Pathology Assessments of Multiple Organs in Fatal COVID-19 in Intensive Care Unit vs. Non-intensive Care Unit Patients.

Purpose: The objective of the present study was to provide a detailed histopathological description of fatal coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID 19), and compare the lesions in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients. Methods: In this prospective study we included adult patients who died in hospital after presenting with confirmed COVID-19. Multiorgan biopsies were performed. Data generated with light microscopy, transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and RT-PCR assays were reviewed. Results: 20 patients were enrolled in the study and the main pulmonary finding was alveolar damage, which was focal in 11 patients and diffuse in 8 patients. Chronic fibrotic and inflammatory lesions were observed in 18 cases, with acute inflammatory lesions in 12 cases. Diffuse lesions, collapsed alveoli and dystrophic pneumocytes were more frequent in the ICU group (62.5%, vs. 25%; 63%, vs. 55%; 87.5%, vs. 54%). Acute lesions (82%, vs. 37.5%; p = 0.07) with neutrophilic alveolitis (63.6% vs. 0%, respectively; p = 0.01) were observed more frequently in the non-ICU group. Viral RNA was detected in 12 lung biopsies (60%) up to 56 days after disease upset. TEM detected viral particles in the lung and kidney biopsy samples up to 27 days after disease upset. Furthermore, abundant networks of double-membrane vesicles (DMVs, a hallmark of viral replication) were observed in proximal tubular epithelial cells. Conclusion: Lung injury was different in ICU and non-ICU patients. Extrapulmonary damage consisting in kidney and myocardial injury were more frequent in ICU patients. Our TEM experiments provided the first description of SARS-CoV-2-induced DMVs in kidney biopsy samples-a sign of intense viral replication in this organ.

Humoral anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response after two doses of Comirnaty vaccine in nursing home residents by previous infection status.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in older adults. Although the advent of the first vaccines has significantly reduced these rates, data on older adults in clinical trials are scarce. OBJECTIVES: We quantified and compared the humoral response in individuals with vs. without pre-existing seropositivity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in a cohort of 69 patients living in a nursing home and who had received the recommended two doses of the Comirnaty (Pfizer-BioNTech®) vaccine. RESULTS: All 69 patients (100%) tested positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at 2 months post-vaccination. Residents with a pre-vaccination infection had significantly higher titers of anti-spike 1 IgG than those with no prior infection (median [interquartile range]: 55,726 [14463-78852] vs. 1314 [272-1249] arbitrary units, respectively; p < 0.001). The same result was observed for neutralizing antibodies titers (704 [320-1280] vs. 47 [20-40] respectively; p < 0.001). Between the pre-vaccination and post-vaccination periods, for IgG and neutralizing antibodies, we observed a 49 and 8-fold increase respectively. In comparison to the wild-type Receptor Binding Domain (RBD), the binding capacity of these vaccine sera was significantly decreased on the B.1.351 and P.1 variants RBD but not decreased with respect to the B.1.1.7 RBD. Although all nursing home residents developed a humoral response following Comirnaty vaccine, its intensity appeared to depend on the pre-vaccination serological status. CONCLUSION: Our results raise the question of how many doses of vaccine should be administered in older and how long the protection will be effective.

Longitudinal Analysis and Comparison of Six Serological Assays up to Eight Months Post-COVID-19 Diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: There is much data available concerning the initiation of the immune response after SARS-CoV-2 infection, but long-term data are scarce. METHODS: We thus longitudinally evaluated and compared the total and neutralizing immune response of 61 patients to SARS-CoV-2 infection up to eight months after diagnosis by RT-PCR using several commercial assays. RESULTS: Among the 208 samples tested, the percentage of seropositivity was comparable between assays up to four months after diagnosis and then tended to be more heterogeneous between assays (p < 0.05). The percentage of patients with a neutralizing titer decreased from 82% before two months postdiagnosis to 57% after six months. This decrease appeared to be more marked for patients under 65 years old and those not requiring hospitalization. The percentage of serology reversion at 6 months was from 11% with the WANTAI total assay to over 39% with the ABBOTT IgG assay. The neutralizing antibody titers decreased in parallel with the decrease of total antibody titers, with important heterogeneity between assays. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, serological tests show equivalent sensitivity in the first months after the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but their performance later, postinfection, must be considered when interpreting the results.

Comparison of nasopharyngeal and saliva swabs for the detection of RNA SARS-CoV-2 during mass screening (SALICOV study).

In the context of a second wave of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, the use of saliva sampling has become an issue of real importance. SARS-CoV-2 RNA screening was performed on nasopharyngeal and saliva swabs collected from 501 individuals from residential homes for the elderly. The saliva samples were collected at the same time as the nasopharyngeal samples. Nasopharyngeal samples yielded positive results for 26 individuals, only two of whom also tested positive with saliva swabs. In this context, saliva collected by swabbing the fluid is not an ideal sample.

Anti-spike, Anti-nucleocapsid and Neutralizing Antibodies in SARS-CoV-2 Inpatients and Asymptomatic Individuals.

A better understanding of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 immune response is necessary to finely evaluate commercial serological assays but also to predict protection against reinfection and to help the development of vaccines. For this reason, we monitored the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in infected patients. In order to assess the time of seroconversion, we used 151 samples from 30 COVID-19 inpatients and monitored the detection kinetics of anti-S1, anti-S2, anti-RBD and anti-N antibodies with in-house ELISAs. We observed that specific antibodies were detectable in all inpatients 2 weeks post-symptom onset and that the detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid and RBD was more sensitive than the detection of the S1 or S2 subunits. Using retroviral particles pseudotyped with the spike of the SARS-CoV-2, we also monitored the presence of neutralizing antibodies in these samples as well as 25 samples from asymptomatic individuals that were shown SARS-CoV-2 seropositive using commercial serological tests. Neutralizing antibodies reached a plateau 2 weeks post-symptom onset and then declined in the majority of inpatients but they were undetectable in 56% of asymptomatic patients. Our results indicate that the SARS-CoV-2 does not induce a prolonged neutralizing antibody response. They also suggest that induction of neutralizing antibodies is not the only strategy to adopt for the development of a vaccine. Finally, they imply that anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies should be titrated to optimize convalescent plasma therapy.

Comparison of different serological assays for SARS-CoV-2 in real life.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic required the rapid and large-scale deployment of PCR and serological tests in different formats. OBJECTIVES: Real-life evaluation of these tests is needed. Using 168 samples from patients hospitalized for COVID-19, non-hospitalized patients but infected with SARS-CoV-2, patients participating in screening campaigns, and samples from patients with a history of other seasonal coronavirus infections, we evaluated the clinical performance of 5 serological assays widely used worldwide (WANTAI®, BIORAD®, EUROIMMUN®, ABBOTT® and LIAISON®). RESULTS: For hospitalized patients, all these assays showed a sensitivity of 100 % from day 9 after the symptoms onset. On the other hand, sensitivity was much lower for patients who did not require hospitalization for COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (from 91.6 % for WANTAI® to 69 % for LIAISON®). These differences do not seem to be due to the antigens chosen by the manufacturers but more to the test formats (IgG detection versus total antibodies). In addition, more than 50 days after a positive PCR for CoV-2-SARS the proportion of positive patients seem to decrease. We did not observe any significant cross-reactions for these techniques with the four other seasonal coronaviruses. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the evaluation and knowledge of the serological tests used is important and should require an optimized strategy adaptation of the analysis laboratories to best meet patient's expectations in the face of this health crisis.

Dynamic profile for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using four immunochromatographic assays.

In order to fight the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic infection, there is a growing need and demand for diagnostic tools that are complementary and different from the RT-PCR currently in use. Multiple serological tests are or will be very soon available but need to be evaluated and validated. We have thus tested 4 immunochromatographic tests for the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2. In addition, we assessed the kinetics of antibody appearance using these assays in 22 patients after they were tested positive by RT-PCR. We observed great heterogeneity in antibody detection post-symptom onset. The median antibody detection time was between 8 and 10 days according to the manufacturers. All the tests showed a sensitivity of 60 to 80% on day 10 and 100% on day 15. In addition, a single cross-reaction was observed with other human coronavirus infections. Thus, immunochromatographic tests for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may have their place for the diagnostic panel of COVID-19.