ABSTRACT
Aims: Little is known about risk factors for both Long COVID and somatic symptoms that develop in individuals without a history of COVID-19 in response to the pandemic. There is reason to assume an interplay between pathophysiological mechanisms and psychosocial factors in the etiology of symptom persistence. This study investigates specific risk factors for somatic symptom deterioration in a cohort of German adults with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Method(s): German healthcare professionals underwent SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody testing and completed self-rating questionnaires at baseline and 21 months later between April 2020 and February 2022. Differences in variables between the time points were analyzed and a regression analysis was performed to predict somatic symptom deterioration at follow-up. Result(s): Seven hundred fifty-one adults completed both assessments. Until follow-up, n = 58 had contracted SARS-CoV-2 confirmed by serology. Between baseline and follow-up, signs of mental and physical strain increased significantly in the sample. Symptom expectations associated with COVID-19 and a self-reported history of COVID-19, but not serologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, significantly predicted somatic symptom deterioration at follow-up. A further predictor was baseline psychological symptom burden. Conclusion(s): This study supports a disease-overarching biopsychosocial model for the development of burdensome somatic symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic and supports research findings that symptom burden may be more related to the psychosocial effects of the pandemic than to infection itself. Future studies on Long COVID should include SARS-CoV-2 negative control groups and consider symptom burden prior to infection in order to avoid an overestimation of prevalence rates.Copyright © 2023
ABSTRACT
Background: Therapy options are limited for COVID-19 patients with hematological disease, cancer, immunosuppression or adanced age. Een though no benefit was obsered for conalescent plasma in unselected patients with COVID-19, retrospectie data suggest that it could be effectie in patients unable to mount a sufficient immune response upon SARS-CoV-2 infection. Plasma from accinated donors has not been systematically assessed for COVID-19 treatment. Aims: We conducted a randomized clinical trial to address plasma efficacy in patients at high risk for an aderse outcome. Methods: COVID-19 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and oxygen saturation <=94% were randomized (NCT05200754). Patients receied conalescent or accinated SARS-CoV-2 plasma in two bags (238 - 337 ml plasma each) from different donors on day 1 and 2 (PLASMA) or standard of care (CONTROL). Randomization was stratified according to four clinical patient groups, hematological/solid cancer (group-1), treatment or disease associated immunosuppression (group 2), high risk disease by standard parameters (group-3) or age >=75 years (group-4). Mechanically entilated patients were not eligible. Plasma was obtained from donors with high leel neutralizing actiity (titer >=1:80) either after SARS-CoV-2 infection (conalescent) or after accination with at least two doses of mRNA accines (accinated). Crossoer for the control group was allowed at day 10. The primary endpoint was time to improement as two points on a seen-point ordinal scale or lie discharge from the Hospital (IMPROVEMENT) with prespecified analyses of subgroups (Janssen M, et al. Trials 2020 Oct 6;21(1):828). Results: A total of 133 patients were randomized with 68 receiing PLASMA with a median age of 68 years (range 36-95) or CONTROL (n=65, of which n=10 (15.4%) crossed oer at day 10) with a median age of 70 years (range 38-90). The distribution of the four predefined groups was group-1, n=53;group-2, n=18;group-3, n=35;and group-4, n=27. The intention to treat analysis reealed a non-significant shorter time to IMPROVEMENT for patients in PLASMA (median 12.5 days, 95%-CI [10;16]) compared to patients in CONTROL (median 18 days, 95%-CI [11;28] ), hazard ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interal [0.83;1.85], p=0.29). Oerall, 27 patients died (PLASMA, n=12;CONTROL, n=15;p=0.80). Predefined subgroup analysis reealed a clinically significant benefit in patients with hematological malignancies, other cancers or immunosuppression (group-1, group-2, n=71). With a median time to improement of 13 days (95%-CI [9;19]) for PLASMA and 32 days (95%-CI [17;57]) for CONTROL(HR 2.03, 95%-CI [1.17;3.6], p=0.01). A sensitiity analysis reealed that IMPROVEMENT appeared to be seen een earlier with accinated (median 10 days, 95%-CI [8;14]) compared to conalescent SARS-CoV-2 plasma (median 13 days, 95%-CI [6;38]) and CONTROL. Within group-1 and group-2, six patients in PLASMA (18.2%) and 10 in CONTROL (28.6%) died. No significant differences in improement were obsered in group-3 and group-4 with a HR of 0.72 (95%-CI [0.41;1.28], p=0.26). Within group-3 and group-4, six patients in PLASMA (18.8%) and fie in CONTROL (16.7%) died. No preiously unknown side effects of plasma therapy emerged within the trial. Summary/Conclusion: Plasma from conalescent and particularly accinated donors improed outcome of COVID-19 patients with an underlying hematological disease /cancer or other reasons of impaired immune response. Plasma did not improe outcome in immune-competent patients with other risk factors and/or older age. (Figure Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background: COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has emerged as a global pandemic. While immune responses of the adaptive immune system have been in the focus of research, the role of Natural killer (NK) cells in COVID-19 remains poorly understood. Methods: We characterized NK cell-mediated SARS-CoV-2 antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) against SARS-CoV-2 spike-1 (S1) and nucleocapsid (NC) protein using NK cell degranulation (CD107a) and killing assays. Results: Serum samples from SARS-CoV-2 resolvers induced significant CD107a expression by NK cells in response to S1 and NC (p < 0.0001), while serum samples from SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals did not. Furthermore, serum samples from individuals that received the BNT162b2 vaccine induced strong CD107a expression by NK cells that increased with the second vaccination and was significantly higher than observed in infected individuals (p < 0.0001). As expected, vaccine-induced responses were directed against S1 and not against NC protein. S1-specific CD107a responses by NK cells were significantly correlated to NK cell-mediated killing of S1-expressing cells (r = 0.86, p = 1.82 x 10-6). Interestingly, screening of serum samples collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic identified two individuals with cross-reactive antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 S1, which also induced degranulation of NK cells. Conclusion: These data demonstrate that antibodies induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection and anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines can trigger significant NK cell-mediated ADCC activity, and identify some cross-reactive ADCC activity against SARS-CoV-2 by endemic coronavirus-specific antibodies.
ABSTRACT
So far, only a few reports about reinfections with SARS-CoV-2 have been published, and they often lack detailed immunological and virological data. We report about a SARS-CoV-2 reinfection with a genetically distinct SARS-CoV-2 variant in an immunocompetent female healthcare worker that has led to a mild disease course. No obvious viral escape mutations were observed in the second virus variant. The infectious virus was shed from the patient during the second infection episode despite the presence of neutralizing antibodies in her blood. Our data indicate that a moderate immune response after the first infection, but not a viral escape, did allow for reinfection and live virus shedding.
ABSTRACT
The current COVID-19 pandemic is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). A better understanding of its immunogenicity can be important for the development of improved diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Here, we report the longitudinal analysis of three COVID-19 patients with moderate (#1) and mild disease (#2 and #3). Antibody serum responses were analyzed using spike glycoprotein enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), full-proteome peptide, and glycan microarrays. ELISA immunoglobulin A, G, and M (IgA, IgG, and IgM) signals increased over time for individuals #1 and #2, whereas #3 only showed no clear positive IgG and IgM result. In contrast, peptide microarrays showed increasing IgA/G signal intensity and epitope spread only in the moderate patient #1 over time, whereas early but transient IgA and stable IgG responses were observed in the two mild cases #2 and #3. Glycan arrays showed an interaction of antibodies to fragments of high-mannose and core N-glycans, present on the viral shield. In contrast to protein ELISA, microarrays allow for a deeper understanding of IgA, IgG, and IgM antibody responses to specific epitopes of the whole proteome and glycans of SARS-CoV-2 in parallel. In the future, this may help to better understand and to monitor vaccination programs and monoclonal antibodies as therapeutics.