Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers.

Background: It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. Methods: Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. Results: IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R > 0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. Conclusion: Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2; they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Introducción: Es fundamental evaluar los niveles de protección inmune en infectados o tras la vacunación frente a SARS-CoV-2. La cuantificación de la respuesta inmune celular T puede complementar la determinación de anticuerpos. Evaluamos la viabilidad de un ensayo comercial validado de respuesta celular T específica frente a SARS-CoV-2. Métodos: Se incluyeron veinte trabajadores sanitarios (TS). Medimos anticuerpos contra las proteínas N y S de SARS-CoV-2 y realizamos el ensayo de liberación de interferón-gamma (IFNγ) en sangre completa (IGRA) frente a péptidos de la proteína S. IFNγ se determinó mediante dos métodos de detección: CLIA y ELISA. Resultados: IGRA detectó respuesta celular T en TS tanto infectados como vacunados. La correlación de los dos métodos de detección de IFNγ fue muy alta (R >0,8) y la sensibilidad y la especificidad variaron entre 100 y 86% y 100-73% respectivamente. Hubo una concordancia muy alta entre los niveles de anticuerpos específicos y el ensayo IGRA aunque la correlación cuantitativa fue relativamente baja. En el grupo de infectados, una dosis de vacuna fue suficiente para alcanzar el «plateau¼ de respuesta inmune. IGRA fue claramente positivo en un profesional vacunado inmunosuprimido que presentaba anticuerpos contra la proteína S negativos. Conclusiones: IGRA frente a péptidos de la proteína-S es susceptible de automatización y constituye una herramienta prometedora para medir la respuesta inmune celular frente a SARS-CoV-2; es aplicable a un gran número de muestras y puede servir para valorar la protección, particularmente en los grupos vulnerables en riesgo de volver a exponerse a la infección, como los TS.

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers Kits comercializados para evaluar la respuesta celular T frente a péptidos S del SARS-CoV-2. Un estudio piloto en trabajadores sanitarios

Background It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. Methods Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. Results IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R > 0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. Conclusion Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2;they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Exposing and Overcoming Limitations of Clinical Laboratory Tests in COVID-19 by Adding Immunological Parameters; A Retrospective Cohort Analysis and Pilot Study.

Background: Two years since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic no predictive algorithm has been generally adopted for clinical management and in most algorithms the contribution of laboratory variables is limited. Objectives: To measure the predictive performance of currently used clinical laboratory tests alone or combined with clinical variables and explore the predictive power of immunological tests adequate for clinical laboratories. Methods: Data from 2,600 COVID-19 patients of the first wave of the pandemic in the Barcelona area (exploratory cohort of 1,579, validation cohorts of 598 and 423 patients) including clinical parameters and laboratory tests were retrospectively collected. 28-day survival and maximal severity were the main outcomes considered in the multiparametric classical and machine learning statistical analysis. A pilot study was conducted in two subgroups (n=74 and n=41) measuring 17 cytokines and 27 lymphocyte phenotypes respectively. Findings: 1) Despite a strong association of clinical and laboratory variables with the outcomes in classical pairwise analysis, the contribution of laboratory tests to the combined prediction power was limited by redundancy. Laboratory variables reflected only two types of processes: inflammation and organ damage but none reflected the immune response, one major determinant of prognosis. 2) Eight of the thirty variables: age, comorbidity index, oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio, C-reactive protein, aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase ratio, fibrinogen, and glomerular filtration rate captured most of the combined statistical predictive power. 3) The interpretation of clinical and laboratory variables was moderately improved by grouping them in two categories i.e., inflammation related biomarkers and organ damage related biomarkers; Age and organ damage-related biomarker tests were the best predictors of survival, and inflammatory-related ones were the best predictors of severity. 4) The pilot study identified immunological tests (CXCL10, IL-6, IL-1RA and CCL2), that performed better than most currently used laboratory tests. Conclusions: Laboratory tests for clinical management of COVID 19 patients are valuable but limited predictors due to redundancy; this limitation could be overcome by adding immunological tests with independent predictive power. Understanding the limitations of tests in use would improve their interpretation and simplify clinical management but a systematic search for better immunological biomarkers is urgent and feasible.

Recovery of serum testosterone levels is an accurate predictor of survival from COVID-19 in male patients.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection portends a broad range of outcomes, from a majority of asymptomatic cases to a lethal disease. Robust correlates of severe COVID-19 include old age, male sex, poverty, and co-morbidities such as obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. A precise knowledge of the molecular and biological mechanisms that may explain the association of severe disease with male sex is still lacking. Here, we analyzed the relationship of serum testosterone levels and the immune cell skewing with disease severity in male COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Biochemical and hematological parameters of admission samples in 497 hospitalized male and female COVID-19 patients, analyzed for associations with outcome and sex. Longitudinal (in-hospital course) analyses of a subcohort of 114 male patients were analyzed for associations with outcome. Longitudinal analyses of immune populations by flow cytometry in 24 male patients were studied for associations with outcome. RESULTS: We have found quantitative differences in biochemical predictors of disease outcome in male vs. female patients. Longitudinal analyses in a subcohort of male COVID-19 patients identified serum testosterone trajectories as the strongest predictor of survival (AUC of ROC = 92.8%, p < 0.0001) in these patients among all biochemical parameters studied, including single-point admission serum testosterone values. In lethal cases, longitudinal determinations of serum luteinizing hormone (LH) and androstenedione levels did not follow physiological feedback patterns. Failure to reinstate physiological testosterone levels was associated with evidence of impaired T helper differentiation and augmented circulating classical monocytes. CONCLUSIONS: Recovery or failure to reinstate testosterone levels is strongly associated with survival or death, respectively, from COVID-19 in male patients. Our data suggest an early inhibition of the central LH-androgen biosynthesis axis in a majority of patients, followed by full recovery in survivors or a peripheral failure in lethal cases. These observations are suggestive of a significant role of testosterone status in the immune responses to COVID-19 and warrant future experimental explorations of mechanistic relationships between testosterone status and SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes, with potential prophylactic or therapeutic implications.

Soluble Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 as a Prognostic Biomarker for Disease Progression in Patients Infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Predicting disease severity in patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 is difficult. Soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (sACE2) arises from the shedding of membrane ACE2 (mACE2), which is a receptor for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. We evaluated the predictive value of sACE2 compared with known biomarkers of inflammation and tissue damage (CRP, GDF-15, IL-6, and sFlt-1) in 850 patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 with different clinical outcomes. For univariate analyses, median differences between biomarker levels were calculated for the following patient groups (classified by clinical outcome): RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive (Groups 1-4); RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 negative following previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (Groups 5 and 6); and 'SARS-CoV-2 unexposed' patients (Group 7). Median levels of CRP, GDF-15, IL-6, and sFlt-1 were significantly higher in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 compared with discharged patients (all p < 0.001), whereas levels of sACE2 were significantly lower (p < 0.001). ROC curve analysis of sACE2 provided cut-offs for predicting hospital admission (≤0.05 ng/mL (positive predictive value: 89.1%) and ≥0.42 ng/mL (negative predictive value: 84.0%)). These findings support further investigation of sACE2, as a single biomarker or as part of a panel, to predict hospitalization risk and disease severity in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Stratification of hospitalized COVID-19 patients into clinical severity progression groups by immuno-phenotyping and machine learning.

Quantitative or qualitative differences in immunity may drive clinical severity in COVID-19. Although longitudinal studies to record the course of immunological changes are ample, they do not necessarily predict clinical progression at the time of hospital admission. Here we show, by a machine learning approach using serum pro-inflammatory, anti-inflammatory and anti-viral cytokine and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody measurements as input data, that COVID-19 patients cluster into three distinct immune phenotype groups. These immune-types, determined by unsupervised hierarchical clustering that is agnostic to severity, predict clinical course. The identified immune-types do not associate with disease duration at hospital admittance, but rather reflect variations in the nature and kinetics of individual patient's immune response. Thus, our work provides an immune-type based scheme to stratify COVID-19 patients at hospital admittance into high and low risk clinical categories with distinct cytokine and antibody profiles that may guide personalized therapy.

Commercialized kits to assess T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 S peptides. A pilot study in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to assess the levels of protection generated by natural infection or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, mainly in individuals professionally exposed and in vulnerable groups. Measuring T-cell responses may complement antibody tests currently in use as correlates of protection. Our aim was to assess the feasibility of a validated assay of T-cell responses. METHODS: Twenty health-care-workers (HCW) were included. Antibody test to SARS-CoV-2 N and S-proteins in parallel with a commercially available whole-blood-interferon-gamma-release-assay (IGRA) to S-peptides and two detection methods, CLIA and ELISA were determined. RESULTS: IGRA test detected T-cell responses in naturally exposed and vaccinated HCW already after first vaccination dose. The correlation by the two detection methods was very high (R>0.8) and sensitivity and specificity ranged between 100 and 86% and 100-73% respectively. Even though there was a very high concordance between specific antibody levels and the IGRA assay in the ability to detect immune response to SARS-CoV-2, there was a relatively low quantitative correlation. In the small group primed by natural infection, one vaccine dose was sufficient to reach immune response plateau. IGRA was positive in one, with Ig(S) antibody negative vaccinated immunosuppressed HCW illustrating another advantage of the IGRA-test. CONCLUSION: Whole-blood-IGRA-tests amenable to automation and constitutes a promising additional tool for measuring the state of the immune response to SARS-CoV-2; they are applicable to large number of samples and may become a valuable correlate of protection to COVID-19, particularly for vulnerable groups at risk of being re-exposed to infection, as are health-care-workers.

Hemadsorption as a Treatment Option for Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children Associated With COVID-19. A Case Report.

Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in Children (MIS-C) associated with COVID-19 is characterized by hypercytokinemia leading to overwhelming inflammation. We describe the use of a hemadsorption device as part of the supportive treatment for cytokine storm.

Headache: A striking prodromal and persistent symptom, predictive of COVID-19 clinical evolution.

OBJECTIVE: To define headache characteristics and evolution in relation to COVID-19 and its inflammatory response. METHODS: This is a prospective study, comparing clinical data and inflammatory biomarkers of COVID-19 patients with and without headache, recruited at the Emergency Room. We compared baseline with 6-week follow-up to evaluate disease evolution. RESULTS: Of 130 patients, 74.6% (97/130) had headache. In all, 24.7% (24/97) of patients had severe pain with migraine-like features. Patients with headache had more anosmia/ageusia (54.6% vs. 18.2%; p < 0.0001). Clinical duration of COVID-19 was shorter in the headache group (23.9 ± 11.6 vs. 31.2 ± 12.0 days; p = 0.028). In the headache group, IL-6 levels were lower at the ER (22.9 (57.5) vs. 57.0 (78.6) pg/mL; p = 0.036) and more stable during hospitalisation. After 6 weeks, of 74 followed-up patients with headache, 37.8% (28/74) had ongoing headache. Of these, 50% (14/28) had no previous headache history. Headache was the prodromal symptom of COVID-19 in 21.4% (6/28) of patients with persistent headache (p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Headache associated with COVID-19 is a frequent symptom, predictive of a shorter COVID-19 clinical course. Disabling headache can persist after COVID-19 resolution. Pathophysiologically, its migraine-like features may reflect an activation of the trigeminovascular system by inflammation or direct involvement of SARS-CoV-2, a hypothesis supported by concomitant anosmia.