Wild-type SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing immunity decreases across variants and over time but correlates well with diagnostic testing.

Importance: The degree of immune protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants provided by infection versus vaccination with wild-type virus remains unresolved, which could influence future vaccine strategies. The gold-standard for assessing immune protection is viral neutralization; however, few studies involve a large-scale analysis of viral neutralization against the Omicron variant by sera from individuals infected with wild-type virus. Objectives: 1) To define the degree to which infection versus vaccination with wild-type SARS-CoV-2 induced neutralizing antibodies against Delta and Omicron variants.2) To determine whether clinically available data, such as infection/vaccination timing or antibody status, can predict variant neutralization. Methods: We examined a longitudinal cohort of 653 subjects with sera collected three times at 3-to-6-month intervals from April 2020 to June 2021. Individuals were categorized according to SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status. Spike and nucleocapsid antibodies were detected via ADVIA Centaur® (Siemens) and Elecsys® (Roche) assays, respectively. The Healgen Scientific® lateral flow assay was used to detect IgG and IgM spike antibody responses. Pseudoviral neutralization assays were performed on all samples using human ACE2 receptor-expressing HEK-293T cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein pseudotyped lentiviral particles for wild-type (WT), B.1.617.2 (Delta), and B.1.1.529 (Omicron) variants. Results: Vaccination after infection led to the highest neutralization titers at all timepoints for all variants. Neutralization was also more durable in the setting of prior infection versus vaccination alone. Spike antibody clinical testing effectively predicted neutralization for wild-type and Delta. However, nucleocapsid antibody presence was the best independent predictor of Omicron neutralization. Neutralization of Omicron was lower than neutralization of either wild-type or Delta virus across all groups and timepoints, with significant activity only present in patients that were first infected and later immunized. Conclusions: Participants having both infection and vaccination with wild-type virus had the highest neutralizing antibody levels against all variants and had persistence of activity. Neutralization of WT and Delta virus correlated with spike antibody levels against wild-type and Delta variants, but Omicron neutralization was better correlated with evidence of prior infection. These data help explain why 'breakthrough' Omicron infections occurred in previously vaccinated individuals and suggest better protection is observed in those with both vaccination and previous infection. This study also supports the concept of future SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-specific vaccine boosters.

Change in Code Status Orders of Hospitalized Adults with COVID-19 Throughout the Pandemic: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Aim: Our aim was to examine how code status orders for patients hospitalized with COVID-19 changed over time as the pandemic progressed and outcomes improved. Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed at a single academic center in the United States. Adults admitted between March 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021, who tested positive for COVID-19, were included. The study period included four institutional hospitalization surges. Demographic and outcome data were collected and code status orders during admission were trended. Data were analyzed with multivariable analysis to identify predictors of code status. Results: A total of 3615 patients were included with full code (62.7%) being the most common final code status order followed by do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) (18.1%). Time of admission (per every six months) was an independent predictor of final full compared to DNAR/partial code status (p = 0.04). Limited resuscitation preference (DNAR or partial) decreased from over 20% in the first two surges to 10.8% and 15.6% of patients in the last two surges. Other independent predictors of final code status included body mass index (p < 0.05), Black versus White race (0.64, p = 0.01), time spent in the intensive care unit (4.28, p = <0.001), age (2.11, p = <0.001), and Charlson comorbidity index (1.05, p = <0.001). Conclusions: Over time, adults admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 were less likely to have a DNAR or partial code status order with persistent decrease occurring after March 2021. A trend toward decreased code status documentation as the pandemic progressed was observed.

Parental Perspectives Regarding the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Their Children.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has brought profound changes to the health of families worldwide. Yet, there is limited research regarding its impact on children. The pandemic may exacerbate factors associated with excess weight, which is particularly concerning due to the potential association between excess weight and severity of COVID-19 infection. This study investigates parental perspectives of changes in fruit/vegetable (FV) intake, processed food (PF) intake, outdoor playtime (OP), physical activity (PA) levels, and recreational screen time (RST) among children living in Michigan during the pandemic. Methods: The study team and community partners developed and distributed a survey using snowball sampling to reach families living largely in Central and Southeastern Michigan. Nonlinear mixed-effects proportional odds models were used to examine associations between child weight status along with demographic/household factors and changes in five weight-related behaviors. Results: Parents (n = 1313; representing 2469 children) reported a decrease in OP, FV, and PA levels, while there was an increase in RST and PF intake among their children. Household income was protective against a decrease in OP, PA, and FV but was associated with increased RST. Children's weight status was associated with decreased FV. Age was negatively associated with OP and PA, and positively associated with RST. Conclusions: These findings suggest an adverse influence of the pandemic on weight-related behaviors, particularly among adolescents in families with lower incomes and those with excess weight. Further work is needed to measure any impact on BMI trajectory and to identify interventions to reverse negative effects.

Vaccination counseling with and without excipient skin testing in patients with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and patients with atopy.

Background: Allergic reactions have been reported with mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 prevention. Patients perceived to be at higher risk for a reaction may be referred to an allergist, although evaluation strategies may differ between allergists. Objective: Our aim was to determine outcomes of COVID-19 vaccinations in patients evaluated by an allergist using different approaches. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case series evaluation of 98 patients seen at the University of Michigan Allergy Clinic for concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccination. Of these 98 patients, 34 underwent skin testing with polyethylene glycol (PEG) 2000 with or without PEG 3350/polysorbate 80 testing. Results: Of the 34 patients on whom skin testing was performed, 16 underwent testing before vaccination and 18 underwent testing after a reported vaccine-related event. One patient had a positive skin testing result in response to PEG 3350 following a vaccination reaction and natural infection and was advised against a second dose. One patient with a significant history concerning of anaphylaxis in response to PEG had positive results of testing to identify allergy to PEG 2000, PEG 3350, and polysorbate 80 and was advised against vaccination. Of the 98 patients, 63 (64%) tolerated COVID-19 vaccination without complication after evaluation by an allergist. Conclusion: No significant differences were found between vaccination counseling with and without skin testing to excipients. Patients who presented before the first dose of vaccination were more likely to proceed with COVID-19 vaccination and tolerate vaccination without complication.

Asthma and coronavirus disease 2019-related outcomes in hospitalized patients: A single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Several chronic conditions have been associated with a higher risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including asthma. However, there are conflicting conclusions regarding risk of severe disease in this population. OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of asthma on COVID-19 outcomes in a cohort of hospitalized patients and whether there is any association between asthma severity and worse outcomes. METHODS: We identified hospitalized patients with COVID-19 with confirmatory polymerase chain reaction testing with (n = 183) and without asthma (n = 1319) using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, codes between March 1 and December 30, 2020. We determined asthma maintenance medications, pulmonary function tests, highest historical absolute eosinophil count, and immunoglobulin E. Primary outcomes included death, mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Analysis was adjusted for demographics, comorbidities, smoking status, and timing of illness in the pandemic. RESULTS: In unadjusted analyses, we found no difference in our primary outcomes between patients with asthma and patients without asthma. However, in adjusted analyses, patients with asthma were more likely to have mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-2.44; P = .04), ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29; P = .02), longer hospital length of stay (risk ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55; P < .003), and higher mortality (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.33; P = .04) compared with the non-asthma cohort. Inhaled corticosteroid use and eosinophilic phenotype were not associated with considerabledifferences. Interestingly, patients with moderate asthma had worse outcomes whereas patients with severe asthma did not. CONCLUSION: Asthma was associated with severe COVID-19 after controlling for other factors.

Mild SARS-CoV-2 Illness Is Not Associated with Reinfections and Provides Persistent Spike, Nucleocapsid, and Virus-Neutralizing Antibodies.

Uncertainty exists whether mild COVID-19 confers immunity to reinfection. Questions also remain regarding the persistence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after mild infection. We prospectively followed at-risk individuals with and without SARS-CoV-2 for reinfection and monitored the spike and nucleocapsid antibodies. This prospective cohort study was conducted over two visits, 3 to 6 months apart, between May 2020 and February 2021. Adults with and without COVID-19, verified by FDA EUA-approved SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays, were screened for spike and nucleocapsid antibody responses using FDA EUA-approved immunoassays and for pseudoviral neutralization activity. The subjects were monitored for symptoms, exposure to COVID-19, COVID-19 testing, seroconversion, reinfection, and vaccination. A total of 653 subjects enrolled; 129 (20%) had a history of COVID-19 verified by RT-PCR at enrollment. Most had mild disease, with only three requiring hospitalization. No initially seropositive subjects experienced a subsequent COVID-19 infection during the follow-up versus 15 infections among initially seronegative subjects (infection rates of 0.00 versus 2.05 per 10,000 days at risk [P = 0.0485]). In all, 90% of SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects produced spike and nucleocapsid responses, and all but one of these had persistent antibody levels at follow-up. Pseudoviral neutralization activity was widespread among participants, did not decrease over time, and correlated with clinical antibody assays. Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 was not observed among individuals with mild clinical COVID-19, while infections continued in a group without known prior infection. Spike and nucleocapsid COVID-19 antibodies were associated with almost all infections and persisted at stable levels for the study duration. IMPORTANCE This article demonstrates that people who have mild COVID-19 illnesses and produce antibodies are protected from reinfection for up to 6 months afterward. The antibodies that people produce in this situation are stable for up to 6 months as well. Clinical antibody assays correlate well with evidence of antibody-related viral neutralization activity.

Accurate point-of-care serology tests for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: As COVID-19 vaccines become available, screening individuals for prior COVID-19 infection and vaccine response in point-of-care (POC) settings has renewed interest. We prospectively screened at-risk individuals for SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid protein antibodies in a POC setting to determine if it was a feasible method to identify antibody from prior infection. METHODS: Three EUA-approved lateral flow antibody assays were performed on POC finger-stick blood and compared with serum and a CLIA nucleocapsid antibody immunoassay. Variables including antibody class, time since PCR, and the assay antigen used were evaluated. RESULTS: 512 subjects enrolled, of which 104 had a COVID-19 history and positive PCR. Only three PCR-positive subjects required hospitalization, with one requiring mechanical ventilation. The POC results correlated well with the immunoassay (93-97% sensitivity) and using serum did not improve the sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Finger-stick, POC COVID-19 antibody testing was highly effective in identifying antibody resulting from prior infections in mildly symptomatic subjects. Using high-complexity serum immunoassays did not improve the screening outcome. Almost all individuals with COVID-19 infection produced detectable antibodies to the virus. POC antibody testing is useful as a screen for prior COVID-19 infection, and should be useful in assessing vaccine response.

The prevalence and impact of pre-existing sleep disorder diagnoses and objective sleep parameters in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: Obstructive sleep apnea and other sleep disorders overlap with comorbidities associated with poor outcomes related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. However, the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and relationship to outcomes is poorly characterized, and the relevance of other sleep disorders remains unknown. The objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of pre-existing sleep disorders and association with outcomes related to severe COVID-19 illness. METHODS: Patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection admitted to the University of Michigan Hospital System were included. Electronic medical records were queried for sleep disorders diagnostic codes. Data were extracted from polysomnography and home sleep testing in a subgroup with previous diagnostic testing at our center. Logistic regression was used to examine the association of sleep disorders with mechanical ventilation requirement, treatment with vasopressors, and death and Cox proportional hazards regression for time to discharge. RESULTS: Among n = 572 adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19, 113 (19.8%) patients had obstructive sleep apnea, 4 patients had central sleep apnea (0.7%), 5 had hypoventilation (0.9%), 63 had insomnia (11.0%), and 22 had restless legs syndrome or periodic limb movements disorder (3.9%). After adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, and race, no significant relationship was apparent between sleep disorders diagnoses or indices of sleep-disordered breathing severity and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to determine the prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea and other sleep disorders in a well-characterized cohort of patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Once hospitalized, a significant contribution of sleep disorders to outcomes was not identified. Therefore, future evaluations should focus on earlier outcomes, such as infection or clinical manifestations after exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

COVID-19 Outcomes Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Case-control Study.

BACKGROUND: Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are considered to be "vulnerable" to COVID-19 infection due to immunosuppression. To date, there are no studies that compared the disease severity of COVID-19 in SOT recipients with nontransplant patients. METHODS: In this case-control study, we compared the outcomes of COVID-19 between SOT recipients and their matched nontransplant controls. The cases were all adult SOT recipients (N = 41) from our academic health center who were diagnosed with COVID-19 between March 10, 2020 and May 15, 2020 using positive reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for SARS-CoV2. The controls (N = 121) were matched on age (±5 y), race, and admission status (hospital or outpatient). The primary outcome was death and secondary outcomes were severe disease, intubation and renal replacement therapy (RRT). RESULTS: Median age of SOT recipients (9 heart, 3 lung, 16 kidney, 8 liver, and 5 dual organ) was 60 y, 80% were male and 67% were Black. Severe disease adjusted risk of death was similar in both the groups (hazard ratio = 0.84 [0.32-2.20]). Severity of COVID-19 and intubation were similar, but the RRT use was higher in SOT (odds ratio = 5.32 [1.26, 22.42]) compared to non-SOT COVID-19 patients. Among SOT recipients, COVID-19-related treatment with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was associated with 10-fold higher hazard of death compared to without HCQ (hazard ratio = 10.62 [1.24-91.09]). CONCLUSIONS: Although African Americans constituted one-tenth of all SOT in our center, they represented two-thirds of COVID-19 cases. Despite high RRT use in SOT recipients, the severe disease and short-term death were similar in both groups. HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19 among SOT recipients was associated with high mortality and therefore, its role as a treatment modality requires further scrutiny.

Tocilizumab for Treatment of Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can manifest in rapid decompensation and respiratory failure with elevated inflammatory markers, consistent with cytokine release syndrome for which IL-6 blockade is an approved treatment. METHODS: We assessed effectiveness and safety of IL-6 blockade with tocilizumab in a single-center cohort of patients with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was survival probability postintubation; secondary analyses included an ordinal illness severity scale integrating superinfections. Outcomes in patients who received tocilizumab compared with tocilizumab-untreated controls were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression with propensity score inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS: 154 patients were included, of whom 78 received tocilizumab and 76 did not. Median follow-up was 47 days (range, 28-67). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, although tocilizumab-treated patients were younger (mean: 55 vs 60 years), less likely to have chronic pulmonary disease (10% vs 28%), and had lower D-dimer values at time of intubation (median: 2.4 vs 6.5 mg/dL). In IPTW-adjusted models, tocilizumab was associated with a 45% reduction in hazard of death (HR, .55; 95% CI, .33-.90) and improved status on the ordinal outcome scale [OR per 1-level increase, .58; .36-.94). Although tocilizumab was associated with an increased proportion of patients with superinfections (54% vs 26%; P < .001), there was no difference in 28-day case fatality rate among tocilizumab-treated patients with versus without superinfection (22% vs 15%; P = .42). Staphylococcus aureus accounted for ~50% of bacterial pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients, tocilizumab was associated with lower mortality despite higher superinfection occurrence.