RESUMO
BackgroundSleep disturbance is common following hospitalisation both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations are poorly understood, despite it altering pathophysiology in other scenarios. We, therefore, investigated whether sleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea along with relevant mediation pathways. MethodsSleep parameters were assessed in a prospective cohort of patients (n=2,468) hospitalised for COVID-19 in the United Kingdom in 39 centres using both subjective and device-based measures. Results were compared to a matched UK biobank cohort and associations were evaluated using multivariable linear regression. Findings64% (456/714) of participants reported poor sleep quality; 56% felt their sleep quality had deteriorated for at least 1-year following hospitalisation. Compared to the matched cohort, both sleep regularity (44.5 vs 59.2, p<0.001) and sleep efficiency (85.4% vs 88.5%, p<0.001) were lower whilst sleep period duration was longer (8.25h vs 7.32h, p<0.001). Overall sleep quality (effect estimate 4.2 (3.0-5.5)), deterioration in sleep quality following hospitalisation (effect estimate 3.2 (2.0-4.5)), and sleep regularity (effect estimate 5.9 (3.7-8.1)) were associated with both dyspnoea and impaired lung function (FEV1 and FVC). Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 13-42% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and muscle weakness mediated 29-43% of this effect. InterpretationSleep disturbance is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety and muscle weakness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. It could have similar effects for other causes of hospitalisation where sleep disturbance is prevalent. FundingUK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
RESUMO
BackgroundMost studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. MethodsPlasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FindingsStrong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months. Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months with high plasma neutralising titres against all variants. Of 180 with complete data, 160 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG responses, indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. InterpretationThe decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before the studyC_ST_ABSWhile systemic immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important in preventing severe disease, mucosal immunity prevents viral replication at the point of entry and reduces onward transmission. We searched PubMed with search terms "mucosal", "nasal", "antibody", "IgA", "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "convalescent" and "vaccination" for studies published in English before 20th July 2022, identifying three previous studies examining the durability of nasal responses that generally show nasal antibody to persist for 3 to 9 months. However, these studies were small or included individuals with mild COVID-19. One study of 107 care-home residents demonstrated increased salivary IgG (but not IgA) after two doses of mRNA vaccine, and another examined nasal antibody responses after infection and subsequent vaccination in 20 cases, demonstrating rises in both nasal IgA and IgG 7 to 10 days after vaccination. Added value of this studyStudying 446 people hospitalised for COVID-19, we show durable nasal and plasma IgG responses to ancestral (B.1 lineage) SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants up to 12 months after infection. Nasal antibody induced by infection with pre-Omicron variants, bind Omicron virus in vitro better than plasma antibody. Although nasal and plasma IgG responses were enhanced by vaccination, Omicron binding responses did not reach levels equivalent to responses for ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Using paired plasma and nasal samples collected approximately 12 months after infection, we show that nasal IgA declines and shows a minimal response to vaccination whilst plasma antibody responses to S antigen are well maintained and boosted by vaccination. Implications of all the available evidenceAfter COVID-19 and subsequent vaccination, Omicron binding plasma and nasal antibody responses are only moderately enhanced, supporting the need for booster vaccinations to maintain immunity against SARS-CoV-2 variants. Notably, there is distinct compartmentalisation between nasal IgA and plasma IgA and IgG responses after vaccination. These findings highlight the need for vaccines that induce robust and durable mucosal immunity.
RESUMO
BackgroundImmunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with COVID-19 compared with immunocompetent patients. However, previous studies have been contradictory. We aimed to determine whether immunocompromised patients were at greater risk of in-hospital death, and how this risk changed over the pandemic. MethodsWe included patients >=19yrs with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK. We defined immunocompromise as: immunosuppressant medication preadmission, cancer treatment, organ transplant, HIV, or congenital immunodeficiency. We used logistic regression to compare the risk of death in both groups, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, vaccination and co-morbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. FindingsBetween 17/01/2020 and 28/02/2022 we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. 29% (n=6,499) of immunocompromised and 21% (n=28,608) of immunocompetent patients died in hospital. The odds of in-hospital mortality were elevated for immunocompromised patients (adjOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.39-1.50, p<0.001). As the pandemic progressed, in-hospital mortality reduced more slowly for immunocompromised patients than for immunocompetent patients. This was particularly evident with increasing age: the probability of the reduction in hospital mortality being less for immunocompromised patients aged 50-69yrs was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80yrs was 99% for men, and 98% for women. ConclusionsImmunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses and monoclonal antibodies should be considered for this group. FundingNational Institute for Health Research; Medical Research Council; Chief Scientist Office, Scotland.
RESUMO
Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against SARSCoV2. However, the maintenance of such responses, and hence protection from disease, requires careful characterisation. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (Protective immunity from T cells in Healthcare workers (PITCH), within the larger SARSCoV2 immunity and reinfection evaluation (SIREN) study) we previously observed that prior infection impacted strongly on subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. Here, we report longer follow up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and up to 6 months following a subsequent mRNA booster vaccination. We make three observations: Firstly, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ; binding and neutralising antibodies declined whereas T and memory B cell responses were maintained after the second vaccine dose. Secondly, vaccine boosting restored IgG levels, broadened neutralising activity against variants of concern including omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5, and boosted T cell responses above the 6 month level post dose 2. Thirdly, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger as well as broader T cell responses compared with never-infected people, a feature maintained until 6 months after the third dose. In conclusion, broadly cross-reactive T cell responses are well maintained over time, especially in those with combined vaccine and infection-induced immunity (hybrid immunity), and may contribute to continued protection against severe disease.
