SARS-CoV-2 antibody changes in patients receiving COVID-19 convalescent plasma from normal and vaccinated donors.

Vaccination has been shown to stimulate remarkably high antibody levels in donors who have recovered from COVID-19. Our objective was to measure patient antibody levels before and after transfusion with COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma (CCP) and compare the antibody levels following transfusion of CCP from vaccinated and nonvaccinated donors. Plasma samples before and after transfusion were obtained from 25 recipients of CCP and COVID-19 antibody levels measured. Factors that effect changes in antibody levels were examined. In the 21 patients who received CCP from nonvaccinated donors, modest increases in antibody levels were observed. Patients who received two units were more likely to seroconvert than those receiving just one unit. The strongest predictor of changes in patient antibody level was the CCP dose, calculated by the unit volume multiplied by the donor antibody level. Using patient plasma volume and donor antibody level, the post-transfusion antibody level could be predicted with reasonable accuracy(R2> 0.90). In contrast, the 4 patients who received CCP from vaccinated donors all had dramatic increases in antibody levels following transfusion of a single unit. In this subset of recipients, antibody levels observed after transfusion of CCP were comparable to those seen in donors who had fully recovered from COVID-19. If available, CCP from vaccinated donors with very high antibody levels should be used. One unit of CCP from vaccinated donors increases patient antibody levels much more than 1 or 2 units of CCP from unvaccinated donors.

Prevalence of maternal obesity at delivery and association with maternal and neonatal outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Maternal obesity has been linked to adverse outcomes for mothers and their offspring, including, but not limited to gestational hypertension (gHTN), gestational diabetes (GDM), pre-eclampsia, fetal macrosomia, and emergency cesarean section. Recent investigations have also shown that obesity, as defined by a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30, especially severe obesity (BMI ≥ 40), is a risk factor for both hospitalization and death from COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to determine the prevalence and association of maternal obesity at delivery with adverse antenatal, intrapartum, and neonatal outcomes in a cohort of consecutive delivering patients at a tertiary care center in Iowa from May to September 2020. A secondary objective is to determine if maternal obesity has any relationship to past or current COVID-19 infection status at the time of delivery. This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study to analyze obstetric outcomes among COVID-19 infected and uninfected patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study using demographic and clinical data obtained from the electronic medical record. Excess plasma was collected from routine blood samples obtained at delivery admission to determine the seroprevalence of COVID-19 antibody using the DiaSorin and Roche antibody assays. Frequency variables were each calculated separately, and a comparison of maternal and neonatal outcomes was conducted using the generalized linear mixed modeling (GLMM) framework to account for varying distributions (normal and binary). RESULTS: 1001 women delivered during the study period and 89.7% met criteria for being overweight or obese; 17.9% met criteria for severe obesity. Women with obesity had 49.8% lower odds of possessing private insurance, and women with severe obesity were less than half as likely to plan to breastfeed at the time of discharge. Women with obesity of any kind had a significantly increased odds of GDM and gHTN, and an increased risk of an infant with macrosomia, hypoglycemia, and NICU admission. No significant association was found between BMI and COVID-19 infection or disease severity. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into obstetric complications facing women with obesity, especially those with severe obesity. This report serves to highlight potential challenges, such as insurance status and labor complications, that impact women of high BMI to a greater degree when compared to their normal-weight counterparts.

Utilization of anti-factor Xa levels to guide reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: Oral factor Xa inhibitors (FXaIs) are increasingly utilized for outpatient anticoagulation therapy; however, laboratory monitoring is not routinely used to assess the safety and efficacy of these agents. We aimed to evaluate the role of chromogenic anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) assays in the emergency department (ED) in the setting of patients with an acute bleed or requiring emergent procedures. METHODS: A retrospective review of anti-Xa levels obtained in the ED between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2020, was completed. Data were collected to describe the clinical setting of anti-Xa level collection, oral FXaIs used before admission, administration of reversal agents, and patient disposition to further characterize the role of anti-Xa levels in the management of rivaroxaban and apixaban reversal. RESULTS: Thirty anti-Xa levels were included in the final analysis. The median time from sample collection to anti-Xa assay result was 45.9 minutes (interquartile range, 35.3-54.7 minutes). Eleven patients (37%) received anticoagulation reversal after their anti-Xa levels were determined. Anticoagulation reversal agents included either activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCCs) or prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs). Anti-Xa levels were collected in 2 patients who had received PCCs before arrival at our ED. Of the patients with anti-Xa levels below 30 ng/mL, none received aPCCs or PCCs after their anti-Xa levels were determined. Anti-Xa assays were used to rule out the presence of FXaIs in 3 patients. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates the novel role of anti-Xa levels in managing patients with an emergent need for reversal in the ED. The assay may be used to rule out the presence of oral FXaIs and avoid unnecessary administrations of anticoagulation reversal agents.

Experience With Pretravel Testing for SARS-CoV-2 at an Academic Medical Center.

International travel has been a significant factor in the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many countries and airlines have implemented travel restrictions to limit the spread of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2. A common requirement has been a negative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction performed by a clinical laboratory within 48 to 72 hours of departure. A more recent travel mandate for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 immunoglobulin M serology testing was instituted by the Chinese government on October 29, 2020. Pretravel testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 raises complications in terms of cost, turnaround time, and follow-up of positive results. In this report, we describe the experience of a multidisciplinary collaboration to develop a workflow for pretravel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and immunoglobulin M serology testing at an academic medical center. The workflow primarily involved self-payment by patients and preferred retrieval of results by the patient through the electronic health record patient portal (Epic MyChart). A total of 556 unique patients underwent pretravel reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing, with 13 (2.4%) having one or more positive results, a rate similar to that for reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction testing performed for other protocol-driven asymptomatic screening (eg, inpatient admissions, preprocedural) at our medical center. For 5 of 13 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction positive samples, the traveler had clinical history, prior reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction positive, and high cycle thresholds values on pretravel testing consistent with remote infection and minimal transmission risk. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 immunoglobulin M was performed on only 24 patients but resulted in 2 likely false positives. Overall, our experience at an academic medical center shows the challenge with pretravel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 testing.

The effect of the Covid-19 shutdown on glycemic testing and control.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a halt to in-person ambulatory care. We evaluated how the reduction in access to care affected HbA1c testing and patient HbA1c levels. METHODS: HbA1c data from 11 institutions were extracted to compare testing volume and the percentage of abnormal results between a pre-pandemic period (January-June 2019, period 1) and a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic period (Jan-June 2020, period 2). HbA1c results greater than 6.4% were categorized as abnormal. RESULTS: HbA1C testing volumes decreased in March, April and May by 23, 61 and 40% relative to the corresponding months in 2019. The percentage of abnormal results increased in April, May and June (25, 23, 9%). On average, we found that the frequency of abnormal results increased by 0.31% for every 1% decrease in testing volume (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSION: HbA1c testing volume for outpatients decreased by up to 70% during the early months of the pandemic. The decrease in testing was associated with an increase in abnormal HbA1c results.

Practical Considerations for Implementation of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Testing in the Clinical Laboratory: Experience at an Academic Medical Center.

Molecular techniques, especially reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), have been the gold standard for the diagnosis of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Serological tests for SARS-CoV-2 have been widely used for serosurveys, epidemiology, and identification of potential convalescent plasma donors. However, the clinical role of serologic testing is still limited and evolving. In this report, we describe the experience of selecting, validating, and implementing SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing for clinical purposes at an academic medical center in a rural state. Successful implementation involved close collaboration between pathology, infectious diseases, and outpatient clinics. The most common clinician concerns were appropriateness/utility of testing, patient charges/insurance coverage, and assay specificity. In analyzing test utilization, serologic testing in the first month after go-live was almost entirely outpatient and appeared to be strongly driven by patient interest (including health care workers and others in high-risk occupations for exposure to SARS-CoV-2), with little evidence that the results impacted clinical decision-making. Test volumes for serology declined steadily through October 31, 2020, with inpatient ordering assuming a steadily higher percentage of the total. In a 5-month period, SARS-CoV-2 serology test volumes amounted to only 1.3% of that of reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Unlike reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction, supply chain challenges and reagent availability were not major issues for serology testing. We also discuss the most recent challenge of requirements for SARS-CoV-2 testing in international travel protocols. Overall, our experience at an academic medical center shows that SARS-CoV-2 serology testing assumed a limited clinical role.

Exponential increase in neutralizing and spike specific antibodies following vaccination of COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors.

BACKGROUND: With the recent approval of COVID-19 vaccines, recovered COVID-19 subjects who are vaccinated may be ideal candidates to donate COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). CASE SERIES: Eleven recovered COVID-19 patients were screened to donate CCP. All had molecularly confirmed COVID-19, and all but one were antibody positive by chemiluminescence immunoassay (DiaSorin) prior to vaccination. All were tested again for antibodies 11-21 days after they were vaccinated (Pfizer/Moderna). All showed dramatic increases (~50-fold) in spike-specific antibody levels and had at least a 20-fold increase in the IC50 neutralizing antibody titer based on plaque reduction neutralization testing (PRNT). The spike-specific antibody levels following vaccination were significantly higher than those seen in any non-vaccinated COVID-19 subjects tested to date at our facility. CONCLUSION: Spike-specific and neutralizing antibodies demonstrated dramatic increases following a single vaccination after COVID-19 infection, which significantly exceeded values seen with COVID-19 infection alone. Recovered COVID-19 subjects who are vaccinated may make ideal candidates for CCP donation.

Side-Effects of COVID-19 on Patient Care: An INR Story.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented reduced access to patient care due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to diagnostic or screening tests, prescription medications, and treatment for an ongoing condition. In the context of clinical management for venous thromboembolism, this could result in suboptimal therapy with warfarin. We aimed to determine the impact of the pandemic on utilization of International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing and the percentage of high and low results. METHODS: INR data from 11 institutions were extracted to compare testing volume and the percentage of INR results ≥3.5 and ≤1.5 between a pre-pandemic period (January-June 2019, period 1) and a portion of the COVID-19 pandemic period (January-June 2020, period 2). The analysis was performed for inpatient and outpatient cohorts. RESULTS: Testing volumes showed relatively little change in January and February, followed by a significant decrease in March, April, and May, and then returned to baseline in June. Outpatient testing showed a larger percentage decrease in testing volume compared to inpatient testing. At 10 of the 11 study sites, we observed an increase in the percentage of abnormal high INR results as test volumes decreased, primarily among outpatients. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted INR testing among outpatients which may be attributable to several factors. Increased supratherapeutic INR results during the pandemic period when there was reduced laboratory utilization and access to care is concerning because of the risk of adverse bleeding events in this group of patients. This could be mitigated in the future by offering drive-through testing and/or widespread implementation of home INR monitoring.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection during Pregnancy in a Rural Midwest All-delivery Cohort and Associated Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) among pregnant patients at the time of delivery in a rural Midwest tertiary care hospital and to examine demographics, clinical factors, and maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN: This prospective cohort study included all delivering patients between May 1 and September 22, 2020 at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. Plasma SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing was performed. SARS-CoV-2 viral reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results and maternal and neonatal outcomes were collected from the electronic medical record. Data were analyzed using univariate statistical methods with clustering for multiple births. RESULTS: In total, 1,000 patients delivered between May 1 and September 22, 2020. Fifty-eight (5.8%) were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive. Twenty-three also tested viral positive during pregnancy. Three of 1,000 (0.3%) were viral positive on admission but antibody negative. The median age was 30 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 26-33 years) and body mass index was 31.75 kg/m2 (IQR 27.7-37.5 kg/m2). The cesarean delivery rate was 34.0%. The study population was primarily white (71.6%); however, 41.0% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients identified as Black, 18.0% as Hispanic/Latino, 3.3% as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and only 27.9% as White (p < 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 infection was more likely in patients without private insurance (p = 0.0243). Adverse maternal and/or neonatal outcomes were not more likely in patients with evidence of infection during pregnancy. Two SARS-CoV-2 infected patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. There were no maternal deaths during the study period. CONCLUSION: In this largely rural Midwest population, 6.1% of delivering patients had evidence of past or current SARS-CoV-2 infection. Rates of SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy were higher among racial and ethnic minorities and patients without private insurance. The SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and their neonates were not found to be at increased risk for adverse outcomes. KEY POINTS: · SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate in pregnant population in Iowa is 5.8%.. · Infections are higher among minorities, non-English speakers, and patients without private insurance.. · No increased adverse maternal/neonatal outcomes observed for SARS-CoV-2 infected mothers..

Head-to-Head Comparison of Two SARS-CoV-2 Serology Assays.

BACKGROUND: While molecular techniques remain the gold standard for diagnosis of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, serological tests have the unique potential to ascertain how much of the population has been exposed to the COVID-19 pathogen. There have been limited published studies to date documenting the performance of SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. METHODS: We compared the DiaSorin Liaison SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG and Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays using 228 samples spanning patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2, patients with compatible symptoms but negative PCR, pre-COVID specimens, and potential cross-reactives. RESULTS: Both assays detected antibodies in 18/19 samples collected at least one week after a positive PCR result. Neither method consistently detected antibodies in specimens collected within one week of a positive PCR result (sensitivity < 50%), but antibodies were detected by only Roche in four samples in this time frame. Using 139 pre-COVID and 35 PCR-negative samples, the Roche and DiaSorin assays demonstrated specificities of 100.0% and 98.9%, respectively. Neither assay demonstrated cross-reactivity from other coronaviruses (229E, HKU1, NL63, OC43), respiratory pathogens (adenovirus, metapneumovirus, rhinovirus/enterovirus), or antibodies to other viruses (HIV, EBV, CMV, HBV, HCV, HAV). DISCUSSION: Overall, the qualitative interpretations afforded by the Roche and DiaSorin assays agreed for 97% of samples evaluated. Minor discrepancies in sensitivity and specificity were observed between methods, with the differences in specificity more clinically significant for our low-prevalence population. For the DiaSorin assay, all disagreements with the Roche assay occurred in samples with quantitative signals near the cut-off determining positivity.