A retrospective cohort study of risk factors for mortality among nursing homes exposed to COVID-19 in Spain.

Long-term care (LTC) facilities have shown remarkably high mortality rates during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in many countries1, and different risk factors for mortality have been identified in this setting2-5. Using facilities as the unit of analysis, we investigated multiple variables covering facility characteristics and socioeconomic characteristics of the geographic location to identify risk factors for excess mortality from a comprehensive perspective. Furthermore, we used a clustering approach to detect patterns in datasets and generate hypotheses regarding potential relationships between types of nursing homes and mortality trends. Our retrospective analysis included 167 nursing homes providing LTC to 8,716 residents during the COVID-19 outbreak in Catalonia (northeast Spain). According to multiple regression analysis, COVID-19-related and overall mortality at the facility level were significantly associated with a higher percentage of patients with complex diseases, lower scores on pandemic preparedness measures and higher population incidence of COVID-19 in the surrounding population. When grouping nursing homes into eight clusters based on common features, we found higher mortality rates in four clusters, mainly characterized by a higher proportion of residents with complex chronic conditions or advanced diseases, lower scores on pandemic preparedness, being located in rural areas and larger capacity, respectively.

Association between mobility, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and COVID-19 transmission in Ghana: A modelling study using mobile phone data

Governments around the world have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions to limit the transmission of COVID-19. Here we assess if increasing NPI stringency was associated with a reduction in COVID-19 cases in Ghana. While lockdowns and physical distancing have proven effective for reducing COVID-19 transmission, there is still limited understanding of how NPI measures are reflected in indicators of human mobility. Further, there is a lack of understanding about how findings from high-income settings correspond to low and middle-income contexts. In this study, we assess the relationship between indicators of human mobility, NPIs, and estimates of Rt, a real-time measure of the intensity of COVID-19 transmission. We construct a multilevel generalised linear mixed model, combining local disease surveillance data from subnational districts of Ghana with the timing of NPIs and indicators of human mobility from Google and Vodafone Ghana. We observe a relationship between reductions in human mobility and decreases in Rt during the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic in Ghana. We find that the strength of this relationship varies through time, decreasing after the most stringent period of interventions in the early epidemic. Our findings demonstrate how the association of NPI and mobility indicators with COVID-19 transmission may vary through time. Further, we demonstrate the utility of combining local disease surveillance data with large scale human mobility data to augment existing surveillance capacity to monitor the impact of NPI policies.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Plasma Outpatient Therapy to Prevent Outpatient Hospitalization: A Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data From 5 Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient monoclonal antibodies are no longer effective and antiviral treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease remain largely unavailable in many countries worldwide. Although treatment with COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) is promising, clinical trials among outpatients have shown mixed results. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis from outpatient trials to assess the overall risk reduction for all-cause hospitalizations by day 28 in transfused participants. Relevant trials were identified by searching Medline, Embase, medRxiv, World Health Organization COVID-19 Research Database, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from January 2020 to September 2022. RESULTS: Five included studies from 4 countries enrolled and transfused 2620 adult patients. Comorbidities were present in 1795 (69%). The virus neutralizing antibody dilutional titer levels ranged from 8 to 14 580 in diverse assays. One hundred sixty of 1315 (12.2%) control patients were hospitalized, versus 111 of 1305 (8.5%) CCP-treated patients, yielding a 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3%-6.0%; P = .001) absolute risk reduction and 30.1% relative risk reduction for all-cause hospitalization. The hospitalization reduction was greatest in those with both early transfusion and high titer with a 7.6% absolute risk reduction (95% CI, 4.0%-11.1%; P = .0001) accompanied by at 51.4% relative risk reduction. No significant reduction in hospitalization was seen with treatment >5 days after symptom onset or in those receiving CCP with antibody titers below the median titer. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with CCP reduced the rate of all-cause hospitalization and may be most effective when given within 5 days of symptom onset and when antibody titer is higher.

Comparison of Reverse Transcription (RT)-Quantitative PCR and RT-Droplet Digital PCR for Detection of Genomic and Subgenomic SARS-CoV-2 RNA.

Most individuals acutely infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exhibit mild symptoms. However, 10 to 20% of those infected develop long-term symptoms, referred to as post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition (PCC). One hypothesis is that PCC might be exacerbated by viral persistence in tissue sanctuaries. Therefore, the accurate detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 are not only necessary for viral load monitoring but also crucial for detecting long-term viral persistence and determining whether viral replication is occurring in tissue reservoirs. In this study, the sensitivity and robustness of reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) and RT-quantitative PCR (qPCR) techniques have been compared for the detection and quantification of SARS-CoV-2 genomic and subgenomic RNAs from oropharyngeal swabs taken from confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive, SARS-CoV-2-exposed, and nonexposed individuals as well as from samples from mice infected with SARS-CoV-2. Our data demonstrated that both techniques presented equivalent results in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Additionally, RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, allowing the accurate detection of positive results in individuals exposed to the virus. Overall, these data suggest that RT-ddPCR might be an alternative to RT-qPCR for detecting low viral loads in samples and for assessing viral persistence in samples from individuals with PCC. IMPORTANCE We developed one-step reverse transcription (RT)-droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) protocols to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA and compared them to the gold-standard RT-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) method. RT-ddPCR was more sensitive than RT-qPCR in the low-viral-load range, while both techniques were equivalent in the mid- and high-viral-load ranges. Overall, these results suggest that RT-ddPCR might be a viable alternative to RT-qPCR when it comes to detecting low viral loads in samples, which is a highly relevant issue for determining viral persistence in as-yet-unknown tissue reservoirs in individuals suffering from post-COVID conditions or long COVID.

Subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin for prevention of disease in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial.

Background: Anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin (hIG) can provide standardized and controlled antibody content. Data from controlled clinical trials using hIG for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 outpatients have not been reported. We assessed the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous anti-COVID-19 hyperimmune immunoglobulin 20% (C19-IG20%) compared to placebo in preventing development of symptomatic COVID-19 in asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in asymptomatic unvaccinated adults (≥18 years of age) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days between April 28 and December 27, 2021. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a blinded subcutaneous infusion of 10 mL with 1 g or 2 g of C19-IG20%, or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who remained asymptomatic through day 14 after infusion. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of individuals who required oxygen supplementation, any medically attended visit, hospitalisation, or ICU, and viral load reduction and viral clearance in nasopharyngeal swabs. Safety was assessed as the proportion of patients with adverse events. The trial was terminated early due to a lack of potential benefit in the target population in a planned interim analysis conducted in December 2021. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT04847141. Findings: 461 individuals (mean age 39.6 years [SD 12.8]) were randomized and received the intervention within a mean of 3.1 (SD 1.27) days from a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. In the prespecified modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only participants who received a subcutaneous infusion, the primary outcome occurred in 59.9% (91/152) of participants receiving 1 g C19-IG20%, 64.7% (99/153) receiving 2 g, and 63.5% (99/156) receiving placebo (difference in proportions 1 g C19-IG20% vs. placebo, -3.6%; 95% CI -14.6% to 7.3%, p = 0.53; 2 g C19-IG20% vs placebo, 1.1%; -9.6% to 11.9%, p = 0.85). None of the secondary clinical efficacy endpoints or virological endpoints were significantly different between study groups. Adverse event rate was similar between groups, and no severe or life-threatening adverse events related to investigational product infusion were reported. Interpretation: Our findings suggested that administration of subcutaneous human hyperimmune immunoglobulin C19-IG20% to asymptomatic individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection was safe but did not prevent development of symptomatic COVID-19. Funding: Grifols.

Prospective individual patient data meta-analysis of two randomized trials on convalescent plasma for COVID-19 outpatients.

Data on convalescent plasma (CP) treatment in COVID-19 outpatients are scarce. We aimed to assess whether CP administered during the first week of symptoms reduced the disease progression or risk of hospitalization of outpatients. Two multicenter, double-blind randomized trials (NCT04621123, NCT04589949) were merged with data pooling starting when <20% of recruitment target was achieved. A Bayesian-adaptive individual patient data meta-analysis was implemented. Outpatients aged ≥50 years and symptomatic for ≤7days were included. The intervention consisted of 200-300mL of CP with a predefined minimum level of antibodies. Primary endpoints were a 5-point disease severity scale and a composite of hospitalization or death by 28 days. Amongst the 797 patients included, 390 received CP and 392 placebo; they had a median age of 58 years, 1 comorbidity, 5 days symptoms and 93% had negative IgG antibody-test. Seventy-four patients were hospitalized, 6 required mechanical ventilation and 3 died. The odds ratio (OR) of CP for improved disease severity scale was 0.936 (credible interval (CI) 0.667-1.311); OR for hospitalization or death was 0.919 (CI 0.592-1.416). CP effect on hospital admission or death was largest in patients with ≤5 days of symptoms (OR 0.658, 95%CI 0.394-1.085). CP did not decrease the time to full symptom resolution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04621123 and NCT04589949. REGISTRATION: NCT04621123 and NCT04589949 on https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Hydroxychloroquine for treatment of non-hospitalized adults with COVID-19: A meta-analysis of individual participant data of randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was initially promoted as an oral therapy for early treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Conventional meta-analyses cannot fully address the heterogeneity of different designs and outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of HCQ in outpatients with mild COVID-19. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual participant data from RCTs that evaluated the effect of HCQ on hospitalization and viral load reduction in outpatients with confirmed COVID-19. We evaluated the overall treatment group effect by log-likelihood ratio test (-2LL) from a generalized linear mixed model to accommodate correlated longitudinal binary data. The analysis included data from 11 RCTs. The outcome of virological effect, assessed in 1560 participants (N = 795 HCQ, N = 765 control), did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (-2LL = 7.66; p = 0.18) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. The decline in polymerase chain reaction positive tests from day 1 to 7 was 42.0 and 41.6 percentage points in the HCQ and control groups, respectively. Among the 2037 participants evaluable for hospitalization (N = 1058 HCQ, N = 979 control), we found no significant differences in hospitalization rate between participants receiving HCQ and controls (odds ratio 0.995; 95% confidence interval 0.614-1.610; -2LL = 0.0; p = 0.98) when adjusting for cohort, duration of symptoms, and comorbidities. This individual participant data meta-analysis of 11 HCQ trials that evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 viral clearance and COVID-19 hospitalization did not show a clinical benefit of HCQ. Our meta-analysis provides evidence to support the interruption in the use of HCQ in mild COVID-19 outpatients to reduce progression to severe disease.

Virological and Clinical Determinants of the Magnitude of Humoral Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Mild-Symptomatic Individuals.

Background: Evidence on the determinants of the magnitude of humoral responses and neutralizing titers in individuals with mild COVID-19 is scarce. Methods: In this cohort study of mild COVID-19 patients, we assessed viral load (VL) by RT-qPCR at two/three time points during acute infection, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by ELISA and plasma neutralizing responses using a pseudovirus assay at day 60. Results: Seventy-one individuals (65% female, median 42 years old) were recruited and grouped into high viral load (VL) >7.5 Log10 copies/mL (n=20), low, VL ≤7.5 Log10 copies/mL (n=22), or as Non-early seroconverters with a positive PCR (n=20), and healthy individuals with a negative PCR (n=9). Individuals with high or low VL showed similar titers of total neutralizing antibodies at day 60, irrespective of maximal VL or viral dynamics. Non-early seroconverters had lower antibody titers on day 60, albeit similar neutralizing activity as the groups with high or low VL. Longer symptom duration and older age were independently associated with increased humoral responses. Conclusions: In mild SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, the duration of symptoms and age (but not VL) contribute to higher humoral responses.

Association between two mass-gathering outdoor events and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections during the fifth wave of COVID-19 in north-east Spain: A population-based control-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many countries have resumed mass-gathering events like music festivals, despite the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spreading. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of two mass-gathering outdoor events, held during a peak of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, on COVID-19 incidence. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based control-matched analysis. The study population included attendees to two outdoor music festivals held in Catalonia (North-East Spain). The primary objective was to compare the incidence of COVID-19 within the 3-to-10 days following the event between attendees and a population-based control group. FINDINGS: The analysis included 18,275 and 27,347 attendees to the first and second festivals, respectively, and their corresponding controls. The post-festival 7-day cumulative COVID-19 incidence among attendees and controls was 4.14% (95% CI 3.86-4.44) vs. 1.69% (1.51-1.88) for the first festival (RR 2.46; 2.16-2.80), and 2.42% (2.35-2.61) and 1.10% (0.99-1.2) for the second festival (RR 2.19; 1.92-2.51). COVID-19 incidence among immunized individuals was also two-fold higher in attendees than in controls. Previous COVID-19 infection, vaccination, and adequate mask-wearing were significantly associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 infection after the events. INTERPRETATION: Despite the proven effectiveness of preventive measures such as Ag-RDT screening, mask-wearing and vaccination, caution should be taken when holding these events during a period of high community SARS-CoV-2 transmission. FUNDING: Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono (https://www.yomecorono.com/) and the Generalitat de Catalunya.

High-titre methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma as an early treatment for outpatients with COVID-19: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been proposed as an early treatment to interrupt the progression of early COVID-19 to severe disease, but there is little definitive evidence. We aimed to assess whether early treatment with convalescent plasma reduces the risk of hospitalisation and reduces SARS-CoV-2 viral load among outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in four health-care centres in Catalonia, Spain. Adult outpatients aged 50 years or older with the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms 7 days or less before randomisation were eligible for enrolment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive one intravenous infusion of either 250-300 mL of ABO-compatible high anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titres (EUROIMMUN ratio ≥6) methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma (experimental group) or 250 mL of sterile 0·9% saline solution (control). Randomisation was done with the use of a central web-based system with concealment of the trial group assignment and no stratification. To preserve masking, we used opaque tubular bags that covered the investigational product and the infusion catheter. The coprimary endpoints were the incidence of hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline and the mean change in viral load (in log10 copies per mL) in nasopharyngeal swabs from baseline to day 7. The trial was stopped early following a data safety monitoring board recommendation because more than 85% of the target population had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Primary efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population, safety was assessed in all patients who received the investigational product. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04621123. FINDINGS: Between Nov 10, 2020, and July 28, 2021, we assessed 909 patients with confirmed COVID-19 for inclusion in the trial, 376 of whom were eligible and were randomly assigned to treatment (convalescent plasma n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=160]; placebo n=188 [serum antibody-negative n=166]). Median age was 56 years (IQR 52-62) and the mean symptom duration was 4·4 days (SD 1·4) before random assignment. In the intention-to-treat population, hospitalisation within 28 days from baseline occurred in 22 (12%) participants who received convalescent plasma versus 21 (11%) who received placebo (relative risk 1·05 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·41]). The mean change in viral load from baseline to day 7 was -2·41 log10 copies per mL (SD 1·32) with convalescent plasma and -2·32 log10 copies per mL (1·43) with placebo (crude difference -0·10 log10 copies per mL [95% CI -0·35 to 0·15]). One participant with mild COVID-19 developed a thromboembolic event 7 days after convalescent plasma infusion, which was reported as a serious adverse event possibly related to COVID-19 or to the experimental intervention. INTERPRETATION: Methylene blue-treated convalescent plasma did not prevent progression from mild to severe illness and did not reduce viral load in outpatients with COVID-19. Therefore, formal recommendations to support the use of convalescent plasma in outpatients with COVID-19 cannot be concluded. FUNDING: Grifols, Crowdfunding campaign YoMeCorono.

Evidence-based dosing of convalescent plasma for COVID-19 in future trials.

BACKGROUND: Two years into the pandemic, convincing evidence in favour of convalescent plasma (ConvP) as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still lacking. This contrasts sharply with the efficacy of potent virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies. However, resistance of the Omicron variant against almost all licensed monoclonals turns back the clock, and we can expect that ConvP will regain interest. Indeed, the efficacy of virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibodies supports the premise that ConvP will work when used at the right time, at the right dose, and containing antibodies with the right affinity. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to review available evidence on dosing of ConvP for COVID-19 and provide guidance for future trials or patient care. SOURCES: Because no dose-finding human trials were ever performed, we reviewed COVID-19 animal model studies and human trials that provide (in)direct data on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ConvP. We also discuss the identification of appropriate ConvP donors in the context of emerging severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variants. CONTENT: Compared with dosing in animal studies, almost all human trials used substantially lower doses. Identifying donors with sufficiently high virus-neutralizing antibody titres is challenging, in particular when new variants escape immunity induced by ancestral variants. Ways to avoid underdosing are (a) use of ConvP from two different donors, (b) use only ConvP known to neutralize the variant with which the patient is infected, (c) use two ConvP units with a neutralizing antibody titre ≥1/1250 (when only one plasma unit is available, neutralizing antibody titre of ≥1/2500 is recommended), (d) use an antibody test that correlates well with virus neutralization (use of international units per ml (IU/ml) for virus neutralization is strongly encouraged), and (e) use of donors shortly after a third mRNA vaccination may simplify the donor selection process. IMPLICATIONS: In future trials on ConvP for COVID-19, more stringent donor selection criteria and/or higher volume transfusions should be used.

fM-aM Detection of the SARS-CoV-2 Antigen by Advanced Lateral Flow Immunoassay Based on Gold Nanospheres.

The SARS-CoV-2 global pandemic created an unprecedented need for rapid, sensitive, and inexpensive point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests to treat and control the disease. Many POC SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs) have been developed and/or commercialized, but with only limited sensitivity (µM-fM). We created an advanced LFA based on gold nanospheres (GNSs) with comprehensive assay redesign for enhanced specific binding and thermal contrast amplification (TCA) on GNSs for signal amplification, which enabled fM-aM detection sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 spike receptor-binding domain (RBD) proteins within 30 min. The advanced LFA can visually detect RBD proteins down to 3.6 and 28.6 aM in buffer and human nasopharyngeal wash, respectively. This is the first reported LFA achieving sensitivity comparable to that of the PCR (aM-zM) by visual reading, which was much more sensitive than traditional LFAs. We also developed a fast (<1 min) TCA reading algorithm, with results showing that this TCA could distinguish 26-32% visual false negatives for clinical commercial LFAs. When our advanced LFAs were applied with this TCA, the sensitivities were further improved by eightfold to 0.45 aM (in buffer) and 3.6 aM (in the human nasopharyngeal wash) with a semiquantitative readout. Our proposed advanced LFA with a TCA diagnostic platform can help control the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Furthermore, the simplicity and speed with which this assay was assembled may also facilitate preparedness for future pandemics.

Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults With Mild Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: No effective treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exist. We aimed to determine whether early treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) would be efficacious for outpatients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter open-label, randomized, controlled trial conducted in Catalonia, Spain, between 17 March and 26 May 2020. Patients recently diagnosed with <5-day of symptom onset were assigned to receive HCQ (800 mg on day 1 followed by 400 mg once daily for 6 days) or usual care. Outcomes were reduction of viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs up to 7 days after treatment start, disease progression up to 28 days, and time to complete resolution of symptoms. Adverse events were assessed up to 28 days. RESULTS: A total of 293 patients were eligible for intention-to-treat analysis: 157 in the control arm and 136 in the intervention arm. The mean age was 41.6 years (SD, 12.6), mean viral load at baseline was 7.90 log10 copies/mL (SD, 1.82), and median time from symptom onset to randomization was 3 days. No differences were found in the mean reduction of viral load at day 3 (-1.41 vs -1.41 log10 copies/mL in the control and intervention arm, respectively) or at day 7 (-3.37 vs -3.44). Treatment did not reduce risk of hospitalization (7.1% control vs 5.9% intervention) nor shorten the time to complete resolution of symptoms (12 days, control vs 10 days, intervention). No relevant adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mild COVID-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.

Transmission of COVID-19 in 282 clusters in Catalonia, Spain: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Scarce data are available on what variables affect the risk of transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the development of symptomatic COVID-19, and, particularly, the relationship with viral load. We aimed to analyse data from linked index cases of COVID-19 and their contacts to explore factors associated with transmission of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In this cohort study, patients were recruited as part of a randomised controlled trial done between March 17 and April 28, 2020, that aimed to assess if hydroxychloroquine reduced transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Patients with COVID-19 and their contacts were identified by use of the electronic registry of the Epidemiological Surveillance Emergency Service of Catalonia (Spain). Patients with COVID-19 included in our analysis were aged 18 years or older, not hospitalised, had quantitative PCR results available at baseline, had mild symptom onset within 5 days before enrolment, and had no reported symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infections in their accommodation or workplace within the 14 days before enrolment. Contacts included were adults with a recent history of exposure and absence of COVID-19-like symptoms within the 7 days preceding enrolment. Viral load of contacts, measured by quantitative PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab, was assessed at enrolment, at day 14, and whenever the participant reported COVID-19-like symptoms. We assessed risk of transmission and developing symptomatic disease and incubation dynamics using regression analysis. We assessed the relationship of viral load and characteristics of cases (age, sex, number of days from reported symptom onset, and presence or absence of fever, cough, dyspnoea, rhinitis, and anosmia) and associations between risk of transmission and characteristics of the index case and contacts. FINDINGS: We identified 314 patients with COVID-19, with 282 (90%) having at least one contact (753 contacts in total), resulting in 282 clusters. 90 (32%) of 282 clusters had at least one transmission event. The secondary attack rate was 17% (125 of 753 contacts), with a variation from 12% when the index case had a viral load lower than 1 × 106 copies per mL to 24% when the index case had a viral load of 1 × 1010 copies per mL or higher (adjusted odds ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·3, 95% CI 1·1-1·5). Increased risk of transmission was also associated with household contact (3·0, 1·59-5·65) and age of the contact (per year: 1·02, 1·01-1·04). 449 contacts had a positive PCR result at baseline. 28 (6%) of 449 contacts had symptoms at the first visit. Of 421 contacts who were asymptomatic at the first visit, 181 (43%) developed symptomatic COVID-19, with a variation from approximately 38% in contacts with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL to greater than 66% for those with an initial viral load of 1 × 1010 copies per mL or higher (hazard ratio per log10 increase in viral load 1·12, 95% CI 1·05-1·20; p=0·0006). Time to onset of symptomatic disease decreased from a median of 7 days (IQR 5-10) for individuals with an initial viral load lower than 1 × 107 copies per mL to 6 days (4-8) for those with an initial viral load between 1 × 107 and 1 × 109 copies per mL, and 5 days (3-8) for those with an initial viral load higher than 1 × 109 copies per mL. INTERPRETATION: In our study, the viral load of index cases was a leading driver of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. The risk of symptomatic COVID-19 was strongly associated with the viral load of contacts at baseline and shortened the incubation time of COVID-19 in a dose-dependent manner. FUNDING: YoMeCorono, Generalitat de Catalunya. TRANSLATIONS: For the Catalan translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Quantifying the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infectiousness.

The relationship between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and infectiousness is poorly known. Using data from a cohort of cases and high-risk contacts, we reconstructed viral load at the time of contact and inferred the probability of infection. The effect of viral load was larger in household contacts than in non-household contacts, with a transmission probability as large as 48% when the viral load was greater than 1010 copies per mL. The transmission probability peaked at symptom onset, with a mean probability of transmission of 29%, with large individual variations. The model also projects the effects of variants on disease transmission. Based on the current knowledge that viral load is increased by two- to eightfold with variants of concern and assuming no changes in the pattern of contacts across variants, the model predicts that larger viral load levels could lead to a relative increase in the probability of transmission of 24% to 58% in household contacts, and of 15% to 39% in non-household contacts.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection Modulates ACE2 Function and Subsequent Inflammatory Responses in Swabs and Plasma of COVID-19 Patients.

Angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is a host ectopeptidase and the receptor for the SARS-CoV-2 virus, albeit virus-ACE2 interaction goes far beyond viral entry into target cells. Controversial data exists linking viral infection to changes in ACE2 expression and function, which might influence the subsequent induction of an inflammatory response. Here, we tested the significance of soluble ACE2 enzymatic activity longitudinally in nasopharyngeal swabs and plasma samples of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, along with the induction of inflammatory cytokines. Release of soluble functional ACE2 increases upon SARS-CoV-2 infection in swabs and plasma of infected patients, albeit rapidly decreasing during infection course in parallel with ACE2 gene expression. Similarly, SARS-CoV-2 infection also induced the expression of inflammatory cytokines. These changes positively correlated with the viral load. Overall, our results demonstrate the existence of mechanisms by which SARS-CoV-2 modulates ACE2 expression and function, intracellular viral sensing and subsequent inflammatory response, offering new insights into ACE2 dynamics in the human upper respiratory tract and pointing towards soluble ACE2 levels as a putative early biomarker of infection severity.

Performance characteristics of five antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 asymptomatic infection: a head-to-head benchmark comparison.

BACKGROUND: Mass testing for early identification and isolation of infectious COVID-19 individuals is efficacious for reducing disease spread. Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) may be suitable for testing strategies; however, benchmark comparisons are scarce. METHODS: We used 286 nasopharyngeal specimens from unexposed asymptomatic individuals collected between December 2020 and January 2021 to assess five Ag-RDTs marketed by Abbott, Siemens, Roche Diagnostics, Lepu Medical, and Surescreen. RESULTS: For the overall sample, the performance parameters of Ag-RDTs were as follows: Abbott assay, sensitivity 38.6% (95%CI 29.1-48.8) and specificity 99.5% (97-100%); Siemens, sensitivity 51.5% (41.3-61.6) and specificity 98.4% (95.3-99.6); Roche, sensitivity 43.6% (33.7-53.8) and specificity 96.2% (92.4-98.5); Lepu, sensitivity 45.5% (35.6-55.8) and specificity 89.2% (83.8-93.3%); Surescreen, sensitivity 28.8% (20.2-38.6) and specificity 97.8% (94.5-99.4%). For specimens with cycle threshold (Ct) <30 in RT-qPCR, all Ag-RDT achieved a sensitivity ≥70%. The modelled negative- and positive-predictive value for 1% prevalence were >99% and <50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: When screening unexposed asymptomatic individuals, two Ag-RDTs achieved sensitivity ≥80% for specimens with Ct<30 and specificity ≥96%. The estimated negative predictive value suggests the suitability of Ag-RDTs for mass screenings of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population.

The time to offer treatments for COVID-19.

Background: COVID-19 has several overlapping phases. Treatments to date have focused on the late stage of disease in hospital. Yet, the pandemic is by propagated by the viral phase in out-patients. The current public health strategy relies solely on vaccines to prevent disease.Methods: We searched the major national registries, pubmed.org, and the preprint servers for all ongoing, completed and published trial results.Results: As of 2/15/2021, we found 111 publications reporting findings on 14 classes of agents, and 9 vaccines. There were 62 randomized controlled studies, the rest retrospective observational analyses. Only 21 publications dealt with outpatient care. Remdesivir and high titer convalescent plasma have emergency use authorization for hospitalized patients in the U.S.A. There is also support for glucocorticoid treatment of the COVID-19 respiratory distress syndrome. Monoclonal antibodies are authorized for outpatients, but supply is inadequate to treat all at time of diagnosis. Favipiravir, ivermectin, and interferons are approved in certain countries.Expert Opinion: Vaccines and antibodies are highly antigen specific, and new SARS-Cov-2 variants are appearing. We call on public health authorities to authorize treatments with known low-risk and possible benefit for outpatients in parallel with universal vaccination.

The Importance of Understanding the Stages of COVID-19 in Treatment and Trials.

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, continues to be a major health problem since its first description in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. Multiple drugs have been tried to date in the treatment of COVID-19. Critical to treatment of COVID-19 and advancing therapeutics is an appreciation of the multiple stages of this disease and the importance of timing for investigation and use of various agents. We considered articles related to COVID-19 indexed on PubMed published January 1, 2020-November 15, 2020, and considered papers on the medRxiv preprint server. We identified relevant stages of COVID-19 including three periods: pre-exposure, incubation, and detectable viral replication; and five phases: the viral symptom phase, the early inflammatory phase, the secondary infection phase, the multisystem inflammatory phase, and the tail phase. This common terminology should serve as a framework to guide when COVID-19 therapeutics being studied or currently in use is likely to provide benefit rather than harm.