Prevalence and predictors of psychological distress before, during, and after a COVID-19 pandemic wave in Switzerland, 2021.

There are concerns about acute and long-term mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study examined the prevalence and predictors of psychological distress before, during, and after a pandemic wave in Switzerland, 2021. Prevalence of psychological distress was estimated in adults aged 35-96 years using the General Health Questionnaire-12 administered in June 2021 (Specchio-COVID19 cohort, N = 3965), and compared to values from 2003 to 2006 (CoLaus|PsyCoLaus cohort, N = 5667). Anxiety and depression were assessed from February to June 2021 using the Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale-2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-2, respectively. Prevalence of psychological distress in June 2021, after the pandemic wave (16.0% [95% CI, 14.6%-17.4%]) was comparable to pre-pandemic levels (15.1% [14.0%-16.2%]). Anxiety and depression were highest at the start of the pandemic wave in February 2021, and declined from February to June with the relaxation of measures. Predictors of psychological distress included being younger, female, a single parent, unemployed, a change in working hours or job loss in the past 6 months, greater perceived severity and contagiousness of COVID-19, and self-reported post COVID-19. By June 2021, following a pandemic wave, prevalence of psychological distress in Switzerland was closer to pre-pandemic levels. These findings highlight the need for additional mental health support during times of stricter government policies relating to COVID-19; yet they also suggest that individuals can adapt relatively quickly to the changing context.

Comparison of Nasopharyngeal and Saliva Swab Nucleic Acid Amplification and Rapid Antigen Testing To Detect Omicron SARS-CoV-2 Variant of Concern: a Prospective Clinical Trial (OMICRON).

In November 2021, the World Health Organization declared the Omicron variant (B.1.1.519) a variant of concern. Since then, worries have been expressed regarding the ability of usual diagnostic tests to detect the Omicron variant. In addition, some recently published data suggested that the salivary reverse transcription (RT)-PCR might perform better than the current gold standard, nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. In this study, we aimed to compare the sensitivities of nasopharyngeal and saliva RT-PCR and assess the diagnostic performances of rapid antigen testing (RAT) in nasopharyngeal and saliva samples. We conducted a prospective clinical study among symptomatic health care professionals consulting the occupational health service of our hospital for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) screening and hospitalized patients in internal medicine/intensive care wards screened for SARS-CoV-2 with COVID-19-compatible symptoms. A composite outcome considering NP PCR and/or saliva PCR was used as a reference standard to define COVID-19 cases. A total of 475 paired NP/saliva specimens have been collected with a positivity rate of 40% (n = 192). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivities of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 99%) and 87% (95% CI, 81 to 91%), respectively, for outpatients (n = 453) and 94% (95% CI, 72 to 99%) and 69% (95% CI, 44 to 86%), respectively, for hospitalized patients (n = 22). Nasopharyngeal rapid antigen testing exhibited much lower diagnostic performances (sensitivity of 66% and 31% for outpatients and inpatients, respectively), while saliva RAT showed a sensitivity of less than 5% in both groups. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR testing remains the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant screening. Salivary RT-PCR can be used as an alternative in case of contraindication to perform NP sampling. The use of RAT should be limited to settings where access to molecular diagnostic methods is lacking. IMPORTANCE The Omicron variant of concern spread rapidly since it was first reported in November 2021 and currently accounts for the vast majority of new infections worldwide. Recent reports suggest that saliva sampling might outweigh nasopharyngeal sampling for the diagnosis of the Omicron variant. Nevertheless, data investigating the best diagnostic strategy specifically for the Omicron variant of concern remain scarce. This study fills this gap in current knowledge and elucidates the question of which strategy to use in which patient. It provides a new basis for further improving COVID-19 screening programs and managing patients suspected to have COVID-19.

Antibody response and intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in COVID-19 patients pre-exposed or not to B-cell-depleting agents.

Administration of plasma therapy may contribute to viral control and survival of COVID-19 patients receiving B-cell-depleting agents that impair humoral immunity. However, little is known on the impact of anti-CD20 pre-exposition on the kinetics of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Here, we evaluated the relationship between anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) kinetics and the clinical status or intra-host viral evolution after plasma therapy in 36 eligible hospitalized COVID-19 patients, pre-exposed or not to B-cell-depleting treatments. The majority of anti-CD20 pre-exposed patients (14/17) showed progressive declines of anti-spike IgG titres following plasma therapy, contrasting with the 4/19 patients who had not received B-cell-depleting agents (p = 0.0006). Patients with antibody decay also depicted prolonged clinical symptoms according to the World Health Organization (WHO) severity classification (p = 0.0267) and SARS-CoV-2 viral loads (p = 0.0032) before complete virus clearance. Moreover, they had higher mutation rates than patients able to mount an endogenous humoral response (p = 0.015), including three patients with one to four spike mutations, potentially associated with immune escape. No relevant differences were observed between patients treated with plasma from convalescent and/or mRNA-vaccinated donors. Our study emphasizes the need for an individualized clinical care and follow-up in the management of COVID-19 patients with B-cell lymphopenia.

Sensitivity of Rapid Antigen Testing and RT-PCR Performed on Nasopharyngeal Swabs versus Saliva Samples in COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients: Results of a Prospective Comparative Trial (RESTART).

Saliva sampling could serve as an alternative non-invasive sample for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis while rapid antigen tests (RATs) might help to mitigate the shortage of reagents sporadically encountered with RT-PCR. Thus, in the RESTART study we compared antigen and RT-PCR testing methods on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and salivary samples. We conducted a prospective observational study among COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 10 December 2020 and 1 February 2021. Paired saliva and NP samples were investigated by RT-PCR (Cobas 6800, Roche-Switzerland, Basel, Switzerland) and by two rapid antigen tests: One Step Immunoassay Exdia® COVID-19 Ag (Precision Biosensor, Daejeon, Korea) and Standard Q® COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test (Roche-Switzerland). A total of 58 paired NP-saliva specimens were collected. A total of 32 of 58 (55%) patients were hospitalized in the intensive care unit, and the median duration of symptoms was 11 days (IQR 5-19). NP and salivary RT-PCR exhibited sensitivity of 98% and 69% respectively, whereas the specificity of these RT-PCRs assays was 100%. The NP RATs exhibited much lower diagnostic performance, with sensitivities of 35% and 41% for the Standard Q® and Exdia® assays, respectively, when a wet-swab approach was used (i.e., when the swab was diluted in the viral transport medium (VTM) before testing). The sensitivity of the dry-swab approach was slightly better (47%). These antigen tests exhibited very low sensitivity (4% and 8%) when applied to salivary swabs. Nasopharyngeal RT-PCR is the most accurate test for COVID-19 diagnosis in hospitalized patients. RT-PCR on salivary samples may be used when nasopharyngeal swabs are contraindicated. RATs are not appropriate for hospitalized patients.

The cytokines HGF and CXCL13 predict the severity and the mortality in COVID-19 patients.

The objective of the present study was to identify biological signatures of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) predictive of admission in the intensive care unit (ICU). Over 170 immunological markers were investigated in a 'discovery' cohort (n = 98 patients) of the Lausanne University Hospital (LUH-1). Here we report that 13 out of 49 cytokines were significantly associated with ICU admission in the three cohorts (P < 0.05 to P < 0.001), while cellular immunological markers lacked power in discriminating between ICU and non-ICU patients. The cytokine results were confirmed in two 'validation' cohorts, i.e. the French COVID-19 Study (FCS; n = 62) and a second LUH-2 cohort (n = 47). The combination of hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) and C-X-C motif chemokine ligand 13 (CXCL13) was the best predictor of ICU admission (positive and negative predictive values ranging from 81.8% to 93.1% and 85.2% to 94.4% in the 3 cohorts) and occurrence of death during patient follow-up (8.8 fold higher likelihood of death when both cytokines were increased). Of note, HGF is a pleiotropic cytokine with anti-inflammatory properties playing a fundamental role in lung tissue repair, and CXCL13, a pro-inflammatory chemokine associated with pulmonary fibrosis and regulating the maturation of B cell response. Up-regulation of HGF reflects the most powerful counter-regulatory mechanism of the host immune response to antagonize the pro-inflammatory cytokines including CXCL13 and to prevent lung fibrosis in COVID-19 patients.

Transcriptomic Signature Differences Between SARS-CoV-2 and Influenza Virus Infected Patients.

The reason why most individuals with COVID-19 have relatively limited symptoms while other develop respiratory distress with life-threatening complications remains unknown. Increasing evidence suggests that COVID-19 associated adverse outcomes mainly rely on dysregulated immunity. Here, we compared transcriptomic profiles of blood cells from 103 patients with different severity levels of COVID-19 with that of 27 healthy and 22 influenza-infected individuals. Data provided a complete overview of SARS-CoV-2-induced immune signature, including a dramatic defect in IFN responses, a reduction of toxicity-related molecules in NK cells, an increased degranulation of neutrophils, a dysregulation of T cells, a dramatic increase in B cell function and immunoglobulin production, as well as an important over-expression of genes involved in metabolism and cell cycle in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to those infected with influenza viruses. These features also differed according to COVID-19 severity. Overall and specific gene expression patterns across groups can be visualized on an interactive website (https://bix.unil.ch/covid/). Collectively, these transcriptomic host responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection are discussed in the context of current studies, thereby improving our understanding of COVID-19 pathogenesis and shaping the severity level of COVID-19.

Case Report: Stepwise Anti-Inflammatory and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Effects Following Convalescent Plasma Therapy With Full Clinical Recovery.

In these times of COVID-19 pandemic, concern has been raised about the potential effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on immunocompromised patients, particularly on those receiving B-cell depleting agents and having therefore a severely depressed humoral response. Convalescent plasma can be a therapeutic option for these patients. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of convalescent plasma is crucial to optimize such therapeutic approach. Here, we describe a COVID-19 patient who was deeply immunosuppressed following rituximab (anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody) and concomitant chemotherapy for chronic lymphoid leukemia. His long-term severe T and B cell lymphopenia allowed to evaluate the treatment effects of convalescent plasma. Therapeutic outcome was monitored at the clinical, biological and radiological level. Moreover, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers (IgM, IgG and IgA) and neutralizing activity were assessed over time before and after plasma transfusions, alongside to SARS-CoV-2 RNA quantification and virus isolation from the upper respiratory tract. Already after the first cycle of plasma transfusion, the patient experienced rapid improvement of pneumonia, inflammation and blood cell counts, which may be related to the immunomodulatory properties of plasma. Subsequently, the cumulative increase in anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies due to the three additional plasma transfusions was associated with progressive and finally complete viral clearance, resulting in full clinical recovery. In this case-report, administration of convalescent plasma revealed a stepwise effect with an initial and rapid anti-inflammatory activity followed by the progressive SARS-CoV-2 clearance. These data have potential implications for a more extended use of convalescent plasma and future monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of immunosuppressed COVID-19 patients.