Can the Prognosis of COVID-19 Disease Be Determined by Fecal Markers and Cytokines?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected the entire world, and has a variety of clinical presentations. The aim of this study is to determine the relationships of fecal cytokines and markers with the symptoms and prognosis of children with COVID-19 infection, and to identify noninvasive markers during follow-up. In a cohort of 40 COVID-19-positive children and 40 healthy controls, fecal cytokines and markers were examined in stool samples. A binary logistic model was used to assess the potential of cytokines as risk factors for hospitalization. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. A P-value <0.05 was accepted as statistically significant. Levels of fecal lysozyme, myeloperoxidase, hemoglobin, and interleukin-5 (IL-5) (P < 0.05) were significantly higher among the patients than controls. In a logistic regression analysis, fecal IL-2 (OR = 3.83; 95% CI: 1.44-15.92), IL-4 (OR = 2.96; 95% CI: 1.09-12.93), IL-5 (OR = 4.56; 95% CI: 1.18-27.88), IL-10 (OR = 2.71 95% CI: 1.19-7.94), interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) (OR = 4.03; 95% CI: 1.44-15.73), IFN-α (OR = 3.02; 95% CI: 1.08-11.65), calcium-binding protein B S100 (S100 B) (OR = 4.78; 95% CI: 1.31-27.82), neutrophil elastase (NE) 2 (OR = 4.07; 95% CI: 1.17-19.69), and matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1) (OR = 3.67; 95% CI: 1.1-18.82) levels were significantly higher in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection than outpatients. We demonstrated that various fecal cytokines and markers were increased in patients who had COVID-19. Fecal IL-2, IL-4, IL-5, IL-10, IFN-γ, IFN-α, S100 B, NE, and MMP-1 levels were significantly elevated in hospitalized patients. We suggest that the fecal and serum levels of cytokines could be used to predict the prognosis of COVID-19 disease, although more studies are needed to confirm this.

One-Year Post-Vaccination Longitudinal Follow-Up of Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Anti-Spike Total Antibodies in Health Care Professionals and Evaluation of Correlation with Surrogate Neutralization Test.

Numerous vaccines have been generated to decrease the morbidity and mortality of COVID-19. This study aims to evaluate the immunogenicity of the heterologous boosts by BioNTech against homologous boosts by CoronaVac at three-month intervals in two health care worker (HCW) cohorts, with or without prior COVID-19, for one year post-vaccination. This is a prospective cohort study in which the humoral responses of 386 HCWs were followed-up longitudinally in six main groups according to their previous COVID-19 exposure and vaccination status. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-RBD total antibody levels were measured and SARS-CoV-2 neutralization antibody (NAbs) responses against the ancestral Wuhan and the Omicron variant were evaluated comparatively using international standard serum for Wuhan and Omicron, as well as with the aid of a conversion tool. The anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike-RBD total Ab and Nab difference between with and without prior COVID-19, three months after two-dose primary vaccination with CoronaVac, was statistically significant (p = 0.001). In the subsequent follow-ups, this difference was not observed between the groups. Those previously infected (PI) and non-previously infected (NPI) groups receiving BioNTech as the third dose had higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike total Ab levels (14.2-fold and 17.4-fold, respectively, p = 0.001) and Nab responses (against Wuhan and Omicron) than those receiving CoronaVac. Ab responses after booster vaccination decreased significantly in all groups at the ninth-month follow-up (p < 0.05); however, Abs were still higher in all booster received groups than that in the primary vaccination. Abs were above the protective level at the twelfth-month measurement in the entire of the second BioNTech received group as the fourth dose of vaccination. In the one-year follow-up period, the increased incidence of COVID-19 in the groups vaccinated with two or three doses of CoronaVac compared with the groups vaccinated with BioNTech as a booster suggested that continuing the heterologous CoronaVac/BioNTech vaccination, revised according to current SARS-CoV-2 variants and with at least a six-month interval booster would be an effective and safe strategy for protection against COVID-19, particularly in health care workers.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Antibody Levels with Clinical/Laboratory Characteristics in COVID-19 Patients: Data from a Turkish Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 causes clinical manifestations ranging from asymptomatic infection to multi-organ failure. It is reported that those with severe disease have higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers compared to asymptomatic or mild cases. We evaluated the correlation of antibody responses with laboratory and clinical indicators in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Seventy-nine male and 66 female patients (mean age: 39) with at least one positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test and SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody result after acute infection were included. RESULTS: Seventy-six (52%), 45 (31%), and 24 (17%) patients had mild, moderate, and severe clinical findings, respectively. Patients with high body mass index and advanced age had significantly more severe disease (p < 0.001). A significant correlation was found between the increase in lymphopenia, C-reactive protein, ferritin, D-dimer, and lactate dehydrogenase and the severity of clinical findings (p = 0.0001). SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody test was positive in 128 (88.3%) patients. A significant correlation was found between disease severity and antibody levels in the comparison of all groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term monitoring of immune responses will be required to determine the appropriate time for the administration of new vaccines.

Comparison of the Clinical and Laboratory Findings and Outcomes of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients Who Were Either Fully Vaccinated with Coronavac or Not: An Analytical, Cross Sectional Study.

COVID-19 vaccines are highly protective against severe disease; however, vaccine breakthrough infections resulting in hospitalization may still occur in a small percentage of vaccinated individuals. We investigated whether the clinical and microbiological features and outcomes were different between hospitalized COVID-19 patients who were either fully vaccinated with Coronovac or not. All hospitalized COVID-19 patients who had at least one dose of Coronavac were included in the study. The oldest unvaccinated patients with comorbidities, who were hospitalized during the same period, were chosen as controls. All epidemiologic, clinical and laboratory data of the patients were recorded and compared between the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. There were 69 and 217 patients who had been either fully vaccinated with Coronavac or not, respectively. All breakthrough infections occurred in the first 3 months of vaccination. Fully vaccinated patients were older and had more comorbidities than unvaccinated patients. There were minor differences between the groups in symptoms, physical and laboratory findings, anti-spike IgG positivity rate and level, the severity of COVID-19, complications, and clinical improvement rate. The mortality rate of fully vaccinated patients was higher than the mortality rate in unvaccinated patients in univariate analysis, which was attributed to the fact that vaccinated patients were older and had more comorbidities. The severity and clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with breakthrough COVID-19 after Coronavac vaccination were similar to those of unvaccinated patients. Our findings suggest that the immune response elicited by Coronovac could be insufficient to prevent COVID-19-related severe disease and death within 3 months of vaccination among elderly people with comorbidities.

Carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak in a COVID-19 intensive care unit; a case-control study.

We analysed a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (CRKP) outbreak in the coronavirus disease (COVID) ICU. We retrospectively collected data from ICU records. We identified 25 cases between 12 November 2020 and 19 December 2020, and compared them to 42 controls present in the ICU during the same period. The presence of a femoral haemodialysis catheter was strongly associated with invasive CRKP infections (cases, 9 [36%]; controls, 0 [0%]; odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence intervals [CIs], 21 (5; 89)). We found a significant association between old age and CRKP infection with adverse outcomes. Sequence analysis revealed three distinct carbapenemase genes: blaNDM-1, blaOXA-48 and blaKPC-2. We launched rectal swab sampling upon admission to the ICU, cohorted colonized patients and cases and conducted an intensive training programme for newly employed staff. This study revealed that the emergence and dissemination of CRKP in COVID ICUs were associated with increased adverse outcomes. The presence of a femoral haemodialysis catheter was a significant risk factor for CRKP infections.

Effect of BTN162b2 and CoronaVac boosters on humoral and cellular immunity of individuals previously fully vaccinated with CoronaVac against SARS-CoV-2: A longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: It is essential to know about immune response levels after booster doses of the two different types of vaccines, mRNA, and the inactivated, currently used against COVID-19. For this purpose, we aimed to determine the effects of BNT162b2 (BNT) and CoronaVac (CV) boosters on the humoral and cellular immunity of individuals who had two doses of CV vaccination. METHODS: The study was conducted in three centers (Koc University Hospital, Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Hospital, and Istanbul University, Istanbul Medical School Hospital) in Istanbul, Turkey. Individuals who had been previously immunized with two doses of CV and no history of COVID-19 were included. The baseline blood samples were collected 3-5 months after the second dose of CV. Follow-up blood samples were taken 1 and 3 months after administration of third doses of CV, or one dose of BNT boosters. Neutralizing antibody titers were measured by plaque reduction assay. The CD4+ T cell, CD8+ T cell, effector CD4+CD38+CD69+ T cell, and effector CD8+CD38+CD69+ T cell ratios were determined by flow cytometry. The intracellular IFN-γ and IL-2 responses were measured by ELISpot assay. RESULTS: We found a 3.38-fold increase in neutralizing antibody geometric mean titers (NA GMT, 78.69) 1 month after BNT booster and maintained at the third month (NA GMT, 80). Nevertheless, in the CV booster group, significantly lower NA GMT than BNT after 1 month and 3 months were observed (21.44 and 28.44, respectively) (p < .001). In the ELISpot assay, IL-2 levels after BNT were higher than baseline and CV booster (p < .001) while IFN-γ levels were significantly higher than baseline (p < .001). The CD8+CD38+CD69+ and CD4+CD38+CD69+ T cells were stimulated predominantly in the third month of the BNT boosters. CONCLUSION: The neutralizing antibody levels after 3 months of the BNT booster were higher than the antibody levels after CV in fully vaccinated individuals. On the contrary, ratio of the effector T cells increased along with greater IFN-γ activation after BNT booster. By considering the waning immunity, we suggest a new booster dose with BNT for the countries that already had two doses of primary CV regimens.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and Neutralizing Antibody Levels in Patients with Past COVID-19 Infection: A Longitudinal Study

Background: Monitoring the longevity of immunoglobulin G (IgG) responses following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections is vital to understanding the role of antibodies in preventing infection. Aims: To determine the quantitative IgG responses specific to the Spike-S1 (S1) receptor-binding domain (S1/RBD) region of the virus in serum samples taken between 4 weeks and 7 months after polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity in patients who are diagnosed with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Study Design: A longitudinal study. Methods: This study included 113 patients with a clinical and molecular diagnosis of COVID-19. The first and second serum samples were taken 1 and 7 months, respectively, after the PCR positivity. S1/RBD-specific IgG antibody response was assayed using anti-SARS-CoV- 2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) kit (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany). The neutralizing antibodies were investigated in 57 patients whose IgG test results were above the cut-off value. Results: In 57 patients with SARS-CoV-2 IgG, the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG quantitative antibody levels significantly decreased after 7 months (Z = −2.197, p = 0.028). A correlation was detected between the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and nAb percent inhibition (IH%) levels detected in 1 month (rs = 0.496, p < 0.001), but without significant correlation in serum samples taken on 7 months. The nAb IH% levels of the first and second were compared for COVID-19 severity and revealed no statistical difference (p = 0.256). In the second serum sample, the nAb IH%s of patients with moderate COVID-19 showed a statistically significant difference from patients with mild COVID-19 (p = 0.018), but without significant differences between severe and moderate or mild COVID-19. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 quantitative IgG antibody titers are significantly reduced at long-term follow-up (> 6 months). Due to the limited information on seroconversion, comprehensive studies should be conducted for long-term follow-up of the immune response against SARS-CoV-2.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in Upper Respiratory Swap Samples by Pooling Method

Background: Widespread and effective use of molecular diagnostic tests is indispensable for protecting public health and containing the severe respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. More than 1 year into the pandemic, as resources have reached a point of depletion, grouping samples in pools of certain sizes appears to be a reasonable method to reduce both the costs and the processing time without necessitating additional training, equipment, or materials. Aims: To assess whether the pooling strategy that was used in past outbreaks and is used in blood tests prior to transfusion for screening large populations can also be used in SARS CoV-2 tests. Study Design: Diagnostic accuracy study. Methods: This prospective study was conducted with 2815 samples, sent to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Laboratory of our hospital between February 12 and 21, 2021, to be tested for the presence of SARS-CoV-2. The samples were examined individually and in pools of five 100 µl taken from each sequential sample, using 3 different SARS-CoV-2 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) kits, the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay kit (Seegene, Republic of Korea), the GeneMAP™ 2019-nCoV detection V.3 kit (GenMark, Türkiye), and the Bio-Speedy™ SARS-CoV-2 Double Gene™ RT-qPCR kit (Bioeksen, Türkiye) on the BioRAD CFX96™ Touch (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Hercules, CA, USA) platform available in our laboratory. Results: Following the extraction of serial dilutions prepared from the SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive (cycle of threshold: 20) sample, the standard curves of RT-PCR were analyzed. By evaluating the efficiency (E) values, all 3 kits showed high sensitivity and similar results; while the highest level was detected with the Allplex™ 2019-nCoV Assay kit in the nucleocapsid (N) gene (E: 124%), the lowest was detected with the Double Gene™ RT-qPCR kit in the N and ORF 1ab genes (E: 90%). Of the samples included in the study, only 1 positive sample with low viral load was found to be negative when studied by pooling. The total number of kits to be used in pooled tests and then to individually retest the 5 samples in positive pools was calculated as 827 and the savings rate as 69.91% (1968/2815). Conclusion: The pooling strategy is an effective approach to extend the impact of limited testing resources and reagents available in certain periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing by pooling samples requires improvement of RNA extraction methods and careful monitoring of RT-PCR test sensitivity to avoid missing low-positive entities. Therefore, based on the prevalence of COVID-19 in their regions, laboratories should conduct their own validation of pooling studies for RNA extraction and amplification methods they use.

Inactive SARS-CoV-2 vaccine generates high antibody responses in healthcare workers with and without prior infection.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) were among the first groups to be vaccinated in Turkey. The data to be obtained by the vaccination of HCWs would guide wide spread vaccination programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 330 HCWs working at Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Medical Faculty Hospital and vaccinated with inactive CoronaVac (Sinovac Life Sciences, China) SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in two doses (28 days apart). Anti-Spike /RBD IgG levels were measured 14 days after the first dose and 28 days after the second dose. Chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) (ARCHITECT IgG II Quant test, Abbott, USA), which is 100% compatible with plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT), was used. RESULTS: Of the participants, 211 (63.9%) were female, 119 (36.1%) were male, and mean age was 39.6 ± 7.7 years. In those without prior COVID-19 history; (n = 255) antibody positivity was detected as 48.2% (95% CI: 42.1-54.3) 14 days after the first dose of vaccine, and 99.2% (95% CI: 98.1-100) at day 28 after the second dose. Antibody titers were significantly lower in patients with hypertension (p = 0.011). In those with prior history of COVID-19 (n = 75); both the antibody positivity rates after the first vaccine (48.2% vs 100%, p = 0.000) and the anti-spike/RBD antibody levels after the second vaccine (with a ≥ 1050 AU/mL titer equivalent to PRNT 1/80 dilution) was significant than infection-naive group (25.9% vs. 54.7%, p = 0.000). Antibody positivity after two doses of vaccination for all study group was 99.4% (95% CI: 98.6-100). CONCLUSIONS: Two doses CoronaVac produce effective humoral immunity in HCWs. Antibody response is significantly higher in those with prior history of COVID-19 than infection-naive group. Given no significant benefit of the second dose, a single shot of vaccination may be sufficient for those with prior history of COVID-19. Monitoring humoral and cellular immune responses, considering new variants, is required to validate this approach.

Real-life experience: sensitivity and specificity of nasal and saliva samples for COVID-19 diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) outbreak has spread rapidly around the world, continues to show its effect, and it is not clear how long it will continue. For the diagnosis of COVID-19, it is important to ensure the comfort of the patients and to protect the healthcare workers (HCWs) by reducing the use of protective equipment. AIMS: To evaluate or assess whether the samples taken by the patient for COVID-19 testing during this pandemic period can be used in real-life experience. METHODS: Three different samples (nasopharyngeal taken by the healthcare worker, nasopharyngeal, and saliva taken by the patient) from 132 patients were evaluated for the diagnosis of COVID-19. The sensitivity and specificity of the samples in the diagnosis of COVID-19 were compared with real-life experience. RESULTS: Paired analyzes were performed by comparing each sample taken by the healthcare worker with the sample taken by the patient. The sensitivity of the three samples (nasopharyngeal taken by the healthcare worker, nasopharyngeal, and saliva taken by the patient) in the diagnosis of the COVID-19 was (100%, 98.7%, and 96.1%, respectively) accepted to be accurate. CONCLUSIONS: The sample taken by the paramedic was compatible compared to the real-life experience for the samples taken by the patient in the COVID-19 pandemic period. During the pandemic that is unknown when it will end, this study demonstrated that taking the sample of the patient alone for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test is a beneficial approach to the protection of the healthcare worker, reducing the need for protective equipment, increasing the patient's comfort and rapid sampling.

Tocilizumab in COVID-19: The Cerrahpasa-PREDICT score.

BACKGROUND: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS), characterized by overproduction of proinflammatory cytokines in the course of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been suggested as the major cause of mortality. Tocilizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody against human IL-6 receptor, poses a therapeutic option for the treatment of CRS leading to severe acute respiratory syndrome in coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective study to reveal the outcome of COVID-19 patients on tocilizumab and proposed "the Cerrahpasa-PREDICT score", a new clinical scoring system using clinical and laboratory parameters that would help predicting the 28-day mortality of COVID-19 patients receiving tocilizumab. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients (median age: 59 years) were included of whom 75.8% were male. Tocilizumab use significantly improved clinical and laboratory parameters. The 28-day mortality rate on tocilizumab was 16.1%. The Cerrahpasa-PREDICT score, consisting of platelet counts, procalcitonin, D-dimer levels, SO2R and the time from symptom onset to tocilizumab administration had a positive predictive value of 94.5% and negative predictive value of 92.9% for anticipating 28-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Severe COVID-19 should closely be monitored for the signs of hyperinflammation. We showed that administration of tocilizumab early in the course of the disease (prior to ICU admission) resulted in a favorable outcome. Close monitoring usually aids identifying patients who would benefit from tocilizumab. In this regard, the Cerrahpasa-PREDICT score might serve as a practical tool for estimating the 28-day mortality in COVID-19 patients who received tocilizumab and would facilitate timely recognition of fatal cases to be evaluated for other therapeutic options.

[Evaluation of the Diagnostic Performance of Different Principles of SARS-CoV-2 Commercial Antibody Tests in COVID-19 Patients]. / SARS-CoV-2 ile Ilgili Farkli Prensipli Ticari Antikor Testlerinin COVID-19 Hastalarindaki Tanisal Performanslarinin Degerlendirilmesi.

Following the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS CoV-2) and using only PCR for diagnosis, antibody tests have been rapidly developed by various commercial companies. There are differences between the sensitivity and specificity of these tests due to the usage of different viral target proteins and antibody subclasses. In order to evaluate the diagnostic use of these tests, we aimed to examine the diagnostic performance, especially sensitivity and specificity, of SARS-CoV-2 IgM, IgA and IgG tests of various companies (Abbott, Roche, Euroimmun, Dia.Pro, Anshlabs, Vircell, UnScience and RedCell), which have different principles (ECLIA/CLIA, EIA, LFA). Current (n= 180) and past (n= 180) COVID-19 patients with clinical and molecular diagnosis of COVID-19 admitted to Istanbul University-Cerrahpasa, Cerrahpasa Faculty of Medicine Hospital, Pandemic Polyclinic with suspected COVID-19 infection, were included in our study. The patients admitted within the first 3 weeks after the onset of symptoms were included in the current patient group, and those admitted at the third and after the third week were included in the past patient group. Serum samples (n= 180) obtained from Istanbul Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Blood Center between April and June 2018 before the COVID-19 pandemic were included in the study as a control group. All the tests included in our study were studied with the recommendations of the manufacturer companies. Between the IgG detection tests with different principles in patients with past COVID-19, the sensitivity and specificity values of the most effective tests were; 86.7%/99.4% (Abbott), 86.1%/98.9% (Dia.Pro), 91.3%/95% (RedCell). Between the IgM detection tests with different principles in current COVID-19 patients, the sensitivity and specificity values were; 67.8%/99.4% (Abbott), 68.9%/98.6% (Vircell), 50%/97.5% (RedCell). Abbott IgM with a kappa coefficient of 0.67 and Vircell IgM + IgA test with a kappa coefficient of 0.65 showed the best fit in patients with current COVID-19 infection. In patients with past COVID-19, Abbott IgG with 0.86 kappa coefficient and Dia.Pro IgG test with 0.85 kappa coefficient showed the best match. Due to the low sensitivity of IgM detection antibody tests, they should not be preferred instead of real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in routine diagnosis. IgG detection tests may be preferred to detect the antibody response and the titers in people who have had COVID-19 for population seroprevalence and especially therapeutic immune plasma production. However, it is thought that the combined use of both ECLIA/CLIA-based and EIA/ELISA-based tests together may be more effective in routine use for SARS-CoV-2 IgG tests.