between brands. Using data from instructions for use (IFU) compliant evaluations in symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities ranged from 34.1% (95% CI 29.7% to 38.8%; Coris Bioconcept) to 88.1% (95% CI 84.2% to 91.1%; SD Biosensor STANDARD Q). Average specificities were high in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants, and for most brands (overall summary specificity 99.6%, 95% CI 99.0% to 99.8%). At 5% prevalence using data for the most sensitive assays in symptomatic people (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q and Abbott Panbio), positive predictive values (PPVs) of 84% to 90% mean that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 6 positive results will be a false positive, and between 1 in 4 and 1 in 8 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence applying the same tests in asymptomatic people would result in PPVs of 11% to 28% meaning that between 7 in 10 and 9 in 10 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. No studies assessed the accuracy of repeated lateral flow testing or self‐testing. Rapid molecular assays Thirty studies reported 33 evaluations of five different rapid molecular tests. Sensitivities varied according to test brand. Most of the data relate to the ID NOW and Xpert Xpress assays. Using data from evaluations following the manufacturer’s instructions for use, the average sensitivity of ID NOW was 73.0% (95% CI 66.8% to 78.4%) and average specificity 99.7% (95% CI 98.7% to 99.9%; 4 evaluations; 812 samples, 222 cases). For Xpert Xpress, the average sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 88.1% to 100%) and average specificity 97.2% (95% CI 89.4% to 99.3%; 2 evaluations; 100 samples, 29 cases). Insufficient data were available to investigate the effect of symptom status or time after symptom onset. Authors' conclusions Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID‐19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. The assays shown to meet appropriate criteria, such as WHO's priority target product profiles for COVID‐19 diagnostics (‘acceptable’ sensitivity ≥ 80% and specificity ≥ 97%), can be considered as a replacement for laboratory‐based RT‐PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT‐PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. Positive predictive values suggest that confirmatory testing of those with positive results may be considered in low prevalence settings. Due to the variable sensitivity of antigen tests, people who test negative may still be infected. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts was limited. Test accuracy studies cannot adequately assess the ability of antigen tests to differentiate those who are infectious and require isolation from those who pose no risk, as there is no reference standard for infectiousness. A small number of molecular tests showed high accuracy and may be suitable alternatives to RT‐PCR. However, further evaluations of the tests in settings as they are intended to be used are required to fully establish performance in practice. Several important studies in asymptomatic individuals have been reported since the close of our search and will be incorporated at the next update of this review. Comparative studies of antigen tests in their intended use settings and according to test operator (including self‐testing) are required.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: BACKGROUND There is disagreement about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a living systematic review and meta-analysis to address three questions: (1) Amongst people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) Amongst people with SARS-CoV-2 infection who are asymptomatic when diagnosed, what proportion will develop symptoms later? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission is accounted for by people who are either asymptomatic throughout infection or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv using a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature that is updated daily, on 25 March 2020, 20 April 2020, and 10 June 2020. Studies of people with SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed by reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) that documented follow-up and symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up or modelling studies were included. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with an adapted checklist for case series, and the relevance and credibility of modelling studies were assessed using a published checklist. We included a total of 94 studies. The overall estimate of the proportion of people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and remain asymptomatic throughout infection was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-25) with a prediction interval of 3%-67% in 79 studies that addressed this review question. There was some evidence that biases in the selection of participants influence the estimate. In seven studies of defined populations screened for SARS-CoV-2 and then followed, 31% (95% CI 26%-37%, prediction interval 24%-38%) remained asymptomatic. The proportion of people that is presymptomatic could not be summarised, owing to heterogeneity. The secondary attack rate was lower in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection than those with symptomatic infection (relative risk 0.35, 95% CI 0.10-1.27). Modelling studies fit to data found a higher proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 infections resulting from transmission from presymptomatic individuals than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the review include that most included studies were not designed to estimate the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and were at risk of selection biases; we did not consider the possible impact of false negative RT-PCR results, which would underestimate the proportion of asymptomatic infections; and the database does not include all sources. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this living systematic review suggest that most people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 will not remain asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection. The contribution of presymptomatic and asymptomatic infections to overall SARS-CoV-2 transmission means that combination prevention measures, with enhanced hand hygiene, masks, testing tracing, and isolation strategies and social distancing, will continue to be needed.