The natural killer cell-associated rs9916629-C allele is a novel genetic risk factor for fatal COVID-19.

The severity of COVID-19 is associated with individual genetic host factors. Among these, genetic polymorphisms affecting natural killer (NK) cell responses, as variations in the HLA-E- (HLA-E*0101/0103), FcγRIIIa- (FcγRIIIa-158-F/V), and NKG2C- (KLRC2wt/del ) receptor, were associated with severe COVID-19. Recently, the rs9916629-C/T genetic polymorphism was identified that indirectly shape the human NK cell repertoire towards highly pro-inflammatory CD56bright NK cells. We investigated whether the rs9916629-C/T variants alone and in comparison to the other risk factors are associated with a fatal course of COVID-19. We included 1042 hospitalized surviving and 159 nonsurviving COVID-19 patients as well as 1000 healthy controls. rs9916629-C/T variants were genotyped by TaqMan assays and were compared between the groups. The patients' age, comorbidities, HLA-E*0101/0103, FcγRIIIa-158-F/V, and KLRC2wt/del variants were also determined. The presence of the rs9916629-C allele was a risk factor for severe and fatal COVID-19 (p < 0.0001), independent of the patients' age or comorbidities. Fatal COVID-19 was more frequent in younger patients (<69.85 years) carrying the FcγRIIIa-158-V/V (p < 0.006) and in older patients expressing the KLRC2del variant (p < 0.003). Thus, patients with the rs9916629-C allele have a significantly increased risk for fatal COVID-19 and identification of the genetic variants may be used as prognostic marker for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The systemic renin-angiotensin system in COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 gains cell entry via angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) 2, a membrane-bound enzyme of the "alternative" (alt) renin-angiotensin system (RAS). ACE2 counteracts angiotensin II by converting it to potentially protective angiotensin 1-7. Using mass spectrometry, we assessed key metabolites of the classical RAS (angiotensins I-II) and alt-RAS (angiotensins 1-7 and 1-5) pathways as well as ACE and ACE2 concentrations in 159 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, stratified by disease severity (severe, n = 76; non-severe: n = 83). Plasma renin activity (PRA-S) was calculated as the sum of RAS metabolites. We estimated ACE activity using the angiotensin II:I ratio (ACE-S) and estimated systemic alt-RAS activation using the ratio of alt-RAS axis metabolites to PRA-S (ALT-S). We applied mixed linear models to assess how PRA-S and ACE/ACE2 concentrations affected ALT-S, ACE-S, and angiotensins II and 1-7. Median angiotensin I and II levels were higher with severe versus non-severe COVID-19 (angiotensin I: 86 versus 30 pmol/L, p < 0.01; angiotensin II: 114 versus 58 pmol/L, p < 0.05), demonstrating activation of classical RAS. The difference disappeared with analysis limited to patients not taking a RAS inhibitor (angiotensin I: 40 versus 31 pmol/L, p = 0.251; angiotensin II: 76 versus 99 pmol/L, p = 0.833). ALT-S in severe COVID-19 increased with time (days 1-6: 0.12; days 11-16: 0.22) and correlated with ACE2 concentration (r = 0.831). ACE-S was lower in severe versus non-severe COVID-19 (1.6 versus 2.6; p < 0.001), but ACE concentrations were similar between groups and correlated weakly with ACE-S (r = 0.232). ACE2 and ACE-S trajectories in severe COVID-19, however, did not differ between survivors and non-survivors. Overall RAS alteration in severe COVID-19 resembled severity of disease-matched patients with influenza. In mixed linear models, renin activity most strongly predicted angiotensin II and 1-7 levels. ACE2 also predicted angiotensin 1-7 levels and ALT-S. No single factor or the combined model, however, could fully explain ACE-S. ACE2 and ACE-S trajectories in severe COVID-19 did not differ between survivors and non-survivors. In conclusion, angiotensin II was elevated in severe COVID-19 but was markedly influenced by RAS inhibitors and driven by overall RAS activation. ACE-S was significantly lower with severe COVID-19 and did not correlate with ACE concentrations. A shift to the alt-RAS axis because of increased ACE2 could partially explain the relative reduction in angiotensin II levels.

The impact of COVID-19 on liver transplantation programs in Austria.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has affected liver disease management. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the Austrian orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) programs, however, has not been systematically investigated. METHODS: All patients listed for OLT in Austria during 2020-2021 were studied. Data on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing, vaccinations, infections, mortality and the overall number of OLTs (vs. pre-COVID-19: 2015-2019) were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 490 patients (median age: 58.0 years, 70.4% men, hepatocellular carcinoma: 27.3%) were listed for OLT in Austria in 2020-2021. Alcohol-related cirrhosis (35.3%), cholestatic (16.7%) and viral liver disease (13.9%) were the main etiologies. Of the patients 61.2% underwent OLT and 8.8% died while on the waiting list. The number of OLTs performed during COVID-19 (2020: n = 150; 2021: n = 150) remained unchanged compared to pre-COVID-19 (median: n = 152). Among waiting list patients, 7.7% (n = 31/401) were diagnosed with COVID-19 and 7 (22.6%) of these patients died. By the end of 2021, 45.1% (n = 176/390; 82.8% mRNA vaccinations) and 28.8% (105/365) of patients received 2 and 3 SARS-CoV­2 vaccinations, respectively. After two SARS-CoV­2 vaccinations, antibodies more often remained undetectable in patients vaccinated post-OLT (25.6% vs. 6.5% in patients vaccinated pre-OLT; p = 0.034). Patients with three vaccinations after OLT had lower antibody titers than patients vaccinated pre-OLT (post-OLT: 513.5, IQR 44.4-2500.0 vs. pre-OLT: 2500.0, IQR 1462.0-2500.0 BAU/mL; p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: The number of OLTs in Austria remained unchanged during COVID-19. SARS-CoV­2 infections were rare but associated with high mortality in patients on the Austrian OLT waiting lists. SARS-CoV­2 vaccination rates at the end of 2021 were suboptimal, while serological response was better in patients vaccinated pre-OLT vs. post-OLT.

Viral infections in pediatric brain tumor patients treated with targeted therapies.

BACKGROUND: Brain tumors are the most common solid malignancies and the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in children. While numerous studies report on viral infections in children with hematologic malignancies and solid organ transplantation, epidemiologic data on the incidence and outcome of viral infections in pediatric patients with brain tumors treated with targeted therapies are still lacking. OBJECTIVES/STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed all children with brain tumors receiving targeted therapies in a primary or recurrent setting at the Medical University of Vienna from 2006 to 2021. Demographic variables, quantitative and qualitative parameters of possible infections, and treatment outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: In our cohort (n = 117), 36% of the patients developed at least one PCR-proven viral infection. Respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections were most common, with 31% and 25%, respectively. Central nervous system (CNS) infections occurred in approximately 10%, with an almost equal distribution of varicella-zoster virus, John Cunningham virus (JCV), and enterovirus. Two patients tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with one virus-related death caused by a SARS-CoV-2-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. Patients receiving bevacizumab or mTOR inhibitors seem to have a greater susceptibility to viral infections. CONCLUSION: Pediatric patients with brain tumors receiving targeted therapies have a higher risk of viral infections when compared to children receiving conventional chemotherapy or the general population, and life-threatening infections can occur. Fast detection and upfront treatment are paramount to prevent life-threatening infections in immunocompromised children suffering from brain tumors receiving targeted therapies.

Increasing test specificity without impairing sensitivity: lessons learned from SARS-CoV-2 serology.

BACKGROUND: Serological tests are widely used in various medical disciplines for diagnostic and monitoring purposes. Unfortunately, the sensitivity and specificity of test systems are often poor, leaving room for false-positive and false-negative results. However, conventional methods were used to increase specificity and decrease sensitivity and vice versa. Using SARS-CoV-2 serology as an example, we propose here a novel testing strategy: the 'sensitivity improved two-test' or 'SIT²' algorithm. METHODS: SIT² involves confirmatory retesting of samples with results falling in a predefined retesting zone of an initial screening test, with adjusted cut-offs to increase sensitivity. We verified and compared the performance of SIT² to single tests and orthogonal testing (OTA) in an Austrian cohort (1117 negative, 64 post-COVID-positive samples) and validated the algorithm in an independent British cohort (976 negatives and 536 positives). RESULTS: The specificity of SIT² was superior to single tests and non-inferior to OTA. The sensitivity was maintained or even improved using SIT² when compared with single tests or OTA. SIT² allowed correct identification of infected individuals even when a live virus neutralisation assay could not detect antibodies. Compared with single testing or OTA, SIT² significantly reduced total test errors to 0.46% (0.24-0.65) or 1.60% (0.94-2.38) at both 5% or 20% seroprevalence. CONCLUSION: For SARS-CoV-2 serology, SIT² proved to be the best diagnostic choice at both 5% and 20% seroprevalence in all tested scenarios. It is an easy to apply algorithm and can potentially be helpful for the serology of other infectious diseases.

Humoral Response to mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients: Is Boostering After Six Months Adequate?

In dialysis patients the humoral response to anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is attenuated and rapidly declines over time. However, data on the persistence of the immune response in peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients are scarce, particularly after a third (booster) dose with mRNA-1273 vaccine. In this prospective cohort study, we report anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels in PD patients before and after the third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine. Six months after the second dose, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in all patients (n = 34). However, within this time period antibodies substantially declined in 31 of 34 patients (4.5-fold, median = 192 BAU/mL, p = 1.27 × 10-9) and increased in three patients. In accordance with government regulations, a third dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine (50 µg) was given to 27 PD patients 6 months after the second dose which induced a significant increase of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers (58.6-fold, median = 19405 BAU/mL, p = 1.24 × 10-29). A mixed model analysis showed that a lower Davies Comorbidity Score and a higher GFR were associated with higher antibody titers (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02). The most common adverse events after the third dose were pain at the injection site (77.8%) and fatigue (51.9%). No hospitalizations were reported. In conclusion, 6 months after the second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine, anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies substantially decreased in PD patients, whereas a well-tolerated third dose induced a robust humoral response. Our data suggest that the administration of a booster dose within a shorter interval than 6 months should be considered in PD patients in order to maintain high anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and assure protection from severe COVID-19 disease.

Results of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection external quality assessment round focusing on sensitivity of assays and pooling of samples.

OBJECTIVES: Results of earlier external quality assessment (EQA) rounds suggested remarkable differences in the sensitivity of SARS-CoV PCR assays. Although the test systems are intended to detect SARS-CoV-2 in individual samples, screening is often applied to sample pools to increase efficiency and decrease costs. However, it is unknown to what extent these tests actually meet the manufacturer's specifications for sensitivity and how they perform when testing sample pools. METHODS: The sensitivity of assays in routine use was evaluated with a panel of positive samples in a round of a SARS-CoV-2 virus genome detection EQA scheme. The panel consisted of samples at or near the lower limit of detection ("weakly positive"). Laboratories that routinely test sample pools were asked to also analyze the pooled EQA samples according to their usual pool size and dilution method. RESULTS: All participants could detect a highly positive patient-derived sample (>106 copies/mL). Most (96%) of the test systems could detect at least 1,000 copies/mL, meeting the minimum acceptable benchmark, and many (94%) detected the vRNA in a sample with lower concentration (500 copies/mL). The false negative ratio increased to 16 and 26% for samples with 100 and 50 copies/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of most assays met or exceeded their specification on sensitivity. If assays are to be used to analyze sample pools, the sensitivity of the assay and the number of pooled samples must be balanced.

Progressive cholestasis and associated sclerosing cholangitis are frequent complications of COVID-19 in patients with chronic liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cholestasis is associated with disease severity and worse outcome in COVID-19. Cases of secondary sclerosing cholangitis (SSC) after severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have been described. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 between 03/2020 and 07/2021 were included. Patients were stratified as having (i) no chronic liver disease (CLD), (ii) non-advanced CLD (non-ACLD), or (iii) advanced CLD (ACLD). Patients with CLD and non-COVID-19 pneumonia were matched to patients with CLD and COVID-19 as a control cohort. Liver chemistries before (Pre) and at first, second, and third blood withdrawal after SARS-CoV-2 infection (T1-T3) and at last available time point (last) were recorded. A total of 496 patients were included. In total, 13.1% (n = 65) had CLD (non-ACLD: 70.8%; ACLD: 29.2%); the predominant etiology was NAFLD/NASH (60.0%). COVID-19-related liver injury was more common among patients with CLD (24.6% vs. 10.6%; p = 0.001). After SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with CLD exhibited progressive cholestasis with persistently increasing levels of alkaline phosphatase (Pre: 91.0 vs. T1: 121.0 vs. last: 175.0 U/L; p < 0.001) and gamma-glutamyl transferase (Pre: 95.0 vs. T1: 135.0 vs. last: 202.0 U/L; p = 0.001). A total of 23.1% of patients with CLD (n = 15/65) developed cholestatic liver failure (cholestasis plus bilirubin ≥6 mg/dl) during COVID-19, and 15.4% of patients (n = 10/65) developed SSC. SSC was significantly more frequent among patients with CLD and COVID-19 than in patients with CLD and non-COVID-19 pneumonia (p = 0.040). COVID-19-associated SSC occurred predominantly in patients with NAFLD/NASH and metabolic risk factors. A total of 26.3% (n = 5/19) of patients with ACLD experienced hepatic decompensation after SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: About 20% of patients with CLD develop progressive cholestasis after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with NAFLD/NASH and metabolic risk factors are at particular risk for developing cholestatic liver failure and/or SSC after COVID-19.

COVID-19: IgG seroconversion under intensive glucocorticoid treatment in a high-risk patient with minimal change disease.

In this case report we present a rare case of a patient with multiple risk factors for severe coronavirus disease (COVID 19) in whom intensive glucocorticoid treatment due to incipient nephrotic syndrome coincided with SARS-CoV­2 infection. Despite this high baseline risk profile and the use of glucocorticoids the patient developed only mild disease including IgG SARS-CoV­2 seroconversion.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in oncology healthcare professionals and patients with cancer at a tertiary care centre during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 outbreak, healthcare professionals (HCP) are at the frontline of clinical management and at increased risk for infection. The SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence of oncological HCP and their patients has significant implications for oncological care. METHODS: HCP and patients with cancer at the Division of Oncology, Medical University of Vienna were included between 21 March and 4 June and tested for total antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 employing the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Reactive samples were confirmed or disproved by the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG test. Additionally, a structured questionnaire regarding basic demographic parameters, travel history and COVID-19-associated symptoms had to be completed by HCP. RESULTS: 146 subjects (62 HCP and 84 patients with cancer) were enrolled. In the oncological HCP cohort, 20 (32.3%) subjects were medical oncologists, 28 (45.2%) nurses at our ward and 14 (22.6%) fulfil other functions such as study coordinators. In the patient cohort, most individuals are on active anticancer treatment (96.4%). 26% of the HCP and 6% of the patients had symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19 since the end of February 2020. However, only in 2 (3.2%) HCP and in 3 (3.6%) patients, anti-SARS-Cov-2 total antibodies were detected. The second assay for anti-SARS-Cov-2 IgG antibodies confirmed the positive result in all HCP and in 2 (2.4%) patients, suggesting an initial assay's unspecific reaction in one case. In individuals with a confirmed test result, an active COVID-19 infection was documented by a positive SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR test. CONCLUSION: Specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were found solely in persons after a documented SARS-CoV-2 viral infection, thus supporting the test methods' high sensitivity and specificity. The low prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in our cohorts indicates a lack of immunity against SARS-CoV-2. It highlights the need for continued strict safety measures to prevent uncontrolled viral spread among oncological HCPs and patients with cancer.

SARS-CoV-2 Testing in Patients With Cancer Treated at a Tertiary Care Hospital During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: To analyze the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer in hospital care after implementation of institutional and governmental safety measurements. METHODS: Patients with cancer routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by nasal swab and real-time polymerase chain reaction between March 21 and May 4, 2020, were included. The results of this cancer cohort were statistically compared with the SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in the Austrian population as determined by a representative nationwide random sample study (control cohort 1) and a cohort of patients without cancer presenting to our hospital (control cohort 2). RESULTS: A total of 1,688 SARS-CoV-2 tests in 1,016 consecutive patients with cancer were performed. A total of 270 of 1,016 (26.6%) of the patients were undergoing active anticancer treatment in a neoadjuvant/adjuvant and 560 of 1,016 (55.1%) in a palliative setting. A total of 53 of 1,016 (5.2%) patients self-reported symptoms potentially associated with COVID-19. In 4 of 1,016 (0.4%) patients, SARS-CoV-2 was detected. At the time of testing at our department, all four SARS-CoV-2-positive patients were asymptomatic, and two of them had recovered from symptomatic COVID-19. Viral clearance was achieved in three of the four patients 14-56 days after testing positive. The estimated odds ratio of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence between the cancer cohort and control cohort 1 was 1.013 (95% CI, 0.209 to 4.272; P = 1), and between control cohort 2 and the cancer cohort it was 18.333 (95% CI, 6.056 to 74.157). CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that continuation of active anticancer therapy and follow-up visits in a large tertiary care hospital are feasible and safe after implementation of strict population-wide and institutional safety measures during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Routine SARS-CoV-2 testing of patients with cancer seems advisable to detect asymptomatic virus carriers and avoid uncontrolled viral spread.

Side-by-Side Comparison of Three Fully Automated SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Assays with a Focus on Specificity.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous new serological test systems for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies rapidly have become available. However, the clinical performance of many of these is still insufficiently described. Therefore, we compared 3 commercial CE-marked, SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays side by side. METHODS: We included a total of 1154 specimens from pre-COVID-19 times and 65 samples from COVID-19 patients (≥14 days after symptom onset) to evaluate the test performance of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin. RESULTS: All 3 assays presented with high specificities: 99.2% (98.6-99.7) for Abbott, 99.7% (99.2-100.0) for Roche, and 98.3% (97.3-98.9) for DiaSorin. In contrast to the manufacturers' specifications, sensitivities only ranged from 83.1% to 89.2%. Although the 3 methods were in good agreement (Cohen's Kappa 0.71-0.87), McNemar tests revealed significant differences between results obtained from Roche and DiaSorin. However, at low seroprevalences, the minor differences in specificity resulted in profound discrepancies of positive predictive values at 1% seroprevalence: 52.3% (36.2-67.9), 77.6% (52.8-91.5), and 32.6% (23.6-43.1) for Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin, respectively. CONCLUSION: We found diagnostically relevant differences in specificities for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays by Abbott, Roche, and DiaSorin that have a significant impact on the positive predictive values of these tests.

Development of a fully automated high throughput PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: The need for speed.

Currently, testing for coronavirus is performed with time and personnel consuming PCR assays. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity and capacity of a fully automated, random access high-throughput real-time PCR-based diagnostic platform for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. The NeuMoDx N96 system displayed an equal or better detection rate for SARS-CoV-2 compared with the LightCycler 480II system and showed a specificity of 100%. The median PCR run time for all 28 PCR runs was 91 (IQR 84-97) minutes. The capacity of the NeuMoDx N96 could easily surpass the capacity of most currently used molecular test systems and significantly reduce the turn-around time.