ABSTRACT
ImportanceDisentangling the effects of different SARS-CoV-2 variants and of vaccination on the occurrence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is crucial to estimate and potentially reduce the future burden of PASC. ObjectiveTo determine the association of primary SARS-CoV-2 infection on the frequency of PASC symptoms by viral variant and vaccination status. DesignCross-sectional questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 serology (May/June 2022) performed within a prospective healthcare worker cohort (SURPRISE study). SettingMulticenter study in nine healthcare networks from North-Eastern Switzerland. ParticipantsVolunteer sample of healthcare workers (HCW) from participating institutions. Of approximately 20000 eligible participants, 3870 registered for the cohort and 2912 were included in this analysis. ExposuresSARS-CoV-2 infection documented by positive nasopharyngeal swab (>4 weeks ago), stratified by viral variant and vaccination status at time of infection, compared to absence of documented infection (no positive swab, negative serology). Main OutcomeSum score of eighteen self-reported PASC symptoms. ResultsAmong 2912 participants (median age 44 years, 81.3% female), SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported by 1685 (55.9%) participants, thereof 315 (18.7%) during Wild-type, 288 (17.1%) during Alpha/Delta, and 1082 (64.2%) during Omicron circulation. Mean symptom number in previously infected participants significantly exceeded that of uninfected controls (0.39), but decreased with recency of the viral variant: 1.12 (p<0.001) for Wild-type (median time since infection 18.5 months), 0.67 (p<0.001) for Alpha/Delta (6.6 months), and 0.52 (p=0.005) for Omicron BA.1 (3.1 months) infected participants. After Omicron BA.1 infection, the mean symptom score was 0.49 (p=0.30) for those with [≥]3 prior vaccinations and 0.71 (p=0.028) with 1-2 previous vaccinations compared to 0.36 for unvaccinated individuals. Adjusting for confounders, Wild-type (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-3.83) and Alpha/Delta infection (aRR 1.93, 95% CI 1.10-3.46) showed significant associations with the outcome, whereas Omicron BA.1 infection (aRR 1.29, 95% CI 0.69-2.43) and vaccination before infection (aRR 1.27, 95% CI 0.82-1.94) did not. Conclusions and RelevancePrevious infection with pre-Omicron variants was the strongest risk factor for reporting PASC symptoms in this HCW cohort. A definite influence of prior vaccination on the prevention of PASC after Omicron BA.1 infection was not measurable.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe burden of long-term symptoms (i.e. long-COVID) in patients after mild COVID-19 is debated. Within a cohort of healthcare workers (HCW), frequency and risk factors for symptoms compatible with long-COVID are assessed. MethodsParticipants answered baseline (August/September 2020) and weekly questionnaires on SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) results and acute disease symptoms. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed; in March, symptoms compatible with long-COVID (including psychometric scores) were asked and compared between HCW with positive NPS, seropositive HCW without positive NPS (presumable a-/pauci-symptomatic infections), and negative controls. Also, the effect of time since diagnosis and quantitative anti-S was evaluated. Poisson regression was used to identify risk factors for symptom occurrence. ResultsOf 3334 HCW (median 41 years; 80% female), 556 (17%) had a positive NPS and 228 (7%) were only seropositive. HCW with positive NPS more frequently reported [≥]1 symptom compared to controls (73%vs.52%, p<0.001); seropositive HCW without positive NPS did not score higher than controls (58%vs.52%, p=0.13), although impaired taste/olfaction (16%vs.6%, p<0.001) and hair loss (17%vs.10%, p=0.004) were more common. Exhaustion/burnout was reported by 24% of negative controls. Many symptoms remained elevated in those diagnosed >6 months ago; anti-S titers correlated with high symptom scores. Acute viral symptoms in weekly questionnaires best predicted long-COVID symptoms. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue scores. ConclusionsSeropositive HCW without positive NPS are only mildly affected by long-COVID. Exhaustion/burnout is common, even in non-infected HCW. Physical activity might be protective against neurocognitive impairment/fatigue symptoms after COVID-19. summaryIn this prospective healthcare worker cohort, participants with SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab were most likely to report long-COVID symptoms, whereas seropositive participants without positive swab were only mildly affected. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesIn a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline serostatus. MethodsBaseline serologies were performed among HCW from 23 Swiss healthcare institutions between June and September 2020, before the second COVID-19 wave. Participants answered weekly electronic questionnaires covering information about nasopharyngeal swabs (PCR/rapid antigen tests) and symptoms compatible with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Screening of symptomatic staff by nasopharyngeal swabs was routinely performed in participating facilities. We compared numbers of positive nasopharyngeal tests and occurrence of COVID-19 symptoms between HCW with and without anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. ResultsA total of 4818 HCW participated, whereof 144 (3%) were seropositive at baseline. We analysed 107820 questionnaires with a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Median number of answered questionnaires was similar (24 vs. 23 per person, P=0.83) between those with and without positive baseline serology. Among 2713 HCW with [≥]1 SARS-CoV-2 test during follow-up, 3/67 (4.5%) seropositive individuals reported a positive result (one of whom asymptomatic), compared to 547/2646 (20.7%) seronegative participants, 12 of whom asymptomatic (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.66). Seropositive HCWs less frequently reported impaired olfaction/taste (6/144, 4.2% vs. 588/4674, 12.6%, RR 0.33, 95%-CI: 0.15-0.73), chills (19/144, 13.2% vs. 1040/4674, 22.3%, RR 0.59, 95%-CI: 0.39-0.90), and limb/muscle pain (28/144, 19.4% vs. 1335/4674, 28.6%, RR 0.68 95%-CI: 0.49-0.95). Impaired olfaction/taste and limb/muscle pain also discriminated best between positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 results. ConclusionsHaving SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies provides almost 80% protection against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection for a period of at least eight months.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThere is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) vs. surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW). MethodsOur prospective multicentre cohort enrolled patient-facing HCWs from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferred mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). For those performing AGPs, we asked whether they used FFP2 irrespective of the patients COVID-19 status (i.e. universal use). The impact of FFP2 on i) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and ii) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed. ResultsWe enrolled 3259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2 respirators. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users (median follow-up 242 days); seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0{middle dot}8, 95% CI 0{middle dot}6-1{middle dot}0, p=0{middle dot}052) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0{middle dot}7, 95% CI 0{middle dot}5-1{middle dot}0, p=0{middle dot}053); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR for positive swab 10{middle dot}1, p<0{middle dot}001; aOR for seroconversion 5{middle dot}0, p<0{middle dot}001). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (>20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0{middle dot}7, p<0{middle dot}001; aOR 0{middle dot}6, p=0{middle dot}035). Universal FFP2 use during AGPs showed no protective effect (aHR 1{middle dot}1, p=0{middle dot}7; aOR 0{middle dot}9, p=0{middle dot}53). ConclusionRespirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients. FundingSwiss National Sciences Foundation, Federal Office of Public Health, Cantonal Health Department St.Gallen
ABSTRACT
Complications affecting the lung are hallmarks of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While there is evidence for autoimmunity in severe COVID-19, the exact mechanisms remain unknown. Here, we established a prospective observational cohort to study lung specific autoantibodies (auto-Abs). Incubation of plasma from severe COVID-19 patients with healthy human lung tissue revealed the presence of IgA antibodies binding to surfactant-producing pneumocytes. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and protein pull-downs using porcine surfactant confirmed the presence of auto-Abs binding to surfactant proteins in severe COVID-19 patients. Mass spectrometry and ELISAs with recombinant proteins identified IgA auto-Abs that target human surfactant proteins B and C. In line with these findings, lungs of deceased COVID-19 patients showed reduced pulmonary surfactant. Our data suggest that IgA-driven autoimmunity against surfactant may result in disease progression of COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
ObjectivesProtecting healthcare workers (HCW) from Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population. MethodsBetween June 22nd and August 15th 2020, HCW from institutions in Northern/Eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity. ResultsAmong 4664 HCW from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR=54, 95%-CI: 31-97) and stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR=2.2, 95%-CI: 1.1-3.9). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR=0.4, 95%-CI: 0.3-0.7), active smoking (aOR=0.5, 95%-CI: 0.3-0.9) and living with children <12 years (aOR=0.3, 95%-CI: 0.2-0.6) were associated with decreased risk. Occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR=2.8, 95%-CI: 1.5-5.5), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR=2.0, 95%-CI: 1.2-3.1), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR=2.0, 95%-CI: 1.3-3.2), and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR=1.9, 95%-CI: 1.2-3.1). ConclusionsLiving with COVID-19-positive households showed by far the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCW. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.
ABSTRACT
Several tests based on chemiluminescence immunoassay techniques have become available to test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. There is currently insufficient data on serology assay performance beyond 35 days after symptoms onset. We aimed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests on three widely used platforms. A chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA; Abbott Diagnostics, USA), a luminescence immunoassay (LIA; Diasorin, Italy), and an electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA; Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland) were investigated. In a multi-group study, sensitivity was assessed in a group of participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (n=145), whereas specificity was determined in two groups of participants without evidence of COVID-19 (i.e. healthy blood donors, n=191, and healthcare workers, n=1002). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, multilevel likelihood ratios (LR), and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were characterized. Finally, analytical specificity was characterized in samples with evidence of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) (n=9), cytomegalovirus (CMV) (n=7) and endemic common cold coronavirus infections (n=12) taken prior to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The diagnostic accuracy was comparable in all three assays (AUC 0.98). Using the manufacturers cut-offs, the sensitivities were 90%, 95% confidence interval,[84,94] (LIA), 93% [88,96] (CMIA), and 96% [91,98] (ECLIA). The specificities were 99.5% [98.9,99.8](CMIA) 99.7% [99.3,99,9] (LIA) and 99.9% [99.5,99.98] (ECLIA). The LR at half of the manufacturers cut-offs were 60 (CMIA), 82 (LIA), and 575 (ECLIA) for positive and 0.043 (CMIA) and 0.035 (LIA, ECLIA) for negative results. ECLIA had higher PPV at low pretest probabilities than CMIA and LIA. No interference with EBV or CMV infection was observed, whereas endemic coronavirus in some cases provided signals in LIA and/or CMIA. Although the diagnostic accuracy of the three investigated assays is comparable, their performance in low-prevalence settings is different. Introducing gray zones at half of the manufacturers cut-offs is suggested, especially for orthogonal testing approaches that use a second assay for confirmation.
ABSTRACT
Knowledge of the sensitivities of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody tests beyond 35 days after the clinical onset of COVID-19 is insufficient. We aimed to describe positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 assays employing three different measurement principles over a prolonged period. Two hundred sixty-eight samples from 180 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 and a reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test followed by serological investigation of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were included.. We conducted three chemiluminescence (including electrochemiluminscence, ECLIA), four enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and one lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test formats. Positivity rates, as well as positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for each week after the first clinical presentation for COVID-19. Furthermore, combinations of tests were assessed within an orthogonal testing approach employing two independent assays and predictive values were calculated. Heat maps were constructed to graphically illustrate operational test characteristics. During a follow-up period of more than 9 weeks, chemiluminescence assays and one ELISA IgG test showed stable positivity rates after the third week. With the exception of ECLIA, the PPVs of the other chemiluminescence assays were [≥]95% for COVID-19 only after the second week. ELISA and LFIA had somewhat lower PPVs. IgM exhibited insufficient predictive characteristics. An orthogonal testing approach provided PPVs [≥]95% for patients with a moderate pretest probability (e.g., symptomatic patients), even for tests with a low single test performance. After the second week, NPVs of all but IgM assays were [≥]95% for patients with low to moderate pretest probability. The confirmation of negative results using an orthogonal algorithm with another assay provided lower NPVs than the single assays. When interpreting results from SARS-CoV-2 tests, the pretest probability, time of blood draw and assay characteristics must be carefully considered. An orthogonal testing approach increases the accuracy of positive, but not negative, predictions.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundWhile the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is becoming increasingly clear, there is little data on IgA response, the first line of bronchial immune defense. ObjectiveTo determine, whether COVID-19 is associated with a vigorous total IgA response and whether IgA autoantibodies are associated with complications of severe illness. Since thrombotic events are frequent in severe COVID-19 and resemble hypercoagulation of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS), our approach focused on antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). Materials and methodsIn this retrospective cohort study we compared clinical data and aPL from 64 patients with COVID-19 from three independent centers (two in Switzerland, one in Liechtenstein). Samples were collected from April 9, 2020 to May 1, 2020. Total IgA and aPL were measured with FDA-approved commercially available clinical diagnostic kits. ResultsClinical records of the 64 patients with COVID-19 were reviewed and divided into a cohort with mild illness (mCOVID, n=26 [41%]), a discovery cohort with severe illness (sdCOVD, n=14 [22%]) and a confirmation cohort with severe illness (scCOVID, n=24 [38%]). Severe illness was significantly associated with increased total IgA (sdCOVID, P=0.01; scCOVID, P<0.001). Total IgG levels were similar in both cohorts. Among aPL, both cohorts with severe illness significantly correlated with elevated anti-Cardiolipin IgA (sdCOVID and scCOVID, P<0.001), anti-Cardiolipin IgM (sdCOVID, P=0.003; scCOVID, P<0.001), and anti-Beta2 Glycoprotein-1 IgA (sdCOVID and scCOVID, P<0.001). Systemic lupus erythematosus was excluded from all patients as a potential confounder of APS. ConclusionsHigher total IgA and IgA-aPL were consistently associated with severe illness. These novel data strongly suggest that a vigorous antiviral IgA-response triggered in the bronchial mucosa induces systemic autoimmunity.
