A deficient immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx is associated with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: We analyzed the expression of inflammatory and antiviral genes in the nasopharynx of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients and their association with the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study on 223 SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Clinical data were collected from medical records, and nasopharyngeal samples were collected in the first 24 hours after admission to the emergency room. The gene expression of eight proinflammatory/antiviral genes (plasminogen activator urokinase receptor [PLAUR], interleukin [IL]-6, IL-8, interferon [IFN]-ß, IFN-stimulated gene 15 [ISG15], retinoic acid-inducible gene I [RIG-I], C-C motif ligand 5 [CCL5], and chemokine C-X-C motif ligand 10 [CXCL10]) were quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Outcome variables were: (i) pneumonia; (ii) severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Statistical analysis was performed using multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: We enrolled 84 mild, 88 moderate, and 51 severe/critical cases. High expression of PLAUR (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.25; P = 0.032, risk factor) and low expression of CXCL10 (aOR = 0.89; P = 0.048, protective factor) were associated with pneumonia. Furthermore, lower values of ISG15 (aOR = 0.88, P = 0.021), RIG-I (aOR = 0.87, P = 0.034), CCL5 (aOR = 0.73, P <0.001), and CXCL10 (aOR = 0.84, P = 0.002) were risk factors for severe pneumonia/acute respiratory distress syndrome. CONCLUSION: An unbalanced early innate immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in the nasopharynx, characterized by high expression of PLAUR and low expression of antiviral genes (ISG15 and RIG-I), and chemokines (CCL5 and CXCL10), was associated with COVID-19 severity.

Effect of viral storm in patients admitted to intensive care units with severe COVID-19 in Spain: a multicentre, prospective, cohort study

Background The contribution of the virus to the pathogenesis of severe COVID-19 is still unclear. We aimed to evaluate associations between viral RNA load in plasma and host response, complications, and deaths in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Methods We did a prospective cohort study across 23 hospitals in Spain. We included patients aged 18 years or older with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who were admitted to an intensive care unit between March 16, 2020, and Feb 27, 2021. RNA of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid region 1 (N1) was quantified in plasma samples collected from patients in the first 48 h following admission, using digital PCR. Patients were grouped on the basis of N1 quantity: VIR-N1-Zero (<1 N1 copies per mL), VIR-N1-Low (1–2747 N1 copies per mL), and VIR-N1-Storm (>2747 N1 copies per mL). The primary outcome was all-cause death within 90 days after admission. We evaluated odds ratios (ORs) for the primary outcome between groups using a logistic regression analysis. Findings 1068 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 117 had insufficient plasma samples and 115 had key information missing. 836 patients were included in the analysis, of whom 403 (48%) were in the VIR-N1-Low group, 283 (34%) were in the VIR-N1-Storm group, and 150 (18%) were in the VIR-N1-Zero group. Overall, patients in the VIR-N1-Storm group had the most severe disease: 266 (94%) of 283 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), 116 (41%) developed acute kidney injury, 180 (65%) had secondary infections, and 148 (52%) died within 90 days. Patients in the VIR-N1-Zero group had the least severe disease: 81 (54%) of 150 received IMV, 34 (23%) developed acute kidney injury, 47 (32%) had secondary infections, and 26 (17%) died within 90 days (OR for death 0·30, 95% CI 0·16–0·55;p<0·0001, compared with the VIR-N1-Storm group). 106 (26%) of 403 patients in the VIR-N1-Low group died within 90 days (OR for death 0·39, 95% CI 0·26–0·57;p<0·0001, compared with the VIR-N1-Storm group). Interpretation The presence of a so-called viral storm is associated with increased all-cause death in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with severe COVID-19. Preventing this viral storm could help to reduce poor outcomes. Viral storm could be an enrichment marker for treatment with antivirals or purification devices to remove viral components from the blood. Funding Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Li Ka-Shing Foundation, Research Nova Scotia, and European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Translation For the Spanish translation of the see Supplementary Materials section.

Metabolic Profiling at COVID-19 Onset Shows Disease Severity and Sex-Specific Dysregulation.

Background: metabolic changes through SARS-CoV-2 infection has been reported but not fully comprehended. This metabolic dysregulation affects multiple organs during COVID-19 and its early detection can be used as a prognosis marker of severity. Therefore, we aimed to characterize metabolic and cytokine profile at COVID-19 onset and its relationship with disease severity to identify metabolic profiles predicting disease progression. Material and Methods: we performed a retrospective cross-sectional study in 123 COVID-19 patients which were stratified as asymptomatic/mild, moderate and severe according to the highest COVID-19 severity status, and a group of healthy controls. We performed an untargeted plasma metabolic profiling (gas chromatography and capillary electrophoresis-mass spectrometry (GC and CE-MS)) and cytokine evaluation. Results: After data filtering and identification we observed 105 metabolites dysregulated (66 GC-MS and 40 CE-MS) which shown different expression patterns for each COVID-19 severity status. These metabolites belonged to different metabolic pathways including amino acid, energy, and nitrogen metabolism among others. Severity-specific metabolic dysregulation was observed, as an increased transformation of L-tryptophan into L-kynurenine. Thus, metabolic profiling at hospital admission differentiate between severe and moderate patients in the later phase of worse evolution. Several plasma pro-inflammatory biomarkers showed significant correlation with deregulated metabolites, specially with L-kynurenine and L-tryptophan. Finally, we describe a strong sex-related dysregulation of metabolites, cytokines and chemokines between severe and moderate patients. In conclusion, metabolic profiling of COVID-19 patients at disease onset is a powerful tool to unravel the SARS-CoV-2 molecular pathogenesis. Conclusions: This technique makes it possible to identify metabolic phenoconversion that predicts disease progression and explains the pronounced pathogenesis differences between sexes.

High Seroprevalence Against SARS-CoV-2 Among Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences Personnel and Students of the University of Alcalá, Spain: Contributing Factors.

PURPOSE: Seroprevalence against SARS-CoV-2 within university systems is poorly studied, making evidence-based discussions of educational system reopening difficult. Moreover, few studies evaluate how antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 are maintained over time. We assessed serological response against the SARS-CoV-2 virus among our university students and staff. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, seroprevalence was determined in 705 randomly selected volunteers, members of the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences of the University of Alcalá, using a chemiluminescent Siemens' SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay for total antibodies. Positive samples were tested for IgG and IgM/IgA using VIRCLIA® MONOTEST (Vircell). A first analysis took place during June 2020, and in those testing positive, a determination of secondary outcomes was performed in November 2020. RESULTS: A total of 130 subjects showed anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (18.5%, 95% CI, 15.8-21.5%). Of these, IgM/IgA was positive in 27 and indeterminate in 19; IgG was positive in 118, indeterminate in 1. After 23 weeks, among 102 volunteers remeasured, IgG became undetectable in 6. Presence of antibodies was associated, in multivariable logistic regression, with exposure to infected patients (31.3%) [OR 1.84, 95% CI, 1.14-2.96; P = 0.012], presence of COVID-19 symptoms (52.4%) [OR 6.88, 95% CI, 4.28-11.06; P < 0.001], and confirmed earlier infection (82.9%) [OR 11.87, 95% CI, 4.26-33.07; P < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: The faculty of medicine and health sciences personnel and students of our university showed a high infection rate for SARS-CoV-2 during 2020 associated with providing clinical care to infected patients. This emphasizes the importance of the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel, including health science students.

Methodology of a Large Multicenter Observational Study of Patients with COVID-19 in Spanish Intensive Care Units Metodología de un gran estudio observacional multicéntrico de pacientes con COVID-19 en unidades de cuidados intensivos en España

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic created tremendous challenges for health-care systems. Intensive care units (ICU) were hit with a large volume of patients requiring ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and other organ support with very high mortality. The Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red-Enfermedades Respiratorias (CIBERES), a network of Spanish researchers to investigate in respiratory disease, commissioned the current proposal in response to the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) call. Methods CIBERESUCICOVID is a multicenter, observational, prospective/retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to Spanish ICUs. Several work packages were created, including study population and ICU data collection, follow-up, biomarkers and miRNAs, data management and quality. Results This study included 6102 consecutive patients admitted to 55 ICUs homogeneously distributed throughout Spain and the collection of blood samples from more than 1000 patients. We enrolled a large population of COVID-19 ICU-admitted patients including baseline characteristics, ICU and MV data, treatments complications, and outcomes. The in-hospital mortality was 31%, and 76% of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation. A 3-6 month and 1 year follow-up was performed. Few deaths after 1 year discharge were registered. Low anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody levels predict mortality in critical COVID-19. These antibodies contribute to prevent systemic dissemination of SARS-CoV-2. The severity of COVID-19 impacts the circulating miRNA profile. Plasma miRNA profiling emerges as a useful tool for risk-based patient stratification in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Conclusions We present the methodology used in a large multicenter study sponsored by ISCIII to determine the short- and long-term outcomes in patients with COVID-19 admitted to more than 50 Spanish ICUs.

Plasma miRNA profile at COVID-19 onset predicts severity status and mortality.

BACKGROUND: MicroRNAs (miRNAs) have a crucial role in regulating immune response against infectious diseases, showing changes early in disease onset and before the detection of the pathogen. Thus, we aimed to analyze the plasma miRNA profile at COVID-19 onset to identify miRNAs as early prognostic biomarkers of severity and survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: Plasma miRNome of 96 COVID-19 patients that developed asymptomatic/mild, moderate and severe disease was sequenced together with a group of healthy controls. Plasma immune-related biomarkers were also assessed. COVID-19 patients showed 200 significant differentially expressed (SDE) miRNAs concerning healthy controls, with upregulated putative targets of SARS-CoV-2, and inflammatory miRNAs. Among COVID-19 patients, 75 SDE miRNAs were observed in asymptomatic/mild compared to symptomatic patients, which were involved in platelet aggregation and cytokine pathways, among others. Moreover, 137 SDE miRNAs were identified between severe and moderate patients, where miRNAs targeting the SARS CoV-2 genome were the most strongly disrupted. Finally, we constructed a mortality predictive risk score (miRNA-MRS) with ten miRNAs. Patients with higher values had a higher risk of 90-days mortality (hazard ratio = 4.60; p-value < 0.001). Besides, the discriminant power of miRNA-MRS was significantly higher than the observed for age and gender (AUROC = 0.970 vs. 0.881; p = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 infection deeply disturbs the plasma miRNome from an early stage of COVID-19, making miRNAs highly valuable as early predictors of severity and mortality.

High SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and Low CCL5 Expression Levels in the Upper Respiratory Tract Are Associated With COVID-19 Severity.

Mucosal immune response in the upper respiratory tract is crucial for initial control of viral replication, clearance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We analyzed SARS-CoV-2 RNA load and expression of selected immune genes in the upper respiratory tract (nasopharynx) of 255 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients and evaluated their association with severe COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 replication in nasopharyngeal mucosa induces expression of several innate immune genes. High SARS-CoV-2 viral load and low CCL5 expression levels were associated with intensive care unit admission or death, although CCL5 was the best predictor of COVID-19 severity.

Are Reduced Levels of Coagulation Proteins Upon Admission Linked to COVID-19 Severity and Mortality?

Background: The link between coagulation system disorders and COVID-19 has not yet been fully elucidated. Aim: Evaluating the association of non-previously reported coagulation proteins with COVID-19 severity and mortality. Design: Cross-sectional study of 134 COVID-19 patients recruited at admission and classified according to the highest COVID-19 severity reached (asymptomatic/mild, moderate, or severe) and 16 healthy control individuals. Methods: Coagulation proteins levels (antithrombin, prothrombin, factor_XI, factor_XII, and factor_XIII) and CRP were measured in plasma by the ProcartaPlex Panel (Invitrogen) multiplex immunoassay upon diagnosis. Results: We found higher levels of antithrombin, prothrombin, factor XI, factor XII, and factor XIII in asymptomatic/mild and moderate COVID-19 patients compared to healthy individuals. Interestingly, decreased levels of antithrombin and factors XI, XII, and XIII were observed in those patients who eventually developed severe illness. Additionally, survival models showed us that patients with lower levels of these coagulation proteins had an increased risk of death. Conclusion: COVID-19 provokes early increments of some specific coagulation proteins in most patients. However, lower levels of these proteins at diagnosis might "paradoxically" imply a higher risk of progression to severe disease and COVID-19-related mortality.

Low anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody levels predict increased mortality and dissemination of viral components in the blood of critical COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies prevent viral replication. Critically ill COVID-19 patients show viral material in plasma, associated with a dysregulated host response. If these antibodies influence survival and viral dissemination in ICU-COVID patients is unknown. PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied the impact of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies levels on survival, viral RNA-load in plasma, and N-antigenaemia in 92 COVID-19 patients over ICU admission. RESULTS: Frequency of N-antigenaemia was >2.5-fold higher in absence of antibodies. Antibodies correlated inversely with viral RNA-load in plasma, representing a protective factor against mortality (adjusted HR [CI 95%], p): (S IgM [AUC ≥ 60]: 0.44 [0.22; 0.88], 0.020); (S IgG [AUC ≥ 237]: 0.31 [0.16; 0.61], <0.001). Viral RNA-load in plasma and N-antigenaemia predicted increased mortality: (N1-viral load [≥2.156 copies/ml]: 2.25 [1.16; 4.36], 0.016); (N-antigenaemia: 2.45 [1.27; 4.69], 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Low anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody levels predict mortality in critical COVID-19. Our findings support that these antibodies contribute to prevent systemic dissemination of SARS-CoV-2.

Age-Adjusted Endothelial Activation and Stress Index for Coronavirus Disease 2019 at Admission Is a Reliable Predictor for 28-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Endothelial Activation and Stress Index (EASIX) predict death in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation who develop endothelial complications. Because coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients also have coagulopathy and endotheliitis, we aimed to assess whether EASIX predicts death within 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on COVID-19 patients from two different cohorts [derivation (n = 1,200 patients) and validation (n = 1,830 patients)]. The endpoint was death within 28 days. The main factors were EASIX [(lactate dehydrogenase * creatinine)/thrombocytes] and aEASIX-COVID (EASIX * age), which were log2-transformed for analysis. Results: Log2-EASIX and log2-aEASIX-COVID were independently associated with an increased risk of death in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Log2-aEASIX-COVID showed a good predictive performance for 28-day mortality both in the derivation cohort (area under the receiver-operating characteristic = 0.827) and in the validation cohort (area under the receiver-operating characteristic = 0.820), with better predictive performance than log2-EASIX (p < 0.001). For log2 aEASIX-COVID, patients with low/moderate risk (<6) had a 28-day mortality probability of 5.3% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 4-6.5%], high (6-7) of 17.2% (95% CI = 14.7-19.6%), and very high (>7) of 47.6% (95% CI = 44.2-50.9%). The cutoff of log2 aEASIX-COVID = 6 showed a positive predictive value of 31.7% and negative predictive value of 94.7%, and log2 aEASIX-COVID = 7 showed a positive predictive value of 47.6% and negative predictive value of 89.8%. Conclusion: Both EASIX and aEASIX-COVID were associated with death within 28 days in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. However, aEASIX-COVID had significantly better predictive performance than EASIX, particularly for discarding death. Thus, aEASIX-COVID could be a reliable predictor of death that could help to manage COVID-19 patients.

Comparative evaluation of Panbio and SD Biosensor antigen rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19 diagnosis.

The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) to diagnose severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We evaluated Panbio and SD-Biosensor Ag-RDTs. We employed 186 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) negative samples to evaluate the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to assess the sensitivity. We evaluated their sensitivity according to Cycle threshold (C t ) values and days post onset of symptoms (d.p.o.). Tests were compared using the McNemar's test. Agreement was evaluated using the kappa score. Specificity was 100% for Panbio and 97.3% for SD-Biosensor. Sensitivity for samples with C t ≤ 20 was 100% for both assays and for samples with C t = 20-25 was 93.0% (Panbio) and 95.3% (SD-Biosensor) (p = 1.000). Sensitivity decreased for samples wit C t = 25-30 (Panbio: 41.3%, SD-Biosensor: 52.2%, p = 0.125) and samples with C t ≥ 30 (Panbio: 5.0%, SD-Biosensor: 17.5%, p = 0.063). Sensitivity within seven d.p.o. was 87.7% for Panbio and 90.4% for SD-Biosensor and notably decreased after seven d.p.o. Agreement with PCR was excellent for high viral load samples (C t ≤ 25): Panbio, 98.9%, kappa = 0.974; SD-Biosensor, 97.4%, kappa = 0.940. Agreement between Ag-RDTs was excellent (94.9%, kappa = 0.882). Panbio and SD-Biosensor Ag-RDTs showed excellent agreement and diagnostic performance results for samples with high viral loads (C t ≤ 25) or samples within seven d.p.o.

Diagnostic performance of CerTest and Panbio antigen rapid diagnostic tests to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection.

OBJECTIVES: Antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) have been developed as reliable tools to control the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The objective of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of two Ag-RDTs. METHODS: We evaluated CerTest SARS-CoV-2 Ag One Step Card Test and Panbio COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device Ag-RDTs. We included 320 nasopharyngeal samples: 150 PCR negative samples to assess the specificity and 170 PCR positive samples to evaluate the sensitivity. We also evaluated their sensitivity according to cycle threshold (Ct) values and the time from the onset of symptoms. Tests were compared using the McNemar's test and agreement was evaluated using the kappa score (k). RESULTS: Both Ag-RDTs showed a specificity of 100 %. Overall sensitivity was 53.5 % for CerTest and 60.0 % for Panbio. For samples with Ct≤ 25, sensitivity was 94.0 % for CerTest and 96.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.500). Regarding samples with Ct>25, sensitivity was 14.0 % for CerTest and 24.4 % for Panbio (p = 0.004). Sensitivity for samples within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms were 84.8 % for CerTest and 91.3 % for Panbio (p = 0.250) and notably decreased for samples taken after the fifth day. Both Ag-RDTs showed an excellent agreement between them (agreement = 96.7 %, k = 0.920). Agreement with PCR was also excellent for high viral load samples (Ct<25) for CerTest (98.0 %, k = 0.954) and Panbio (98.8 %, k = 0.973). CONCLUSIONS: CerTest SARS-CoV-2 and Panbio COVID-19 Ag showed excellent performance and agreement results for samples with high viral loads (Ct ≤ 25) or samples taken within the first 5 days after the onset of symptoms.

Comparison of real-time and droplet digital PCR to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma.

BACKGROUND: The presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma has been linked to disease severity and mortality. We compared RT-qPCR to droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) to detect SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma from COVID-19 patients (mild, moderate, and critical disease). METHODS: The presence/concentration of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in plasma was compared in three groups of COVID-19 patients (30 outpatients, 30 ward patients and 30 ICU patients) using both RT-qPCR and ddPCR. Plasma was obtained in the first 24h following admission, and RNA was extracted using eMAG. ddPCR was performed using Bio-Rad SARS-CoV-2 detection kit, and RT-qPCR was performed using GeneFinder™ COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit. Statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Science. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected, using ddPCR and RT-qPCR, in 91% and 87% of ICU patients, 27% and 23% of ward patients and 3% and 3% of outpatients. The concordance of the results obtained by both methods was excellent (Cohen's kappa index = 0.953). RT-qPCR was able to detect 34/36 (94.4%) patients positive for viral RNA in plasma by ddPCR. Viral RNA load was higher in ICU patients compared with the other groups (P < .001), by both ddPCR and RT-qPCR. AUC analysis revealed Ct values (RT-qPCR) and viral RNA load values (ddPCR) can similarly differentiate between patients admitted to wards and to the ICU (AUC of 0.90 and 0.89, respectively). CONCLUSION: Both methods yielded similar prevalence of RNAemia between groups, with ICU patients showing the highest (>85%). RT-qPCR was as useful as ddPCR to detect and quantify SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia in plasma.

Comparative evaluation of six immunoassays for the detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: Serologic techniques can serve as a complement to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection. The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic performance of six immunoassays to detect antibodies against SARS-CoV-2: three lateral flow immunoassays (LFAs), one ELISA and two chemiluminescence assays (CLIAs). METHODS: We evaluated three LFAs (Alltest, One Step and SeroFlash), one ELISA (Dia.Pro) and two CLIAs (Elecsys and COV2T). To assess the specificity, 60 pre-pandemic sera were used. To evaluate the sensitivity, we used 80 serum samples from patients with positive PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Agreement between techniques was evaluated using the kappa score (k). RESULTS: All immunoassays showed a specificity of 100 % except for SeroFlash (96.7 %). Overall sensitivity was 61.3 %, 73.8 %, 67.5 %, 85.9 %, 88.0 % and 92.0 % for Alltest, One Step, SeroFlash, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T, respectively. Sensitivity increased throughout the first two weeks from the onset of symptoms, reaching sensitivities over 85 % from 14 days for all LFAs, being One Step the most sensitive (97.6 %), followed by SeroFlash (95.1 %). Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T showed sensitivities over 97 % from 14 days, being 100 % for COV2T. One Step showed the best agreement results among LFAs, showing excellent agreement with Dia.Pro (agreement = 94.2 %, k = 0.884), COV2T (99.1 %, k = 0.981) and Elecsys (97.3 %, k = 0.943). Dia.Pro, COV2T and Elecsys also showed excellent agreement between them. CONCLUSIONS: One Step, Dia.Pro, Elecsys and COV2T obtained the best diagnostic performance results. All these techniques showed a specificity of 100 % and sensitivities over 97 % from 14 days after the onset of symptoms, as well as excellent levels of agreement.

Viral RNA load in plasma is associated with critical illness and a dysregulated host response in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can course with respiratory and extrapulmonary disease. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected in respiratory samples but also in blood, stool and urine. Severe COVID-19 is characterized by a dysregulated host response to this virus. We studied whether viral RNAemia or viral RNA load in plasma is associated with severe COVID-19 and also to this dysregulated response. METHODS: A total of 250 patients with COVID-19 were recruited (50 outpatients, 100 hospitalized ward patients and 100 critically ill). Viral RNA detection and quantification in plasma was performed using droplet digital PCR, targeting the N1 and N2 regions of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein gene. The association between SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and viral RNA load in plasma with severity was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. Correlations between viral RNA load and biomarkers evidencing dysregulation of host response were evaluated by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The frequency of viral RNAemia was higher in the critically ill patients (78%) compared to ward patients (27%) and outpatients (2%) (p < 0.001). Critical patients had higher viral RNA loads in plasma than non-critically ill patients, with non-survivors showing the highest values. When outpatients and ward patients were compared, viral RNAemia did not show significant associations in the multivariate analysis. In contrast, when ward patients were compared with ICU patients, both viral RNAemia and viral RNA load in plasma were associated with critical illness (OR [CI 95%], p): RNAemia (3.92 [1.183-12.968], 0.025), viral RNA load (N1) (1.962 [1.244-3.096], 0.004); viral RNA load (N2) (2.229 [1.382-3.595], 0.001). Viral RNA load in plasma correlated with higher levels of chemokines (CXCL10, CCL2), biomarkers indicative of a systemic inflammatory response (IL-6, CRP, ferritin), activation of NK cells (IL-15), endothelial dysfunction (VCAM-1, angiopoietin-2, ICAM-1), coagulation activation (D-Dimer and INR), tissue damage (LDH, GPT), neutrophil response (neutrophils counts, myeloperoxidase, GM-CSF) and immunodepression (PD-L1, IL-10, lymphopenia and monocytopenia). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and viral RNA load in plasma are associated with critical illness in COVID-19. Viral RNA load in plasma correlates with key signatures of dysregulated host responses, suggesting a major role of uncontrolled viral replication in the pathogenesis of this disease.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among hospital workers in a severely affected institution in Madrid, Spain: A surveillance cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in workers of a hospital located in one of the most affected areas in Spain. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PATIENTS: Cross-sectional study performed between March and May 2020 over all workers of a secondary hospital in Madrid, Spain. METHODS: We employed polymerase chain reaction (PCR, for symptomatic individuals) and serology (for both PCR-negative symptomatic workers and asymptomatic workers) as diagnostic tests for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We analyzed the prevalence of the virus in healthcare workers (HCWs) and nonhealthcare workers (nHCWs). We also collected information about the use of personal protective equipment (PPEs) and possible contacts prior to infection. RESULTS: In total, 2,963 workers were included: 1,092 were symptomatic, and of these, 539 were positive by PCR (49.4% of symptomatic workers). From the remaining symptomatic workers, 197 (35.6%) were positive by serology. Regarding asymptomatic workers, 345 were positive by serology (31.9% of infected workers). In total, 1,081 (36.5%) presented a positive diagnostic test for SARS-CoV-2. Infection rates were different between HCWs (37.4%) and nHCWs (29.8%) (P = .006). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, the use of PPE (protective: OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.72; P < .001) and previous contact with COVID-19 patients (risk factor: OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.28-2.24; P < .001) were independent factors that were associated with SAS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, >36% of our workers became infected with SARS-CoV-2, and the rate of asymptomatic infections accounted for almost 32% of all SARS-CoV-2 infections. We detected differences in the rates of infection between HCWs and nHCWs. The use of PPE and previous contact with COVID-19 patients were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Panbio antigen rapid test is reliable to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first 7 days after the onset of symptoms.

BACKGROUND: RT-qPCR is the current recommended laboratory method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 acute infection, several factors such as requirement of special equipment, time consuming, high cost and skilled staff limit the use of these techniques. A more rapid and high-throughput method is essential. METHODS: We analyzed clinical data and nasopharyngeal samples, collected during September 2020, from patients attended at the emergency department of a secondary hospital and in two primary healthcare centers in Madrid. The performance of the Panbio™ COVID-19 AG Rapid Test Device for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen was compared to RT-qPCR. RESULTS: 255 nasopharyngeal swabs, including 150 from the emergency department and 105 from primary helthcare centers, were tested. 184 patients were symptomatic (72.1 %). Amongst the 60 positive RT-qPCR samples, 40 were detected by the rapid antigen test, given an overall sensitivity of 73.3 %. All the samples detected positive with the rapid antigen test were also positive with RT-qPCR. The median cycle threshold was 23.28 (IQR 18.5-30.16). Patients with less than seven days onset of symptoms showed a higher viral load, and sensitivity for rapid antigen test (86.5 %), compared to those with more days (sensitivity of 53.8 %)(p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid antigen test evaluated in this study showed a high sensitivity and specificity in samples obtained during the first week of symptoms and with high viral loads. This assay seems to be an effective strategy for controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for the rapid identification and isolation of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients.

Alltest rapid lateral flow immunoassays is reliable in diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infection from 14 days after symptom onset: A prospective single-center study.

OBJECTIVES: SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis is challenging in patients from 2 to 3 weeks after the onset of symptoms, due to the low positivity rate of the PCR. Serologic tests could be complementary to PCR in these situations. The aim of our study was to analyze the diagnostic performance of one serologic rapid test in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We evaluated a lateral flow immunoassay (AllTest COVID-19 IgG/IgM) which detects IgG and IgM antibodies. We validated the serologic test using serum samples from 100 negative patients (group 1) and 90 patients with COVID-19 confirmed by PCR (group 2). Then, we prospectively evaluated the test in 61 patients with clinical diagnosis of pneumonia of unknown etiology that were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (group 3). RESULTS: All 100 patients from group 1 were negative for the serologic test (specificity = 100 %). Regarding group 2 (PCR-positive), the median time from their symptom onset until testing was 17 days. For these 90 group-2 patients, the test was positive for either IgM or IgG in 58 (overall sensitivity = 64.4 %), and in patients tested 14 days or more after the onset of symptoms, the sensitivity was 88.0 %. Regarding the 61 group-3 patients, median time after symptom onset was also 17 days, and the test was positive in 54 (88.5 % positivity). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that Alltest lateral flow immunoassay is reliable as a complement of PCR to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection after 14 days from the onset of symptoms and in patients with pneumonia and negative PCR for SARS-CoV-2.