Complementary Sets of Autoantibodies Induced by SARS-CoV-2, Adenovirus and Bacterial Antigens Cross-React with Human Blood Protein Antigens in COVID-19 Coagulopathies.

COVID-19 patients often develop coagulopathies including microclotting, thrombotic strokes or thrombocytopenia. Autoantibodies are present against blood-related proteins including cardiolipin (CL), serum albumin (SA), platelet factor 4 (PF4), beta 2 glycoprotein 1 (ß2GPI), phosphodiesterases (PDE), and coagulation factors such as Factor II, IX, X and von Willebrand factor (vWF). Different combinations of autoantibodies associate with different coagulopathies. Previous research revealed similarities between proteins with blood clotting functions and SARS-CoV-2 proteins, adenovirus, and bacterial proteins associated with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infections. This study investigated whether polyclonal antibodies (mainly goat and rabbit) against these viruses and bacteria recognize human blood-related proteins. Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and adenovirus recognized vWF, PDE and PF4 and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies also recognized additional antigens. Most bacterial antibodies tested (group A streptococci [GAS], staphylococci, Escherichia coli [E. coli], Klebsiella pneumoniae, Clostridia, and Mycobacterium tuberculosis) cross-reacted with CL and PF4. while GAS antibodies also bound to F2, Factor VIII, Factor IX, and vWF, and E. coli antibodies to PDE. All cross-reactive interactions involved antibody-antigen binding constants smaller than 100 nM. Since most COVID-19 coagulopathy patients display autoantibodies against vWF, PDE and PF4 along with CL, combinations of viral and bacterial infections appear to be necessary to initiate their autoimmune coagulopathies.

Type 2 Diabetes Coagulopathy Proteins May Conflict With Biomarkers Reflective of COVID-19 Severity.

Objective: Detailed proteomic analysis in a cohort of patients with differing severity of COVID-19 disease identified biomarkers within the complement and coagulation cascades as biomarkers for disease severity has been reported; however, it is unclear if these proteins differ sufficiently from other conditions to be considered as biomarkers. Methods: A prospective, parallel study in T2D (n = 23) and controls (n = 23). A hyperinsulinemic clamp was performed and normoglycemia induced in T2D [4.5 ± 0.07 mmol/L (81 ± 1.2 mg/dl)] for 1-h, following which blood glucose was decreased to ≤2.0 mmol/L (36 mg/dl). Proteomic analysis for the complement and coagulation cascades were measured using Slow Off-rate Modified Aptamer (SOMA)-scan. Results: Thirty-four proteins were measured. At baseline, 4 of 18 were found to differ in T2D versus controls for platelet degranulation [Neutrophil-activating peptide-2 (p = 0.014), Thrombospondin-1 (p = 0.012), Platelet factor-4 (p = 0.007), and Kininogen-1 (p = 0.05)], whilst 3 of 16 proteins differed for complement and coagulation cascades [Coagulation factor IX (p < 0.05), Kininogen-1 (p = 0.05), and Heparin cofactor-2 (p = 0.007)]; STRING analysis demonstrated the close relationship of these proteins to one another. Induced euglycemia in T2D showed no protein changes versus baseline. At hypoglycemia, however, four proteins changed in controls from baseline [Thrombospondin-1 (p < 0.014), platelet factor-4 (p < 0.01), Platelet basic protein (p < 0.008), and Vitamin K-dependent protein-C (p < 0.00003)], and one protein changed in T2D [Vitamin K-dependent protein-C, (p < 0.0002)]. Conclusion: Seven of 34 proteins suggested to be biomarkers of COVID-19 severity within the platelet degranulation and complement and coagulation cascades differed in T2D versus controls, with further changes occurring at hypoglycemia, suggesting that validation of these biomarkers is critical. It is unclear if these protein changes in T2D may predict worse COVID-19 disease for these patients. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT03102801.

Loneliness and Its Associated Factors Nine Months after the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Cross-National Study.

COVID-19 has been a global healthcare concern impacting multiple aspects of individual and community wellness. As one moves forward with different methods to reduce the infection and mortality rates, it is critical to continue to study the impact that national and local "social distancing" policies have on the daily lives of individuals. The aim of this study was to examine loneliness in relation to risk assessment, measures taken against risks, concerns, and social media use, while adjusting for sociodemographic variables. The cross-sectional study collected data from 3474 individuals from the USA, the UK, Norway, and Australia. Loneliness was measured with the de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Multiple linear regression was used in the analysis of associations between variables. The results showed that concerns about finances were more strongly associated with social loneliness, while concerns about the future was more strongly associated with emotional loneliness. Longer daily time spent on social media was associated with higher emotional loneliness. In conclusion, pandemic-related concerns seem to affect perceptions of loneliness. While social media can be used productively to maintain relationships, and thereby prevent loneliness, excessive use may be counterproductive.

Management of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy in persons with haemophilia.

INTRODUCTION: The SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus-induced infection (COVID-19) can be associated with a coagulopathy mainly responsible for pulmonary microvasculature thrombosis and systemic thromboembolic manifestations. The pathophysiology and management of the COVID-19 coagulopathy are likely more complex in patients with inherited bleeding diseases such as haemophilia. These individuals might indeed present with both bleeding and thrombotic complications and require simultaneous antithrombotic and haemostatic treatments. OBJECTIVE: We propose practical guidance for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19 coagulopathy in persons with haemophilia. RESULTS: Continuation of regular haemostatic treatment is recommended for ambulatory patients. For patients requiring hospital admission and on replacement therapy with factors VIII or IX concentrates, prophylaxis with concentrates should be intensified according to the risk of bleeding complications and associated with prophylactic doses of LMWH. For patients on nonreplacement therapy, emicizumab should be continued and possibly combined with factor VIII and prophylactic doses of LMWH depending on the risk of bleeding and thrombosis. Dose escalation of LMWH tailored to the risk of thrombosis can be employed but not supported by evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These practical recommendations are based on the current literature on COVID-19 with its impact on haemostasis, indications and modalities for thromboprophylaxis mainly in nonhaemophilic patients and how that is likely to affect persons with haemophilia in different circumstances. They will need to be tailored to each patient's clinical status and validated in future studies.