Systematic assessment of the humoral response against SARS-CoV-2 in a French cohort of 283 patients with rheumatic diseases.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with rheumatic diseases and to specify the proportion of asymptomatic and symptomatic forms of COVID-19. METHODS: We screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection among spondyloarthritis (SpA, n=143) or rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=140) patients in our outpatient clinic at Cochin Hospital in Paris between June and August 2020. We performed a qualitative SARS-CoV-2 serological test which detects IgG directed against the N nucleocapsid protein (anti-N) and, for some patients, against the Spike protein (anti-S). Descriptive analyses were managed. RESULTS: During June-August 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate in our population was 2.83% (8/283 patients) without significant difference between RA and SpA patients (2.14% and 3.5%, respectively). We report 11 out of 283 patients (3.8%) with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Among these 11 patients, 1 patient was asymptomatic (9%) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 by anti-S serology. Of the 283 patients, 85% were under bDMARDs, mainly on rituximab (RTX) (n=44) and infliximab (IFX) (n=136). CONCLUSIONS: The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with rheumatic diseases, mainly under bDMARDs treatments, was 2.83%. Among infected patients, 9% were asymptomatic. Detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections could be based on the strategy using patients' interview and anti-N serology.

Health research and innovation: Can we optimize the interface between startups/pharmaceutical companies and academic health care institutions or not?

Although France has numerous assets in the realm of health care, such as the excellence of its research teams, the reputation of its healthcare system, and the presence of many startups, all of which are necessary to become a leader in innovation, it also has combined cultural and regulatory barriers that limit the flexibility and efficiency of interactions between companies/startups and public health institutions. Therefore, the aim of the roundtable discussion was to optimize the interface between those businesses and institutions. Several institutions have successfully implemented teams and procedures which aim to facilitate this interface, with regard to assessments of technology, services provided, the transfer of biological material, R&D collaboration, and licensing agreements. However, there is still a notable absence of entrepreneurial culture among hospital and academic research practitioners; their training regarding innovation remains insufficient and business-related value-creation is non-existent in their career evolution. Pharmaceutical companies, and particularly startups, often lack knowledge about hospital environments and their constraints. As a result, the recommendations of the roundtable participants are as follows: (1) promote reciprocal acculturation between public health institutions and startups through multidisciplinary training in innovation, promoting project development and staff recognition within the institution, and improving pharmaceutical companies' understanding regarding the health care system; (2) provide those involved with means and resources dedicated to innovation by reserving time for innovation at work, securing the status of the staff involved, and aiding in the search for funding; (3) develop and use standard methodologies and tools; and (4) co-design and co-construct innovative health solutions, encouraging the emergence of participatory and interdisciplinary creative spaces. All of these recommendations should help to make the interface between startups/companies and public health institutions more fluid and attractive for those in the health sector.