Veronica Cecilia Hoad

Dr. Veronica Cecilia Hoad

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

12Years (2015-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
6 July 2021 in PLOS Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FTFiona Tea
Fiona Tea
ASAlberto Ospina Stella
Alberto Ospina Stella
AAAnupriya Aggarwal
Anupriya Aggarwal
DDDavid Ross Darley
David Ross Darley
DPDeepti Pilli
Deepti Pilli
Stuart TurvilleStuart Turville
Stuart Turville
The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody neutralization response and its evasion by emerging viral variants and variant of concern (VOC) are unknown, but critical to understand reinfection risk and breakthrough infection following vaccination. Antibody immunoreactivity against SARS-CoV-2 antigens and Spike variants, inhibition of Spike-driven virus–cell fusion, and infectious SARS-CoV-2 neutralization were characterized in 807 serial samples from 233 reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)–confirmed Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) individuals with detailed demographics and followed up to 7 months. A broad and sustained polyantigenic immunoreactivity against SARS-CoV-2 Spike, Membrane, and Nucleocapsid proteins, along with high viral neutralization, was associated with COVID-19 severity. A subgroup of “high responders” maintained high neutralizing responses over time, representing ideal convalescent plasma donors. Antibodies generated against SARS-CoV-2 during the first COVID-19 wave had reduced immunoreactivity and neutralization potency to emerging Spike variants and VOC. Accurate monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses would be essential for selection of optimal responders and vaccine monitoring and design.

16 March 2015 in Medical Journal of Australia
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
VHVeronica Cecilia Hoad
Veronica Cecilia Hoad
DSDavid J Speers
David J Speers
AKAnthony J Keller
Anthony J Keller
GDGary K Dowse
Gary K Dowse
CSClive R Seed
Clive R Seed
JPJoanne Pink
Joanne Pink

4 July 2018 in Vox Sanguinis
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PKPhilip Kiely
Philip Kiely
VHVeronica Cecilia Hoad
Veronica Cecilia Hoad
EWErica M. Wood
Erica M. Wood
False positive (FP) viral marker results in blood donors continue to pose many challenges. Informing donors of FP results and subsequent deferral can result in stress and anxiety for donors and additional complexity and workload for blood services. Donor management strategies need to balance the requirement to minimise donor anxiety and inconvenience while maintaining sufficiency of supply. Decisions about how and when to inform donors of FP results and determine deferral periods can be difficult as FP results, while often transitory, can take up to several years to resolve. Additional complexities include the interpretation of indeterminate serological confirmatory testing without detectable viral RNA or non‐discriminated NAT results with concomitant anti‐HBc reactivity ‐ both may be due to FP results, but the former may also represent past infection and the later may represent occult hepatitis B infection. In this review we discuss strategies to minimise indeterminate serological confirmatory results, possible donor deferral policies and the impact on donors when notified of FP results. We also provide some new data from Australia that address the challenge of interpreting non‐discriminated NAT results with concomitant anti‐HBc reactivity. Ultimately, the challenge is for each blood service to develop appropriate strategies for donor management, taking into account local information and requirements.

23 September 2020 in Vox Sanguinis
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
CSClive R. Seed
Clive R. Seed
CSClaire Styles
Claire Styles
VHVeronica Cecilia Hoad
Veronica Cecilia Hoad
HYHung Yang
Hung Yang
MTMichael J. Thomas
Michael J. Thomas
IGIain B. Gosbell
Iain B. Gosbell

4 February 2021 in Viruses
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GWGregory Walker
Gregory Walker
ZNZin Naing
Zin Naing
ASAlberto Ospina Stella
Alberto Ospina Stella
MYMalinna Yeang
Malinna Yeang
JCJoanna Caguicla
Joanna Caguicla
WRWiliam Rawlinson
Wiliam Rawlinson
Serological testing for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies provides important research and diagnostic information relating to COVID-19 prevalence, incidence and host immune response. A greater understanding of the relationship between functionally neutralising antibodies detected using microneutralisation assays and binding antibodies detected using scalable enzyme immunoassays (EIA) is needed in order to address protective immunity post-infection or vaccination, and assess EIA suitability as a surrogate test for screening of convalescent plasma donors. We assessed whether neutralising antibody titres correlated with signal cut-off ratios in five commercially available EIAs, and one in-house assay based on expressed spike protein targets. Sera from recovered patients or convalescent plasma donors who reported laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 200), and negative control sera collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 100), were assessed in parallel. Performance was assessed by calculating EIA sensitivity and specificity with reference to microneutralisation. Neutralising antibodies were detected in 166 (83%) samples. Compared with this, the most sensitive EIAs were the Cobas Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (98%) and Vitros Immunodiagnostic Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (100%), which detect total antibody targeting the N and S1 antigens, respectively. The assay with the best quantitative relationship with microneutralisation was the Euroimmun IgG. These results suggest the marker used (total Ab vs. IgG vs. IgA) and the target antigen are important determinants of assay performance. The strong correlation between microneutralisation and some commercially available assays demonstrates their potential for clinical and research use in assessing protection following infection or vaccination, and use as a surrogate test to assess donor suitability for convalescent plasma donation.

23 September 2020 in Vox Sanguinis
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PKPhilip Kiely
Philip Kiely
VHVeronica Cecilia Hoad
Veronica Cecilia Hoad
CSClive R. Seed
Clive R. Seed
IGIain B. Gosbell
Iain B. Gosbell
Background and Objective Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) is a novel coronavirus, first identified in China at the end of 2019 and has now caused a worldwide pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the implications of SARS‐CoV‐2 for blood safety and sufficiency. Material and Method We searched the PubMed database, the preprint sites bioRxiv and medRxiv, the websites of the World Health Organization, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Communicable Diseases Center and monitored ProMed updates. Results An estimated 15%–46% of SARS‐CoV‐2 infections are asymptomatic. The reported mean incubation period is 3 to 7 days with a range of 1–14 days. The blood phase of SARS‐CoV‐2 appears to be brief and low level, with RNAaemia detectable in only a small proportion of patients, typically associated with more severe disease and not demonstrated to be infectious virus. An asymptomatic blood phase has not been demonstrated. Given these characteristics of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and the absence of reported transfusion transmission (TT), the TT risk is currently theoretical. To mitigate any potential TT risk, but more importantly to prevent respiratory transmission in donor centres, blood centres can implement donor deferral policies based on travel, disease status or potential risk of exposure. Conclusion The TT risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 appears to be low. The biggest risk to blood services in the current COVID‐19 pandemic is to maintain the sufficiency of the blood supply while minimizing respiratory transmission of SARS‐CoV‐19 to donors and staff while donating blood.