Frequent Emergence of Resistance Mutations Following Complex Intra-Host Genomic Dynamics in SARS-CoV-2 Patients Receiving Sotrovimab.

The emergence of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 represented a challenge to the treatment of COVID-19 using monoclonal antibodies. Only Sotrovimab maintained partial activity, allowing it to be used in high-risk patients infected with the Omicron variant. However, reports of resistance mutations to Sotrovimab demand efforts to better understand the intra-patient emergence of Sotrovimab resistance. A retrospective genomic analysis was conducted on respiratory samples from immunocompromised patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who received Sotrovimab at our hospital between December 2021 and August 2022. The study involved 95 sequential specimens from 22 patients (1 to 12 samples/patient; 3 to 107 days post-infusion; threshold cycle [CT] ≤ 32). Resistance mutations (in P337, E340, K356, and R346) were detected in 68% of cases; the shortest time to detection of a resistance mutation was 5 days after Sotrovimab infusion. The dynamics of resistance acquisition were highly complex, with up to 11 distinct amino acid changes in specimens from the same patient. In two patients, the mutation distribution was compartmentalized in respiratory samples from different sources. This is the first study to examine the acquisition of Sotrovimab resistance in the BA.5 lineage, enabling us to determine the lack of genomic or clinical differences between Sotrovimab resistance in BA.5 relative to that in BA.1/2. Across all Omicron lineages, the acquisition of resistance delayed SARS-CoV-2 clearance (40.67 versus 19.5 days). Close, real-time genomic surveillance of patients receiving Sotrovimab should be mandatory to facilitate early therapeutic interventions.

Early SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections Involving the Same or Different Genomic Lineages, Spain.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines consider SARS-CoV-2 reinfection when sequential COVID-19 episodes occur >90 days apart. However, genomic diversity acquired over recent COVID-19 waves could mean previous infection provides insufficient cross-protection. We used genomic analysis to assess the percentage of early reinfections in a sample of 26 patients with 2 COVID-19 episodes separated by 20-45 days. Among sampled patients, 11 (42%) had reinfections involving different SARS-CoV-2 variants or subvariants. Another 4 cases were probable reinfections; 3 involved different strains from the same lineage or sublineage. Host genomic analysis confirmed the 2 sequential specimens belonged to the same patient. Among all reinfections, 36.4% involved non-Omicron, then Omicron lineages. Early reinfections showed no specific clinical patterns; 45% were among unvaccinated or incompletely vaccinated persons, 27% were among persons <18 years of age, and 64% of patients had no risk factors. Time between sequential positive SARS-CoV-2 PCRs to consider reinfection should be re-evaluated.

Antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein in mothers and children from delivery to six months later.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women are vulnerable to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein protect from severe disease. This study analyzes the antibody titers to SARS-CoV-2 S protein in pregnant women and their newborns at delivery, and six months later. METHODS: We conducted a prospective study on pregnant women with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and newborns. Antibody (IgG, IgM, and IgA) titers were determined using immunoassays in serum and milk samples. An angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor-binding inhibition assay to the S protein was performed on the same serum and milk samples. RESULTS: At birth, antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were detected in 81.9% of mothers' sera, 78.9% of cord blood samples, and 63.2% of milk samples. Symptomatic women had higher antibody titers (IgG, IgM, and IgA) than the asymptomatic ones (P < 0.05). At six months postpartum, IgG levels decreased drastically in children's serum (P < 0.001) but remained high in mothers' serum. Antibody titers correlated positively with its capacity to inhibit the ACE2-spike protein interaction at baseline in maternal sera (R2  = 0.203; P < 0.001), cord sera (R2  = 0.378; P < 0.001), and milk (R2  = 0.564; P < 0.001), and at six months in maternal sera (R2  = 0.600; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein were found in most pregnant women. Due to the efficient transfer of IgG to cord blood and high IgA titers in breast milk, neonates may be passively immunized to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our findings could guide newborn management and maternal vaccination policies.

IgG anti-RBD levels during 8-month follow-up post-vaccination with BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines in healthcare workers: A one-center study.

Introduction: Since the COVID-19 outbreak, specific mRNA-based anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been developed and distributed worldwide. Because this is the first time that mRNA vaccines have been used, there are several questions regarding their capacity to confer immunity and the durability of the specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 response. Therefore, the objective of this study was to recruit a large cohort of healthcare workers from the Gregorio Marañón Hospital vaccinated with the mRNA-1273 or BNT126b2 vaccines and to follow-up on IgG anti-RBD levels at 8 months post-vaccination. Methods: We recruited 4,970 volunteers and measured IgG anti-RBD antibodies on days 30 and 240 post-vaccination. Results: We observed that both vaccines induced high levels of antibodies on day 30, while a drastic wane was observed on day 240, where mRNA-1273 vaccinated induced higher levels than BNT162b2. Stratifying by vaccine type, age, gender, and comorbidities, we identified that older mRNA-1273-vaccinated volunteers had higher antibody levels than the younger volunteers, contrary to what was observed in the BNT162b2-vaccinated volunteers. Discussion: In conclusion, we observed that mRNA-1273 has a higher capacity to induce a humoral response than BNT162b2 and that age is a factor in the specific response.

Cellular and Humoral Responses Follow-up for 8 Months after Vaccination with mRNA-Based Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 has become the main method of reducing mortality and severity of COVID-19. This work aims to study the evolution of the cellular and humoral responses conferred by two mRNA vaccines after two doses against SARS-CoV-2. On days 30 and 240 after the second dose of both vaccines, the anti-S antibodies in plasma were evaluated from 82 volunteers vaccinated with BNT162b2 and 68 vaccinated with mRNA-1273. Peripheral blood was stimulated with peptides encompassing the entire SARS-CoV-2 Spike sequence. IgG Anti-S antibodies (humoral) were quantified on plasma, and inflammatory cytokines (cellular) were measured after stimulation. We observed a higher response (both humoral and cellular) with the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Stratifying by age and gender, differences between vaccines were observed, especially in women under 48 and men over 48 years old. Therefore, this work could help to set up a vaccination strategy that could be applied to confer maximum immunity.

Incidence of Candidemia Is Higher in COVID-19 versus Non-COVID-19 Patients, but Not Driven by Intrahospital Transmission.

There is scarce information on the actual incidence of candidemia in COVID-19 patients. In addition, comparative studies of candidemia episodes in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients are heterogeneous. Here, we assessed the real incidence, epidemiology, and etiology of candidemia in COVID-19 patients, and compared them with those without COVID-19 (2020 vs. 2019 and 2020, respectively). We also genotyped all C. albicans, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis isolates (n = 88), causing candidemia in both groups, providing for the first time a genotypic characterization of isolates gathered in patients with either COVID-19 or non-COVID-19. Incidence of candidemia was higher in patients with COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 (4.73 vs. 0.85 per 1000 admissions; 3.22 vs. 1.14 per 10,000 days of stay). No substantial intergroup differences were found, including mortality. Genotyping proved the presence of a low number of patients involved in clusters, allowing us to rule out rampant patient-to-patient Candida transmission. The four patients, involved in two clusters, had catheter-related candidemia diagnosed in the first COVID-19 wave, which demonstrates breaches in catheter management policies occurring in such an overwhelming situation. In conclusion, the incidence of candidemia in patients with COVID-19 is significantly higher than in those without COVID-19. However, genotyping shows that this increase is not due to uncontrolled intrahospital transmission.

SARS-COV-2 Infection in People Living with HIV: Experience from a Tertiary Hospital in Madrid.

Since SAR-COV-2 infection emerged and spread worldwide, little is known about its impact on people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We performed a single-center retrospective study to describe the potential particularities and risk factors for respiratory failure (RF) in that population. This single-center retrospective study included patients infected with HIV, whose current follow-up is run in this center, above18 years of age, with diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection between March 5, 2020 and April 15, 2021. We collected data regarding HIV immunological and virological status, main epidemiological characteristics, as well as those conditions considered to potentially influence in SARS-CoV-2 evolution; and clinical, microbiological, radiological, respiratory status, and survival concerning coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared all that, for patients with and without RF and performed a logistic regression for suspected risk factors for RF. One hundred seventy-seven HIV patients were diagnosed from COVID-19 (mean age 53.8 years, 81.3% male). At diagnosis, 95.5% were receiving ART and 91.3% had undetectable viral load, with median CD4 count of 569 cells/µL. One hundred thirty-eight patients (78.4%) had symptoms, 44 (25%) developed RF and 53 (31%) developed bilateral pneumonia. The most commonly used treatments were: steroids (26.7%) and hydroxychloroquine (13.1%). When comparing patients with and without RF, we found statistically significant differences for 20 of the analyzed variables such as age (p < .001) and CD4 (p 0.002), and route of HIV transmission by intravenous drug users IVDU (p 0.002) were determined. In multivariate analysis, age [odds ratio (OR) 1.095] and CD4 count less than 350 cells/µL (OR 3.36) emerged as risk factor for RF. People living with HIV whose CD4 count is <350 cells are at higher risk of developing RF when infected by SARS-CoV-2.

Systematic Genomic and Clinical Analysis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Reinfections and Recurrences Involving the Same Strain.

Estimates of the burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reinfections are limited by the scarcity of population-level studies incorporating genomic support. We conducted a systematic study of reinfections in Madrid, Spain, supported by genomic viral analysis and host genetic analysis, to cleanse laboratory errors and to discriminate between reinfections and recurrences involving the same strain. Among the 41,195 cases diagnosed (March 2020-March 2021), 93 (0.23%) had 2 positive reverse transcription PCR tests (55-346 days apart). After eliminating cases with specimens not stored, of suboptimal sequence quality, or belonging to different persons, we obtained valid data from 22 cases. Of those, 4 (0.01%) cases were recurrences involving the same strain; case-patients were 39-93 years of age, and 3 were immunosuppressed. Eighteen (0.04%) cases were reinfections; patients were 19-84 years of age, and most had no relevant clinical history. The second episode was more severe in 8 cases.

Induction of High Levels of Specific Humoral and Cellular Responses to SARS-CoV-2 After the Administration of Covid-19 mRNA Vaccines Requires Several Days.

Objectives: In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, the fast development of vaccines with efficacy of around 95% preventing Covid-19 illness provides a unique opportunity to reduce the mortality associated with the pandemic. However, in the absence of efficacious prophylactic medications and few treatments for this infection, the induction of a fast and robust protective immunity is required for effective disease control, not only to prevent the disease but also the infection and shedding/transmission. The objective of our study was to analyze the level of specific humoral and cellular T-cell responses against the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 induced by two mRNA-based vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273), but also how long it takes after vaccination to induce these protective humoral and cellular immune responses. Methods: We studied in 40 healthy (not previously infected) volunteers vaccinated with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccines the presence of spike-specific IgG antibodies and SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells at 3, 7 and 14 days after receiving the second dose of the vaccine. The specific T-cell response was analyzed stimulating fresh whole blood from vaccinated volunteers with SARS-CoV-2 peptides and measuring the release of cytokines secreted by T cells in response to SARS-CoV-2 stimulation. Results: Our results indicate that the immunization capacity of both vaccines is comparable. However, although both BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines can induce early B-cell and T-cell responses, these vaccine-mediated immune responses do not reach their maximum values until 14 days after completing the vaccination schedule. Conclusion: This refractory period in the induction of specific immunity observed after completing the vaccination could constitute a window of higher infection risk, which could explain some emerging cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in vaccinated people.

The challenge of COVID-19 for a Clinical Microbiology Department.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the workload and cost overload that the COVID-19 pandemic has meant for a Clinical Microbiology laboratory in a real-life scenario. METHODS: We compared the number of samples received, their distribution, the human resources, and the budget of a Microbiology laboratory in the COVID pandemic (March-December 2020) with the same months of the previous year. RESULTS: the total number of samples processed in the Clinical Microbiology laboratory in March to December 2020 increased 96.70% with respect to 2019 (from 246,060 to 483,993 samples), reflecting an increment of 127.50% when expressed as samples/1000 admissions (from 6057 to 13,780). The increase in workload was mainly at the expense of the virology (+2058%) and serology (+86%) areas. Despite additional personnel hiring, the samples processed per technician increased 12.5%. The extra cost attributed to Microbiology amounts to 6,616,511 euros (114.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to provide quantitative figures about workload and cost increase caused by the COVID-19 in a Microbiology laboratory.

Sample pooling is efficient in PCR testing of SARS-CoV-2: a study in 7400 healthcare professionals.

SARS-CoV-2 pandemic shows the importance of having efficient virus diagnosis, especially in groups of particular relevance such as health care professionals, without involving a large economic expense. This is a prevalence study carried out in 7400 health care professionals in a 1350-bed hospital in Madrid, Spain. Pools of 10 samples were performed, using the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 test for the diagnosis from clinical samples of nasopharyngeal exudate. A previous study was performed to evaluate the effect of the dilution in terms of sensitivity. The estimated sensitivity was over 95%. A total of 740 pools were performed, with a final result of 218 health care professionals being positive. Using the pooling system, the reagent cost reduction to the institution was 75.3%. It can be concluded that the described sample pooling system is a useful and efficient tool in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in certain groups, assuming a cost reduction without reducing the sensitivity.

Invasive pulmonary aspergillosis in the COVID-19 era: An expected new entity.

OBJECTIVES: Information on the recently COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA) entity is scarce. We describe eight CAPA patients, compare them to colonised ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and review the published literature from Western countries. METHODS: Prospective study (March to May, 2020) that included all COVID-19 patients admitted to a tertiary hospital. Modified AspICU and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/Mycoses Study Group (EORTC/MSG) criteria were used. RESULTS: COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis was diagnosed in eight patients (3.3% of 239 ICU patients), mostly affected non-immunocompromised patients (75%) with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving corticosteroids. Diagnosis was established after a median of 15 days under mechanical ventilation. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed in two patients with positive Aspergillus fumigatus cultures and galactomannan (GM) index. Serum GM was positive in 4/8 (50%). Thoracic CT scan findings fulfilled EORTC/MSG criteria in one case. Isavuconazole was used in 4/8 cases. CAPA-related mortality was 100% (8/8). Compared with colonised patients, CAPA subjects were administered tocilizumab more often (100% vs. 40%, p = .04), underwent longer courses of antibacterial therapy (13 vs. 5 days, p = .008), and had a higher all-cause mortality (100% vs. 40%, p = .04). We reviewed 96 similar cases from recent publications: 59 probable CAPA (also putative according modified AspICU), 56 putative cases and 13 colonisations according AspICU algorithm; according EORTC/MSG six proven and two probable. Overall, mortality in the reviewed series was 56.3%. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-associated pulmonary aspergillosis must be considered a serious and potentially life-threatening complication in patients with severe COVID-19 receiving immunosuppressive treatment.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is insufficient for the diagnosis of active or cured COVID-19.

We assessed the performance of Abbott's SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and the PanbioTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test device for the diagnosis of either active or cured COVID-19. Three cohorts of patients were chosen. Cohort 1, patients (n = 65) who attended the emergency department on March 30, 2020 with clinical suspicion of active COVID-19 (n = 56 with proven/probable COVID-19). Cohort 2, hospital workers (n = 92) who had either been (n = 40) or not (n = 52) diagnosed with proven/probable COVID-19 and were asymptomatic at the time of the sampling. Cohort 3, patients (n = 38) cared at the hospital before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Detection of serum antibodies was done using Abbott´s SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and the PanbioTM COVID-19 IgG/IgM device. Both methods showed 98% agreement for IgG detection. No antibodies were detected in the 38 samples from hospitalized pre-COVID subjects. The diagnostic performance of IgGs detected by Abbott´s SARS-CoV-2 assay in Cohorts 1/2 was: sensitivity (60.7%/75%) and specificity (100%/84.6%). The diagnostic performance of IgM by PanbioTM COVID-19 in Cohorts 1/2 was: sensitivity (16%/17.5%) and specificity (100%/98.1%). We show that IgG detection alone is insufficient for the diagnosis of active or cured COVID-19. IgM detection has a limited diagnostic value.

Consenso sobre la infección por COVID-19 (SARS-COV-2)

On January 15, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) made the first recommendations regarding the epidemiological surveillance of a new coronavirus detected on December 31, 2019 in the Hubei province of Wuhan city, China --which later (January 7, 2020) was identified as a new coronavirus, or an emerging corona-virus, initially called "2019-nCoV"-- and issued the first case definitions, when was detected 27 cases of acute respiratory syndrome of unknown etiology. This virus would eventually be called "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2". It's spread around the world did not take long, and despite the fact that the WHO delayed declaring this outbreak as a pandemic event, it finally did so on March 11 of the current year. The Mexican Academy of Pediatrics (advisory body of the Secretary of Health) considered made up prudent to compile the facts to issue, as soon as possible, an expanded overview of infection-disease by this emerging virus and, at the same time, as its main objective is to contribute, support and work together with the Secretary of Health to combat the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in order to provide the best care and treatment measures to mitigate its spread throughout the Mexican territory. (English) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] El 15 de enero de 2020, la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) realizó las primeras recomendaciones respecto a la vigilancia epidemiológica de un nuevo co-ronavirus, detectado el 31 de diciembre de 2019 en la provincia de Hubei, ciudad de Wuhan, en China --que, posteriormente (07 de enero de 2020) fue identificado como un nuevo coronavirus, o bien, un coronavirus emergente, inicialmente denominado "2019-nCoV"--, y emitió las primeras definiciones de caso, tras haberse detectado en 27 sujetos con síndrome respiratorio agudo de etiología desconocida. Dicho virus, a la postre, se denominaría "COVID-19" o "SARS-CoV-2". Su diseminación en todo el mundo no tardó mucho, y a pesar de que la OMS retrasó la declaración del brote como un evento pandémico, finalmente lo hizo el 11 de marzo del año en curso. La Academia Mexicana de Pediatría (órgano asesor de la Secretaría de Salud) consideró prudente hacer una recopilación de los hechos para emitir, en lo posible, un panorama ampliado de la infección-enfermedad por este virus emergente y, a la vez, se planteó como principal objetivo contribuir, apoyar y trabajar en conjunto con la Secretaría de Salud para enfrentar la epidemia asociada con el SARS-CoV-2 para que se implementen las mejores medidas de atención y tratamiento a fin de mitigar su diseminación en el territorio mexicano. (Spanish) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Revista de Enfermedades Infecciosas en Pediatria is the property of Ediciones Franco S.A. de C.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)