Understanding 'hybrid immunity': comparison and predictors of humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Comparing humoral responses in SARS-CoV-2 vaccinees, those with SARS-CoV-2 infection, or combinations of vaccine/infection ('hybrid immunity'), may clarify predictors of vaccine immunogenicity. METHODS: We studied 2660 U.S. Military Health System beneficiaries with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection-alone (n = 705), vaccination-alone (n = 932), vaccine-after-infection (n = 869), and vaccine-breakthrough-infection (n = 154). Peak anti-spike-IgG responses through 183 days were compared, with adjustment for vaccine product, demography, and comorbidities. We excluded those with evidence of clinical or sub-clinical SARS-CoV-2 reinfection from all groups. RESULTS: Multivariable regression results indicated vaccine-after-infection anti-spike-IgG responses were higher than infection-alone (p < 0.01), regardless of prior infection severity. An increased time between infection and vaccination was associated with a greater post-vaccination IgG response (p < 0.01). Vaccination-alone elicited a greater IgG response, but more rapid waning of IgG (p < 0.01), compared to infection-alone (p < 0.01). BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine-receipt was associated with greater IgG responses compared to JNJ-78436735 (p < 0.01), regardless of infection history. Those with vaccine-after-infection or vaccine-breakthrough-infection had a more durable anti-spike-IgG response compared to infection-alone (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine-receipt elicited higher anti-spike-IgG responses than infection-alone, although IgG levels waned faster in those vaccinated (compared to infection-alone). Vaccine-after-infection elicits a greater humoral response compared to vaccine or infection alone; and the timing, but not disease severity, of prior infection predicted these post-vaccination IgG responses. While differences between groups were small in magnitude, these results offer insights into vaccine immunogenicity variations that may help inform vaccination timing strategies.

A machine learning approach identifies distinct early-symptom cluster phenotypes which correlate with hospitalization, failure to return to activities, and prolonged COVID-19 symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Accurate COVID-19 prognosis is a critical aspect of acute and long-term clinical management. We identified discrete clusters of early stage-symptoms which may delineate groups with distinct disease severity phenotypes, including risk of developing long-term symptoms and associated inflammatory profiles. METHODS: 1,273 SARS-CoV-2 positive U.S. Military Health System beneficiaries with quantitative symptom scores (FLU-PRO Plus) were included in this analysis. We employed machine-learning approaches to identify symptom clusters and compared risk of hospitalization, long-term symptoms, as well as peak CRP and IL-6 concentrations. RESULTS: We identified three distinct clusters of participants based on their FLU-PRO Plus symptoms: cluster 1 ("Nasal cluster") is highly correlated with reporting runny/stuffy nose and sneezing, cluster 2 ("Sensory cluster") is highly correlated with loss of smell or taste, and cluster 3 ("Respiratory/Systemic cluster") is highly correlated with the respiratory (cough, trouble breathing, among others) and systemic (body aches, chills, among others) domain symptoms. Participants in the Respiratory/Systemic cluster were twice as likely as those in the Nasal cluster to have been hospitalized, and 1.5 times as likely to report that they had not returned-to-activities, which remained significant after controlling for confounding covariates (P < 0.01). Respiratory/Systemic and Sensory clusters were more likely to have symptoms at six-months post-symptom-onset (P = 0.03). We observed higher peak CRP and IL-6 in the Respiratory/Systemic cluster (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We identified early symptom profiles potentially associated with hospitalization, return-to-activities, long-term symptoms, and inflammatory profiles. These findings may assist in patient prognosis, including prediction of long COVID risk.

Persistent COVID-19 Symptoms at 6 Months After Onset and the Role of Vaccination Before or After SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: Understanding the factors associated with post-COVID conditions is important for prevention. Objective: To identify characteristics associated with persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms and to describe post-COVID-19 medical encounters. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from the Epidemiology, Immunology, and Clinical Characteristics of Emerging Infectious Diseases With Pandemic Potential (EPICC) study implemented in the US military health system (MHS); MHS beneficiaries aged 18 years or older who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from February 28, 2020, through December 31, 2021, were analyzed, with 1-year follow-up. Exposures: SARS-CoV-2 infection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes analyzed included survey-reported symptoms through 6 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision diagnosis categories reported in medical records 6 months following SARS-CoV-2 infection vs 3 months before infection. Results: More than half of the 1832 participants in these analyses were aged 18 to 44 years (1226 [66.9%]; mean [SD] age, 40.5 [13.7] years), were male (1118 [61.0%]), were unvaccinated at the time of their infection (1413 [77.1%]), and had no comorbidities (1290 [70.4%]). A total of 728 participants (39.7%) had illness that lasted 28 days or longer (28-89 days: 364 [19.9%]; ≥90 days: 364 [19.9%]). Participants who were unvaccinated prior to infection (risk ratio [RR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.04-1.85), reported moderate (RR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.47-2.22) or severe (RR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.80-2.81) initial illnesses, had more hospitalized days (RR per each day of hospitalization, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03), and had a Charlson Comorbidity Index score of 5 or greater (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.01-2.37) were more likely to report 28 or more days of symptoms. Among unvaccinated participants, postinfection vaccination was associated with a 41% lower risk of reporting symptoms at 6 months (RR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.40-0.89). Participants had higher risk of pulmonary (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.40-2.84), diabetes (RR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.00-2.13), neurological (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.02-1.64), and mental health-related medical encounters (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62) at 6 months after symptom onset than at baseline (before SARS-CoV-2 infection). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, more severe acute illness, a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and being unvaccinated were associated with a higher risk of reporting COVID-19 symptoms lasting 28 days or more. Participants with COVID-19 were more likely to seek medical care for diabetes, pulmonary, neurological, and mental health-related illness for at least 6 months after onset compared with their pre-COVID baseline health care use patterns. These findings may inform the risk-benefit ratio of COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Antigenic cartography of well-characterized human sera shows SARS-CoV-2 neutralization differences based on infection and vaccination history.

The rapid emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants challenges vaccination strategies. Here, we collected 201 serum samples from persons with a single infection or multiple vaccine exposures, or both. We measured their neutralization titers against 15 natural variants and 7 variants with engineered spike mutations and analyzed antigenic diversity. Antigenic maps of primary infection sera showed that Omicron sublineages BA.2, BA.4/BA.5, and BA.2.12.1 are distinct from BA.1 and more similar to Beta/Gamma/Mu variants. Three mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations increased neutralization of BA.1 more than BA.4/BA.5 or BA.2.12.1. BA.1 post-vaccination infection elicited higher neutralization titers to all variants than three vaccinations alone, although with less neutralization to BA.2.12.1 and BA.4/BA.5. Those with BA.1 infection after two or three vaccinations had similar neutralization titer magnitude and antigenic recognition. Accounting for antigenic differences among variants when interpreting neutralization titers can aid the understanding of complex patterns in humoral immunity that informs the selection of future COVID-19 vaccine strains.

COVID-19 Patient-Reported Symptoms Using FLU-PRO Plus in a Cohort Study: Associations With Infecting Genotype, Vaccine History, and Return to Health.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are an important measure of the full burden of coronavirus disease (COVID). Here, we examine how (1) infecting genotype and COVID-19 vaccination correlate with inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) Plus score, including by symptom domains, and (2) FLU-PRO Plus scores predict return to usual activities and health. Methods: The epidemiology, immunology, and clinical characteristics of pandemic infectious diseases (EPICC) study was implemented to describe the short- and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a longitudinal, observational cohort. Multivariable linear regression models were run with FLU-PRO Plus scores as the outcome variable, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated effects of FLU-PRO Plus scores on return to usual health or activities. Results: Among the 764 participants included in this analysis, 63% were 18-44 years old, 40% were female, and 51% were White. Being fully vaccinated was associated with lower total scores (ß = -0.39; 95% CI, -0.57 to -0.21). The Delta variant was associated with higher total scores (ß = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.45). Participants with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores were less likely to report returning to usual health and activities (health: hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.57; activities: HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.67). Fully vaccinated participants were more likely to report returning to usual activities (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.48). Conclusions: Full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with decreased severity of patient-reported symptoms across multiple domains, which in turn is likely to be associated with earlier return to usual activities. In addition, infection with the Delta variant was associated with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores than previous variants, even after controlling for vaccination status.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

COVID-19 patient reported symptoms using FLU-PRO Plus in a cohort study: associations with infecting genotype, vaccine history, and return-to-health

Background Patient reported outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection are an important measure of the full burden of COVID. Here, we examine how 1) infecting genotype and COVID-19 vaccination correlate with FLU-PRO Plus score, including by symptom domains, and 2) FLU-PRO Plus scores predict return to usual activities and health. Methods The EPICC study was implemented to describe the short- and long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a longitudinal, observational cohort. Multivariable linear regression models were run with FLU-PRO Plus scores as the outcome variable and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models evaluated effects of FLU-PRO Plus scores on return to usual health or activities. Results Among the 764 participants included in this analysis, 63% were 18-44 years old, 40% were female, and 51% were white. Being fully vaccinated was associated with lower total scores (β=-0.39 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57, -0.21)). The Delta variant was associated with higher total scores (β=0.25 (95% CI 0.05, 0.45)). Participants with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores were less likely to report returning to usual health and activities (Health: hazard ratio (HR) 0.46 (95% CI 0.37, 0.57);Activities: HR 0.56 (95% CI 0.47, 0.67)). Fully vaccinated participants were more likely to report returning to usual activities (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.04, 1.48)). Conclusions Full SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is associated with decreased severity of patient-reported symptoms across multiple domains, which in turn is likely to be associated with earlier return to usual activities. In addition, infection with the Delta variant was associated with higher FLU-PRO Plus scores than previous variants, even after controlling for vaccination status.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Deconstructing the Treatment Effect of Remdesivir in the Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1: Implications for Critical Care Resource Utilization.

BACKGROUND: The Adaptive Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Trial-1 (ACTT-1) found that remdesivir therapy hastened recovery in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, but the pathway for this improvement was not explored. We investigated how the dynamics of clinical progression changed along 4 pathways: recovery, improvement in respiratory therapy requirement, deterioration in respiratory therapy requirement, and death. METHODS: We analyzed trajectories of daily ordinal severity scores reflecting oxygen requirements of 1051 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 who participated in ACTT-1. We developed competing risks models that estimate the effect of remdesivir therapy on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration, and multistate models that utilize the entirety of each patient's clinical course to characterize the effect of remdesivir on progression along the 4 pathways above. RESULTS: Based on a competing risks analysis, remdesivir reduced clinical deterioration (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: .59-.91) and increased clinical improvement (HR, 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.39) relative to baseline. Our multistate models indicate that remdesivir inhibits worsening to ordinal scores of greater clinical severity among patients on room air or low-flow oxygen (HR, 0.74; 95% CI: .57-.94) and among patients receiving mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen/noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (HR, 0.73; 95% CI: .53-1.00) at baseline. We also find that remdesivir reduces expected intensive care respiratory therapy utilization among patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir speeds time to recovery by preventing worsening to clinical states that would extend the course of hospitalization and increase intensive respiratory support, thereby reducing the overall demand for hospital care.

Anatomical Site, Viral Ribonucleic Acid Abundance, and Time of Sampling Correlate With Molecular Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 During Infection.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are the standard for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. If less invasive alternatives to NP swabs (eg, oropharyngeal [OP] or nasal swabs [NS]) are comparably sensitive, the use of these techniques may be preferable in terms of comfort, convenience, and safety. METHODS: This study compared the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in swab samples collected on the same day among participants with at least one positive PCR test. RESULTS: Overall, 755 participants had at least one set of paired swabs. Concordance between NP and other swab types was 75% (NS), 72% (OP), 54% (rectal swabs [RS]), and 78% (NS/OP combined). Kappa values were moderate for the NS, OP, and NS/OP comparisons (0.50, 0.45, and 0.54, respectively). Highest sensitivity relative to NP (0.87) was observed with a combination of NS/OP tests (positive if either NS or OP was positive). Sensitivity of the non-NP swab types was highest in the first week postsymptom onset and decreased thereafter. Similarly, virus RNA quantity was highest in the NP swabs as compared with NS, OP, and RS within two weeks postsymptom onset. OP and NS performance decreased as virus RNA quantity decreased. No differences were noted between NS specimens collected at home or in clinic. CONCLUSIONS: NP swabs detected more SARS-CoV-2 cases than non-NP swabs, and the sensitivity of the non-NP swabs decreased with time postsymptom onset. While other swabs may be simpler to collect, NP swabs present the best chance of detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA, which is essential for clinical care as well as genomic surveillance.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load Does Not Predict Incident Venous Thromboembolism in COVID-19

Background The risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19 warrant further study. We leveraged a cohort in the Military Health System (MHS) to identify clinical and virological predictors of incident deep venous thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and other VTE within 90-days after COVID-19 onset. Methods PCR or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected MHS beneficiaries were enrolled via nine military treatment facilities (MTF) through April 2021. Case characteristics were derived from interview and review of the electronic medical record (EMR) through one-year follow-up in outpatients and inpatients. qPCR was performed on upper respiratory swab specimens collected post-enrollment to estimate SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The frequency of incident DVT, PE, or other VTE by 90-days post-COVID-19 onset were ascertained by ICD-10 code. Correlates of 90-day VTE were determined through multivariate logistic regression, including age and sampling-time-adjusted log10-SARS-CoV-2 GE/reaction as a priori predictors in addition to other demographic and clinical covariates which were selected through stepwise regression. Results 1473 participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled through April 2021. 21% of study participants were inpatients;the mean age was 41 years (SD = 17.0 years). The median Charlson Comorbidity Index score was 0 (IQR = 0 - 1, range = 0 - 13). 27 (1.8%) had a prior history of VTE. Mean maximum viral load observed was 1.65 x 107 genome equivalents/reaction. 36 (2.4%) of all SARS-CoV-2 cases (including inpatients and outpatients), 29 (9.5%) of COVID-19 inpatients, and 7 (0.6%) of outpatients received an ICD-10 diagnosis of any VTE within 90 days after COVID-19 onset. Logistic regression identified hospitalization (aOR = 11.1, p = 0.003) and prior VTE (aOR = 6.2 , p = 0.009) as independent predictors of VTE within 90 days of symptom onset. Neither age (aOR = 1.0, p = 0.50), other demographic covariates, other comorbidities, nor SARS-CoV-2 viral load (aOR = 1.1, p = 0.60) were associated with 90-day VTE. Conclusion VTE was relatively frequent in this MHS cohort. SARS-CoV-2 viral load did not increase the odds of 90-day VTE. Rather, being hospitalized for SARS-CoV-2 and prior VTE history remained the strongest predictors of this complication. Disclosures Simon Pollett, MBBS, Astra Zeneca (Other Financial or Material Support, HJF, in support of USU IDCRP, funded under a CRADA to augment the conduct of an unrelated Phase III COVID-19 vaccine trial sponsored by AstraZeneca as part of USG response (unrelated work)) Ryan C. Maves, MD, EMD Serono (Advisor or Review Panel member)Heron Therapeutics (Advisor or Review Panel member) David A. Lindholm, MD, American Board of Internal Medicine (Individual(s) Involved: Self): Member of Auxiliary R&D Infectious Disease Item-Writer Task Force. No financial support received. No exam questions will be disclosed ., Other Financial or Material Support David Tribble, M.D., DrPH, Astra Zeneca (Other Financial or Material Support, HJF, in support of USU IDCRP, funded under a CRADA to augment the conduct of an unrelated Phase III COVID-19 vaccine trial sponsored by AstraZeneca as part of USG response (unrelated work))

COVID-19 Outcomes Among US Military Health System Beneficiaries Include Complications Across Multiple Organ Systems and Substantial Functional Impairment.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated clinical outcomes, functional burden, and complications 1 month after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection in a prospective US Military Health System (MHS) cohort of active duty, retiree, and dependent populations using serial patient-reported outcome surveys and electronic medical record (EMR) review. METHODS: MHS beneficiaries presenting at 9 sites across the United States with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test, a COVID-19-like illness, or a high-risk SARS-CoV-2 exposure were eligible for enrollment. Medical history and clinical outcomes were collected through structured interviews and International Classification of Diseases-based EMR review. Risk factors associated with hospitalization were determined by multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 1202 participants were enrolled. There were 1070 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 132 SARS-CoV-2-negative participants. In the first month post-symptom onset among the SARS-CoV-2-positive cases, there were 212 hospitalizations, 80% requiring oxygen, 20 ICU admissions, and 10 deaths. Risk factors for COVID-19-associated hospitalization included race (increased for Asian, Black, and Hispanic compared with non-Hispanic White), age (age 45-64 and 65+ compared with <45), and obesity (BMI≥30 compared with BMI<30). Over 2% of survey respondents reported the need for supplemental oxygen, and 31% had not returned to normal daily activities at 1 month post-symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: Older age, reporting Asian, Black, or Hispanic race/ethnicity, and obesity are associated with SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization. A proportion of acute SARS-CoV-2 infections require long-term oxygen therapy; the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on short-term functional status was substantial. A significant number of MHS beneficiaries had not yet returned to normal activities by 1 month.

Durability of SARS-CoV-2-Specific T-Cell Responses at 12 Months Postinfection.

BACKGROUND: Characterizing the longevity and quality of cellular immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) enhances understanding of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immunity that influences clinical outcomes. Prior studies suggest SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells are present in peripheral blood 10 months after infection. Analysis of the function, durability, and diversity of cellular response long after natural infection, over a range of ages and disease phenotypes, is needed to identify preventative and therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We identified participants in our multisite longitudinal, prospective cohort study 12 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection representing a range of disease severity. We investigated function, phenotypes, and frequency of T cells specific for SARS-CoV-2 using intracellular cytokine staining and spectral flow cytometry, and compared magnitude of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and T cells were detected 12 months postinfection. Severe acute illness was associated with higher frequencies of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T cells and antibodies at 12 months. In contrast, polyfunctional and cytotoxic T cells responsive to SARS-CoV-2 were identified in participants over a wide spectrum of disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection induces polyfunctional memory T cells detectable at 12 months postinfection, with higher frequency noted in those who experienced severe disease.

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) Instrument in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: The inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus) is a patient-reported outcome data collection instrument assessing symptoms of viral respiratory tract infections across 8 body systems. This study evaluated the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus in a study enrolling individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Data from a prospective cohort study (EPICC) in US Military Health System beneficiaries evaluated for COVID-19 was utilized. Adults with symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection with FLU-PRO Plus survey information within 1 week of symptom onset were included. Reliability of FLU-PRO Plus was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC; 2 days' reproducibility). Known-groups validity was assessed using patient global assessment (PGA) of disease severity. Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (day 1-6/7). RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-six SARS-CoV-2-positive participants were included in the analysis. Reliability among those who reported no change in their symptoms from one day to the next was high for most domains (ICC range, 0.68-0.94 for day 1 to day 2). Construct validity was demonstrated by moderate to high correlation between the PGA rating of disease severity and domain and total scores (eg, total scores correlation: 0.69 [influenza-like illness severity], 0.69 [interference in daily activities], and -0.58 [physical health]). In addition, FLU-PRO Plus demonstrated good known-groups validity, with increasing domain and total scores observed with increasing severity ratings. CONCLUSIONS: FLU-PRO Plus performs well in measuring signs and symptoms in SARS-CoV-2 infection with excellent construct validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness to change. Standardized data collection instruments facilitate meta-analyses, vaccine effectiveness studies, and other COVID-19 research activities.

Clinical, Immunological, and Virological SARS-CoV-2 Phenotypes in Obese and Nonobese Military Health System Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: The mechanisms underlying the association between obesity and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity remain unclear. After verifying that obesity was a correlate of severe COVID-19 in US Military Health System (MHS) beneficiaries, we compared immunological and virological phenotypes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in both obese and nonobese participants. METHODS: COVID-19-infected MHS beneficiaries were enrolled, and anthropometric, clinical, and demographic data were collected. We compared the SARS-CoV-2 peak IgG humoral response and reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction viral load in obese and nonobese patients, stratified by hospitalization, utilizing logistic regression models. RESULTS: Data from 511 COVID-19 patients were analyzed, among whom 24% were obese and 14% severely obese. Obesity was independently associated with hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-3.18) and need for oxygen therapy (aOR, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.61-7.11). In outpatients, severely obese had a log10 (1.89) higher nucleocapsid (N1) genome equivalents (GE)/reaction and log10 (2.62) higher N2 GE/reaction than nonobese (P = 0.03 and P < .001, respectively). We noted a correlation between body mass index and peak anti-spike protein IgG in inpatients and outpatients (coefficient = 5.48, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Obesity is a strong correlate of COVID-19 severity in MHS beneficiaries. These findings offer new pathophysiological insights into the relationship between obesity and COVID-19 severity.

Post-COVID-19 Pulmonary Fibrosis: Novel Sequelae of the Current Pandemic.

Since the initial identification of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in December 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has become a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. As effective vaccines and treatments begin to emerge, it will become increasingly important to identify and proactively manage the long-term respiratory complications of severe disease. The patterns of imaging abnormalities coupled with data from prior coronavirus outbreaks suggest that patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia are likely at an increased risk of progression to interstitial lung disease (ILD) and chronic pulmonary vascular disease. In this paper, we briefly review the definition, classification, and underlying pathophysiology of interstitial lung disease (ILD). We then review the current literature on the proposed mechanisms of lung injury in severe COVID-19 infection, and outline potential viral- and immune-mediated processes implicated in the development of post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis (PCPF). Finally, we address patient-specific and iatrogenic risk factors that could lead to PCPF and discuss strategies for reducing risk of pulmonary complications/sequelae.