Discrepant serological findings in SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative hospitalized patients with fever and acute respiratory symptoms during the pandemic.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) serology has an evolving role in the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, its use in hospitalized patients with acute respiratory symptoms remains unclear. Hospitalized patients with acute respiratory illness admitted to an isolation ward were recruited. All patients had negative nasopharyngeal swab polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for SARS-CoV-2. Serological studies using four separate assays (cPass: surrogate neutralizing enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]; Elecsys: N-antigen based chemiluminescent assay; SFB: S protein flow-based; epitope peptide-based ELISA) were performed on stored plasma collected from patients during the initial hospital stay, and a convalescent visit 4-12 weeks later. Of the 51 patients studied (aged 54, interquartile range 21-84; 62.7% male), no patients tested positive on the Elecsys or cPass assays. Out of 51 patients, 5 had antibodies detected on B-cell Epitope Assay and 3/51 had antibodies detected on SFB assay. These 8 patients with positive serological test to COVID-19 were more likely to have a high-risk occupation (p = 0.039), bacterial infection (p = 0.028), and neutrophilia (p = 0.013) during their initial hospital admission. Discrepant COVID-19 serological findings were observed among those with recent hospital admissions and bacterial infections. The positive serological findings within our cohort raise important questions about the interpretation of sero-epidemiology during the current pandemic.

A blood RNA transcriptome signature for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a respiratory viral infection with unique features including a more chronic course and systemic disease manifestations including multiple organ involvement; and there are differences in disease severity between ethnic groups. The immunological basis for disease has not been fully characterised. Analysis of whole-blood RNA expression may provide valuable information on disease pathogenesis. METHODS: We studied 45 patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection within 10 days from onset of illness and a control group of 19 asymptomatic healthy volunteers with no known exposure to COVID-19 in the previous 14 days. Relevant demographic and clinical information was collected and a blood sample was drawn from all participants for whole-blood RNA sequencing. We evaluated differentially-expressed genes in COVID-19 patients (log2 fold change ≥ 1 versus healthy controls; false-discovery rate < 0.05) and associated protein pathways and compared these to published whole-blood signatures for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza. We developed a disease score reflecting the overall magnitude of expression of internally-validated genes and assessed the relationship between the disease score and clinical disease parameters. RESULTS: We found 135 differentially-expressed genes in the patients with COVID-19 (median age 35 years; 82% male; 36% Chinese, 53% South Asian ethnicity). Of the 117 induced genes, 14 were found in datasets from RSV and 40 from influenza; 95 genes were unique to COVID-19. Protein pathways were mostly generic responses to viral infections, including apoptosis by P53-associated pathway, but also included some unique pathways such as viral carcinogenesis. There were no major qualitative differences in pathways between ethnic groups. The composite gene-expression score was correlated with the time from onset of symptoms and nasal swab qPCR CT values (both p < 0.01) but was not related to participant age, gender, ethnicity or the presence or absence of chest X-ray abnormalities (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The whole-blood transcriptome of COVID-19 has overall similarity with other respiratory infections but there are some unique pathways that merit further exploration to determine clinical relevance. The approach to a disease score may be of value, but needs further validation in a population with a greater range of disease severity.

Responding to COVID-19: how an academic infectious diseases division mobilized in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: On January 30, COVID-19 was declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern-a week after Singapore's first imported case and 5 days before local transmission. The National University Hospital (NUH) is Singapore's third largest hospital with 1200 beds, heavy clinical workloads, and major roles in research and teaching. MAIN BODY: With memories of SARS still vivid, there was an urgent requirement for the NUH Division of Infectious Diseases to adapt-undergoing major reorganization to face rapidly changing priorities while ensuring usual essential services and standards. Leveraging on individual strengths, our division mobilized to meet the demands of COVID-19 while engaging in high-level coordination, strategy, and advocacy. We present our experience of the 60 days since the nation's first case. During this time, our hospital has managed 3030 suspect cases, including 1300 inpatients, 37 confirmed cases, and overseen 4384 samples tested for COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Complex hospital adaptations were supported by an unprecedented number of workflows and coordination channels essential to safe and effective operations. The actions we describe, aligned with international recommendations and emerging evidence-based best practices, may serve as a framework for other divisions and institutions facing the spread of COVID-19 globally.