Neutralizing Antibody Response of the Wild-Type/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Vaccine as the Second Booster Dose against Omicron BA.2 and BA.5.

In addition to the original monovalent vaccines available for SARS-CoV-2, bivalent vaccines covering wild-type (WT) and Omicron BA.1 are also available. However, there is a lack of real-world data on the immunogenicity of bivalent vaccines as second boosters against the dominant Omicron sublineages, including BA.2 and BA.5. Healthcare workers (n = 565) who received the first booster vaccination were followed for 2 weeks after the second booster dose of the monovalent mRNA-1273 (WT group, n = 168) and bivalent BNT162b2 (WT+BA.1 group, n = 23) vaccines. Participants with previous SARS-CoV-2 infections were excluded from the study. The anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody levels after the second booster dose in the WT and WT+BA.1 group were similar (median [interquartile range], 26,262.0 [16,951.0 to 38,137.0] U/mL versus 24,840.0 [14,828.0 to 41,460.0] U/mL, respectively). Although the neutralization activities of the pooled sera were lower against BA.5 than against other variants in both groups, the activities against BA.2 and BA.5 in the WT+BA.1 group were higher than those of the WT group in both pseudotyped and live virus assays. Vaccine-related symptoms, including systemic and local symptoms, were strongly correlated with anti-RBD antibody levels and neutralizing titers. In conclusion, the second booster dose of the bivalent (WT/Omicron BA.1) vaccine induced higher neutralizing activity against BA.2 and BA.5 than that of the original monovalent vaccine. IMPORTANCE Although Omicron BA.1-containing bivalent vaccines have been authorized, real-world data validating their safety and antibody responses remain scarce. We conducted a prospective longitudinal study to assess the safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of the second booster dose with the Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine in health care workers. Compared with the original monovalent vaccine, the bivalent (WT+BA.1) vaccine elicited higher levels of neutralizing antibodies against the Omicron BA.2 and BA.5 subvariants. The frequency of adverse events after the second booster dose was similar to that of the monovalent vaccine. BA.5-neutralizing antibodies induced by the bivalent Omicron BA.1-containing vaccine were expected to decline. A prospective longitudinal study should be performed to determine the persistence of the humoral immunity.

Effect of Casirivimab/Imdevimab Treatment on Serum Type I Interferon Levels in SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

The effects of casirivimab and imdevimab (C/I) on the innate immune response against SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear. We evaluated the effect of C/I on type I interferon (IFN-I) and cytokines in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. This prospective observational study recruited consecutive patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Blood levels of IFN-I and cytokines before and after C/I administration were assessed using enzyme-linked immunoassay. The study enrolled 29 patients in the C/I group. In addition, 11 patients who received remdesivir and dexamethasone (R/D group) during the early phase (≤5 days after the onset of symptoms) were included as a comparator group. After treatment, IFN-α and IFN-ß levels decreased significantly in both the C/I group and R/D group, whilst the post-treatment neutrophil-to-lymphoid ratio increased in the early C/I group but not the R/D group. In the C/I group, temporal temperature elevation and hypoxemia were observed after treatment in 58.6% and 41.4% of the cohort, respectively. However, most patients recovered by 5 days after treatment. This study could demonstrate the high therapeutic effect of C/I with an antibody-dependent enhancement-like response and decreased IFN-I production, which was likely due to the immediate induction of an antibody-dependent immune response against SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia with a higher nasopharyngeal viral load is strongly associated with disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19.

This study aimed to determine the frequency of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in serum and its association with the clinical severity of COVID-19. This retrospective cohort study performed at Toyama University Hospital included consecutive patients with confirmed COVID-19. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and the strength of its association with clinical severity variables were examined. Fifty-six patients were included in this study. RNAemia was detected in 19.6% (11/56) patients on admission, and subsequently in 1.0% (1/25), 50.0% (6/12), and 100.0% (4/4) moderate, severe, and critically ill patients, respectively. Patients with RNAemia required more frequent oxygen supplementation (90.0% vs. 13.3%), ICU admission (81.8% vs. 6.7%), and invasive mechanical ventilation (27.3% vs. 0.0%). Among patients with RNAemia, the median viral loads of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs that were collected around the same time as the serum sample were significantly higher in critically ill (5.4 log10 copies/µl; interquartile range [IQR]: 4.2-6.3) than in moderate-severe cases (2.6 log10 copies/µl; [IQR: 1.1-4.5]; p = 0.030) and were significantly higher in nonsurvivors (6.2 log10 copies/µl [IQR: 6.0-6.5]) than in survivors (3.9 log10 copies/µl [IQR: 1.6-4.6]; p = 0.045). This study demonstrated a relatively high proportion of SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and an association between RNAemia and clinical severity. Moreover, among the patients with RNAemia, the viral loads of NP swabs were correlated with disease severity and mortality, suggesting the potential utility of combining serum testing with NP tests as a prognostic indicator for COVID-19, with higher quality than each separate test.

Delayed neutralizing antibody response in the acute phase correlates with severe progression of COVID-19.

Adaptive immunity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) dynamics remain largely unknown. The neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are helpful for understanding the pathology. Using SARS-CoV-2 pseudotyped virus, serum sample neutralization values in symptomatic COVID-19 patients were measured using the chemiluminescence reduction neutralization test (CRNT). At least two sequential serum samples collected during hospitalization were analyzed to assess NAbs neutralizing activity dynamics at different time points. Of the 11 patients, four (36.4%), six (54.5%), and one (9.1%) had moderate, severe, and critical disease, respectively. Fifty percent neutralization (N50%-CRNT) was observed upon admission in 90.9% (10/11); all patients acquired neutralizing activity 2-12 days after onset. In patients with moderate disease, neutralization was observed at earliest within two days after symptom onset. In patients with severe-to-critical disease, neutralization activity increased, plateauing 9-16 days after onset. Neutralization activity on admission was significantly higher in patients with moderate disease than in patients with severe-to-critical disease (relative % of infectivity, 6.4% vs. 41.1%; P = .011). Neutralization activity on admission inversely correlated with disease severity. The rapid NAb response may play a crucial role in preventing the progression of COVID-19.

A case of COVID-19 diagnosed with favipiravir-induced drug fever based on a positive drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test.

As of October 2020, there is still no specific drug to treat COVID-19 as it rages worldwide. Favipiravir, indicated for the treatment of new and re-emerging influenza infections, has been suggested to be effective against SARS-CoV-2, although this is not yet fully validated. We administered favipiravir to a 64-year-old female patient with COVID-19. Her symptoms resolved quickly after the start of treatment, with reduction of SARS-CoV-2 viral load, but she developed a fever again on day 12. Since the fever was relieved by discontinuation of favipiravir, and based on positive results with a drug-induced lymphocyte stimulation test, we diagnosed her with favipiravir-induced drug fever. A decrease in the serum concentration of favipiravir was observed along with resolution of the fever. The present case suggests that drug fever should be considered in the differential diagnosis of relapsing fever episodes in COVID-19 patients receiving favipiravir.

Transmissibility of COVID-19 depends on the viral load around onset in adult and symptomatic patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between viral load and secondary transmission in novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Epidemiological and clinical data were obtained from immunocompetent laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19 who were admitted to and/or from whom viral loads were measured at Toyama University Hospital. Using a case-control approach, index patients who transmitted the disease to at least one other patient were analysed as "cases" (index patients) compared with patients who were not the cause of secondary transmission (non-index patients, analysed as "controls"). The viral load time courses were assessed between the index and non-index symptomatic patients using non-linear regression employing a standard one-phase decay model. RESULTS: In total, 28 patients were included in the analysis. Median viral load at the initial sample collection was significantly higher in symptomatic than in asymptomatic patients and in adults than in children. Among symptomatic patients (n = 18), non-linear regression models showed that the estimated viral load at onset was higher in the index than in the non-index patients (median [95% confidence interval]: 6.6 [5.2-8.2] vs. 3.1 [1.5-4.8] log copies/µL, respectively). In adult (symptomatic and asymptomatic) patients (n = 21), median viral load at the initial sample collection was significantly higher in the index than in the non-index patients (p = 0.015, 3.3 vs. 1.8 log copies/µL, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: High nasopharyngeal viral loads around onset may contribute to secondary transmission of COVID-19. Viral load may help provide a better understanding of why transmission is observed in some instances, but not in others, especially among household contacts.

Monitoring of viral load by RT-PCR caused decision making to continue ECMO therapy for a patient with COVID-19.

Most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have just only mild symptoms, but about 5% are very severe. Although extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) is sometimes used in critically patients with COVID-19, ECMO is only an adjunct, not the main treatment. If the patient's condition deteriorates and it is determined to be irreversible, it is necessary to decide to stop ECMO. A 54-year-old man was admitted on day 6 of onset with a chief complaint of high fever and cough. Computed tomography (CT) showed a ground glass opacity in both lungs, and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) diagnosed COVID-19. He was admitted to the hospital and started to receive oxygen and favipiravir. After that, his respiratory condition deteriorated, and he was intubated and ventilated on day 9 of onset, and ECMO was introduced on day 12. Two days after the introduction of ECMO, C-reactive protein (CRP) increased, chest X-p showed no improvement in pneumonia, and PaO2/FiO2 decreased again. As D-dimer rose and found a blood clot in the ECMO circuit, we had to decide whether to replace the circuit and continue with ECMO or stop ECMO. At this time, the viral load by RT-PCR was drastically reduced to about 1/1750. We decided to continue ECMO therapy and replaced the circuit. The patient's respiratory status subsequently improved and ECMO was stopped on day 21 of onset. In conclusion, viral load measurement by RT-PCR may be one of the indicators for promoting the treatment of severe COVID-19 patients.