Systemic and mucosal IgA responses are variably induced in response to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination and are associated with protection against subsequent infection.

Although SARS-CoV-2 infects the upper respiratory tract, we know little about the amount, type, and kinetics of antibodies (Ab) generated in the oral cavity in response to COVID-19 vaccination. We collected serum and saliva samples from participants receiving two doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and measured the level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Ab. We detected anti-Spike and anti-Receptor Binding Domain (RBD) IgG and IgA, as well as anti-Spike/RBD associated secretory component in the saliva of most participants after dose 1. Administration of a second dose of mRNA boosted the IgG but not the IgA response, with only 30% of participants remaining positive for IgA at this timepoint. At 6 months post-dose 2, these participants exhibited diminished anti-Spike/RBD IgG levels, although secretory component-associated anti-Spike Ab were more stable. Examining two prospective cohorts we found that participants who experienced breakthrough infections with SARS-CoV-2 variants had lower levels of vaccine-induced serum anti-Spike/RBD IgA at 2-4 weeks post-dose 2 compared to participants who did not experience an infection, whereas IgG levels were comparable between groups. These data suggest that COVID-19 vaccines that elicit a durable IgA response may have utility in preventing infection. Our study finds that a local secretory component-associated IgA response is induced by COVID-19 mRNA vaccination that persists in some, but not all participants. The serum and saliva IgA response modestly correlate at 2-4 weeks post-dose 2. Of note, levels of anti-Spike serum IgA (but not IgG) at this timepoint are lower in participants who subsequently become infected with SARS-CoV-2. As new surges of SARS-CoV-2 variants arise, developing COVID-19 booster shots that provoke high levels of IgA has the potential to reduce person-to-person transmission.

Surface and Air Contamination With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 From Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in Toronto, Canada, March-May 2020.

BACKGROUND: We determined the burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in air and on surfaces in rooms of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and investigated patient characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 environmental contamination. METHODS: Nasopharyngeal swabs, surface, and air samples were collected from the rooms of 78 inpatients with COVID-19 at 6 acute care hospitals in Toronto from March to May 2020. Samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 ribonucleic acid (RNA), cultured to determine potential infectivity, and whole viral genomes were sequenced. Association between patient factors and detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in surface samples were investigated. RESULTS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 RNA was detected from surfaces (125 of 474 samples; 42 of 78 patients) and air (3 of 146 samples; 3 of 45 patients); 17% (6 of 36) of surface samples from 3 patients yielded viable virus. Viral sequences from nasopharyngeal and surface samples clustered by patient. Multivariable analysis indicated hypoxia at admission, polymerase chain reaction-positive nasopharyngeal swab (cycle threshold of ≤30) on or after surface sampling date, higher Charlson comorbidity score, and shorter time from onset of illness to sampling date were significantly associated with detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in surface samples. CONCLUSIONS: The infrequent recovery of infectious SARS-CoV-2 virus from the environment suggests that the risk to healthcare workers from air and near-patient surfaces in acute care hospital wards is likely limited.

Sensitivity of Nasopharyngeal Swabs and Saliva for the Detection of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

We enrolled 91 consecutive inpatients with COVID-19 at 6 hospitals in Toronto, Canada, and tested 1 nasopharyngeal swab/saliva sample pair from each patient using real-time RT-PCR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Sensitivity was 89% for nasopharyngeal swabs and 72% for saliva (P = .02). Difference in sensitivity was greatest for sample pairs collected later in illness.

Sensitivity of midturbinate versus nasopharyngeal swabs for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

To compare sensitivity of specimens for COVID-19 diagnosis, we tested 151 nasopharyngeal/midturbinate swab pairs from 117 COVID-19 inpatients using reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Sensitivity was 94% for nasopharyngeal and 75% for midturbinate swabs (P = .0001). In 88 nasopharyngeal/midturbinate pairs with matched saliva, sensitivity was 86% for nasopharyngeal swabs and 88% for combined midturbinate swabs/saliva.

Remdesivir: A beacon of hope from Ebola virus disease to COVID-19.

Since the emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), many studies have been performed to characterize severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and find the optimum way to combat this virus. After suggestions and assessments of several therapeutic options, remdesivir (GS-5734), a direct-acting antiviral drug previously tested against Ebola virus disease, was found to be moderately effective and probably safe for inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 replication. Finally, on 1 May 2020, remdesivir (GS-5734) was granted emergency use authorization as an investigational drug for the treatment of Covid-19 by the Food and Drug Administration. However, without a doubt, there are challenging days ahead. Here, we provide a review of the latest findings (based on preprints, post-prints, and news releases in scientific websites) related to remdesivir efficacy and safety for the treatment of Covid-19, along with covering remdesivir history from bench-to-bedside, as well as an overview of its mechanism of action. In addition, active clinical trials, as well as challenging issues related to the future of remdesivir in Covid-19, are covered. Up to the date of writing this review (19 May 2020), there is one finished randomized clinical trial and two completed non-randomized studies, in addition to some ongoing studies, including three observational studies, two expanded access studies, and seven active clinical trials registered on the clinicaltrials.gov and isrctn.com websites. Based on these studies, it seems that remdesivir could be an effective and probably safe treatment option for Covid-19. However, more randomized controlled studies are required.