Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Clin Virol Plus ; 1(4): 100041, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1734699

ABSTRACT

Background: The systemic antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in COVID-19 patients has been extensively studied. However, less is known about the mucosal responses in the upper airways, the site of initial SARS-CoV-2 replication. Methods: The IgG and IgA antibody responses were analysed in plasma and nasopharyngeal swabs from the first four confirmed COVID-19 patients in France. Two were pauci-symptomatic while two developed severe disease. We characterized their antibody profiles by using an in-house ELISA to detect antibodies directed against SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein and Spike. Results: Anti-N IgG and IgA antibodies were detected in the NPS of severe patients only. The levels of antibodies in the plasma markedly differed amongst the patients. The most distinctive features are a strong anti-N IgG response in the severe patient who recovered, and a high anti-N IgA response specifically detected in the fatal case of COVID-19. Conclusions: Anti-N IgG and IgA antibodies are detected in NPS only for severe patients, with levels related to serological antibodies. The severe patients showed different antibody profiles in the plasma, notably regarding the IgA and IgG response to the N antigen, that may reflect different disease outcome. By contrast, pauci-symptomatic patients did not exhibit any mucosal antibodies in NSP, which is associated with a low or absent serological response against both N and S.

2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-329525

ABSTRACT

Objectives Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of contracting coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) than the general population. This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on that risk for HCWs working in primary care, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) or hospitals. Methods We conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April–9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) recruited by email were invited to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use. Questions covered the 10 days preceding symptom onset for cases (or testing if asymptomatic) or inclusion for controls. Results A total of 4152 matched cases and controls were included. The multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odds ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4–31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53–3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66–3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial or complete immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37–0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34–0.97]) during COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00–2.18]). N95-respirator protection was comparable to that of surgical masks. Results were consistent across healthcare-facility categories. Conclusions HCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.

3.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-304820

ABSTRACT

Background: The antiviral efficacy of remdesivir is still controversial. We aimed at evaluating its clinical effectiveness in patients with COVID-19 requiring oxygen and/or ventilator support.Methods: In this European multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial in adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23), participants were randomly allocated to receive usual standard of care alone or in combination with intravenous remdesivir (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once-daily for 9 days or until discharge). Treatment assignation was performed via web-based randomisation stratified on illness severity and administrative European region. The primary outcome was the clinical status at day 15 measured by the WHO 7-point ordinal scale, assessed in the intention-to-treat population.Findings: Between March 22nd, 2020 and January 21st, 2021, 857 participants were randomised to one of the two arms in 5 European countries and 832 participants were included for the evaluation of remdesivir (control, n=418;remdesivir, n=414). There was no difference in the clinical status neither at day 15 between treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.25, P=0.85) nor at day 29. The proportion of deaths at day 28 was not significantly different between control (8.9%) and remdesivir (8.2%) treatment groups (OR for remdesivir, 0.93 95%CI 0.57 to 1.52, P=0.77). There was also no difference on SARS-CoV-2 viral kinetics (effect of remdesivir on viral load slope, -0.004 log10 cp/10,000 cells/day, 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.02, P=0.75). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of Serious Adverse Events between treatment groups.Interpretation: The use of remdesivir for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was not associated with clinical improvement at day 15 or day 29, nor with a reduction in mortality, nor with a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 RNA.Trial Registration: DisCoVeRy, NCT04315948;EudraCT2020-000936-23Funding: European Union Commission, French Ministry of Health, DIM One Health Île-de-France, REACTing, Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB;Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE)Declaration of Interests: Dr. Costagliola reports grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mentré reports grants from INSERM Reacting (French Government), grants from Ministry of Health (French Government), grants from European Commission, during the conduct of the study;grants from Sanofi, grants from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hites reports grants from The Belgian Center for Knowledge (KCE), grants from Fonds Erasme-COVID-ULB, during the conduct of the study;personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mootien reports non-financial support from GILEAD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gaborit reports non-financial support from Gilead, non- financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Botelho-Nevers reports other from Pfizer, other from Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lacombe reports personal fees and non-financial support from Gilead, personal fees and non-financial support from Janssen, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees and non-financial support from Abbvie, during the conduct of the study. Dr. Wallet reports personal fees and non-financial support from Jazz pharmaceuticals, personal fees and non-financial support from Novartis, personal fees and nonPage financial support from Kite-Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kimmoun reports personal fees from Aguettan, personal fees from Aspen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Thiery reports personal fees from AMGEN, outside the submitted work. Dr. Burdet reports personal fees from Da Volterra, personal fees from Mylan Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. Dr. Poissy reports personal fees from Gilead for lectures, outside the submitted work. Dr. Goehringer reports personal fees from G lead Sciences, non-financial support from Gilead Sciences, grants from Biomerieux, non-financial support from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Peytavin reports personal fees from Gilead Sciences, personal fees from Merck France, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from TheraTechnologies, outside the submitted work. Dr. Danion reports personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Raffi reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Abbvie, personal fees from ViiV Healthcare, personal fees from Theratechnologies, personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gallien reports personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from ViiV, personal fees from MSD, outside the submitted work;and has received consulting fee from Gilead in August 2020 to check the registration file of remdesivir for the French administration. Dr. Nseir reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Gilead, personal fees from Biomérieux, personal fees from BioRad, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lefèvre reports personal fees from Mylan, personal fees from Gilead, outside the submitted work. Dr. Guedj reports personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. Other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: The trial was approved by the Ethics Committee (CPP Ile-de-France-III, approval #20.03.06.51744), and is sponsored by the Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm, France);it was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all included participants (or their legal representatives if unable to consent). The present analysis is based on the protocol v11.0 of December 12th, 2020.

5.
J Antimicrob Chemother ; 76(Supplement_3): iii20-iii27, 2021 Sep 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493833

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Virus-associated respiratory infections are in the spotlight with the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and the expanding use of multiplex PCR (mPCR). The impact of molecular testing as a point-of-care test (POCT) in the emergency department (ED) is still unclear. OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of a syndromic test performed in the ED as a POCT and in the central laboratory on length of stay (LOS), antibiotic use and single-room assignment. METHODS: From 19 November 2019 to 9 March 2020, adults with acute respiratory illness seeking care in the ED of a large hospital were enrolled, with mPCR performed with a weekly alternation in the ED as a POCT (week A) or in the central laboratory (week B). RESULTS: 474 patients were analysed: 275 during A weeks and 199 during B weeks. Patient characteristics were similar. The hospital LOS (median 7 days during week A versus 7 days during week B, P = 0.29), the proportion of patients with ED-LOS <1 day (63% versus 60%, P = 0.57) and ED antibiotic prescription (59% versus 58%, P = 0.92) were not significantly different. Patients in the POCT arm were more frequently assigned a single room when having a positive PCR for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus and metapneumovirus [52/70 (74%) versus 19/38 (50%) in the central testing arm, P = 0.012]. CONCLUSIONS: Syndromic testing performed in the ED compared with the central laboratory failed to reduce the LOS or antibiotic consumption in patients with acute respiratory illness, but was associated with an increased single-room assignment among patients in whom a significant respiratory pathogen was detected.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Point-of-Care Systems , Adult , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Length of Stay , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Cell Death Dis ; 12(4): 310, 2021 03 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1149708

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the ongoing world-wide pandemic which has already taken more than two million lives. Effective treatments are urgently needed. The enzymatic activity of the HECT-E3 ligase family members has been implicated in the cell egression phase of deadly RNA viruses such as Ebola through direct interaction of its VP40 Protein. Here we report that HECT-E3 ligase family members such as NEDD4 and WWP1 interact with and ubiquitylate the SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. Furthermore, we find that HECT family members are overexpressed in primary samples derived from COVID-19 infected patients and COVID-19 mouse models. Importantly, rare germline activating variants in the NEDD4 and WWP1 genes are associated with severe COVID-19 cases. Critically, I3C, a natural NEDD4 and WWP1 inhibitor from Brassicaceae, displays potent antiviral effects and inhibits viral egression. In conclusion, we identify the HECT family members of E3 ligases as likely novel biomarkers for COVID-19, as well as new potential targets of therapeutic strategy easily testable in clinical trials in view of the established well-tolerated nature of the Brassicaceae natural compounds.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/enzymology , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/antagonists & inhibitors , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/metabolism , Adult , Aged , Animals , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/genetics , COVID-19/metabolism , Chlorocebus aethiops , Endosomal Sorting Complexes Required for Transport/metabolism , Female , Humans , Indoles/pharmacology , Male , Mice , Mice, Inbred BALB C , Middle Aged , Nedd4 Ubiquitin Protein Ligases/genetics , Nedd4 Ubiquitin Protein Ligases/metabolism , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/metabolism , Ubiquitin-Protein Ligases/genetics , Ubiquitination , Vero Cells
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL