ABSTRACT
ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of contracting coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) than the general population. This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on that risk for HCWs working in primary care, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) or hospitals. MethodsWe conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April-9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) recruited by email were invited to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use. Questions covered the 10 days preceding symptom onset for cases (or testing if asymptomatic) or inclusion for controls. ResultsA total of 4152 matched cases and controls were included. The multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odds ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4-31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53-3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66-3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial or complete immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37-0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34-0.97]) during COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00-2.18]). N95-respirator protection was comparable to that of surgical masks. Results were consistent across healthcare-facility categories. ConclusionsHCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundRapid identification of SARS-Cov-2 infected individuals is a cornerstone in strategies for the control of virus spread. The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection by RT-PCR is similar in saliva and nasopharyngeal swab. Rapid molecular point-of-care tests in saliva could facilitate, broaden and speed up the diagnosis. Objectives and methodsWe conducted a prospective study in two community COVID-19 screening centers to evaluate the performances of a CE-marked RT-LAMP assay (EasyCoV) specifically designed for the detection of SARS-CoV2 RNA from fresh saliva samples, compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR (reference test), to saliva RT-PCR and to nasopharyngeal antigen testing. ResultsOverall, 117 of the 1718 participants (7%) were tested positive with nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, the sensitivity and specificity of the RT-LAMP assay in saliva were 34% (95%CI: 26-44) and 97% (95%CI: 96-98) respectively. The performance was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic participants. The Ct values of nasopharyngeal RT-PCR were significantly lower in the 40 true positive subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 25.9) than in the 48 false negative subjects with saliva RT-LAMP (Ct 28.4) (p=0.028). Considering six alternate criteria for reference test, including saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen, the sensitivity of saliva RT-LAMP ranged between 27 and 44%. ConclusionIn the ambulatory setting, the detection of SARS-CoV-2 from crude saliva samples with the RT-LAMP assay had a lower sensitivity than nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal antigen testing. Registration numberNCT04578509 Funding SourcesFrench Ministry of Health and the Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris Foundation.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundNasopharyngeal sampling for nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) is the current standard diagnostic test for of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the NAAT technique is lengthy and nasopharyngeal sampling requires trained personnel. Saliva NAAT represents an interesting alternative but diagnostic performances vary widely between studies. ObjectiveTo assess the diagnostic accuracy of a nasopharyngeal point-of-care antigen (Ag) test and of saliva NAAT for detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), as compared to nasopharyngeal NAAT. DesignProspective participant enrollment from 19 October through 18 December 2020. SettingTwo community COVID-19 screening centers in Paris, France. Participants1452 ambulatory children and adults referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing. InterventionsNAAT on a saliva sample (performed with three different protocols for pre-processing, amplification and detection of SARS-CoV-2) and Ag testing on a nasopharyngeal sample. MeasurementsPerformance of saliva NAAT and nasopharyngeal Ag testing. ResultsOverall, 129/1443 (9%) participants tested positive on nasopharyngeal NAAT (102/564 [18%] in symptomatic and 27/879 [3%] in asymptomatic participants). Sensitivity was of 94% (95% CI, 86% to 98%), 23% (CI, 14% to 35%), 94% (CI, 88% to 97%) and 96% (CI, 91% to 99%) for the nasopharyngeal Ag test and the three different protocols of saliva NAAT, respectively. Estimates of specificity were above 95% for all methods. Diagnostic accuracy was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. LimitationsFew children (n=122, 8%) were included. ConclusionIn the ambulatory setting, diagnostic accuracy of nasopharyngeal Ag testing and of saliva NAAT seems similar to that of nasopharyngeal NAAT, subject to strict compliance with specific pre-processing and amplification protocols. Registration numberNCT04578509 Funding SourcesFrench Ministry of Health and the Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris Foundation.
ABSTRACT
Infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) induces a complex antibody response that varies by orders of magnitude between individuals and over time. Waning antibody levels lead to reduced sensitivity of serological diagnostic tests over time. This undermines the utility of serological surveillance as the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic progresses into its second year. Here we develop a multiplex serological test for measuring antibodies of three isotypes (IgG, IgM, IgA) to five SARS-CoV-2 antigens (Spike (S), receptor binding domain (RBD), Nucleocapsid (N), Spike subunit 2, Membrane-Envelope fusion) and the Spike proteins of four seasonal coronaviruses. We measure antibody responses in several cohorts of French and Irish hospitalized patients and healthcare workers followed for up to eleven months after symptom onset. The data are analysed with a mathematical model of antibody kinetics to quantify the duration of antibody responses accounting for inter-individual variation. One year after symptoms, we estimate that 36% (95% range: 11%, 94%) of anti-S IgG remains, 31% (9%, 89%) anti-RBD IgG remains, and 7% (1%, 31%) anti-N IgG remains. Antibodies of the IgM isotype waned more rapidly, with 9% (2%, 32%) anti-RBD IgM remaining after one year. Antibodies of the IgA isotype also waned rapidly, with 10% (3%, 38%) anti-RBD IgA remaining after one year. Quantitative measurements of antibody responses were used to train machine learning algorithms for classification of previous infection and estimation of time since infection. The resulting diagnostic test classified previous infections with 99% specificity and 98% (95% confidence interval: 94%, 99%) sensitivity, with no evidence for declining sensitivity over the time scale considered. The diagnostic test also provided accurate classification of time since infection into intervals of 0 - 3 months, 3 - 6 months, and 6 - 12 months. Finally, we present a computational method for serological reconstruction of past SARS-CoV-2 transmission using the data from this test when applied to samples from a single cross-sectional sero-prevalence survey.
ABSTRACT
Coordinated local mucosal and systemic immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection protect against COVID-19 pathologies or fail leading to severe clinical outcomes. To understand this process, we performed an integrated analysis of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibodies, cytokines, viral load and 16S bacterial communities in paired nasopharyngeal swabs and plasma samples from a cohort of clinically distinct COVID-19 patients during acute infection. Plasma viral load was associated with systemic inflammatory cytokines that were elevated in severe COVID-19, and also with spike-specific neutralizing antibodies. In contrast, nasopharyngeal viral load correlated with SARS-CoV-2 humoral responses but inversely with interferon responses, the latter associating with protective microbial communities. Potential pathogenic microrganisms, often implicated in secondary respiratory infections, were associated with mucosal inflammation and elevated in severe COVID-19. Our results demonstrate distinct tissue compartmentalization of SARS-CoV-2 immune responses and highlight a role for the nasopharyngeal microbiome in regulating local and systemic immunity that determines COVID-19 clinical outcomes.
ABSTRACT
In this case-control study on 564 healthcare workers of a university hospital in Paris (France), contacts without protection with COVID-19 patients or with colleagues were associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, while working in a COVID-dedicated unit, using public transportation and having children kept in childcare facilities were not.
ABSTRACT
IntroductionA controversy remains worldwide regarding the transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings. We reviewed the current evidence on the air contamination with SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings, and the factors associated to the contamination including the viral load and the particles size. MethodsThe MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science databases were systematically interrogated for original English-language articles detailing COVID-19 air contamination in hospital settings between 1 December 2019 and 21 July 2020. This study was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The positivity rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA and culture were described and compared according to the setting, clinical context, air ventilation system, and distance from patient. The SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies per m3 of air were pooled and their distribution were described by hospital areas. Particle sizes and SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in copies or TCID50 per m3 were analysed after categorization of sizes in < 1 {micro}m, 1-4 {micro}m, and > 4 {micro}m. ResultsAmong 2,034 records identified, 17 articles were included in the review. Overall, 27.5% (68/247) of air sampled from close patients environment were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA, without difference according to the setting (ICU: 27/97, 27.8%; non-ICU: 41/150, 27.3%; p = 0.93), the distance from patients (< 1 meter: 1/64, 1.5%; 1-5 meters: 4/67, 6%; p = 0.4). In other areas, the positivity rate was 23.8% (5/21) in toilets, 9.5% (20/221) in clinical areas, 12.4% (15/121) in staff areas, and 34.1% (14/41) in public areas. A total of 78 viral cultures were performed in three studies, and 3 (4%) were positive, all from close patients environment. The median SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations varied from 1.103 copies per m3 (IQR: 0.4.103-9.103) in clinical areas to 9.7.103 (5.1.103-14.3.103) in the air of toilets or bathrooms. The protective equipment removal and patients rooms had high concentrations/titre of SARS-CoV-2 with aerosol size distributions that showed peaks in the < 1 {micro}m region, and staff offices in the > 4{micro}m region. ConclusionIn hospital, the air near and away from COVID-19 patients is frequently contaminated with SARSCoV-2 RNA, with however, rare proofs of their viability. High viral loads found in toilet/bathrooms, staff and public hallways suggests to carefully consider these areas.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundInfection with SARS-CoV-2 induces an antibody response targeting multiple antigens that changes over time. This complexity presents challenges and opportunities for serological diagnostics. MethodsA multiplex serological assay was developed to measure IgG and IgM antibody responses to seven SARS-CoV-2 spike or nucleoprotein antigens, two antigens for the nucleoproteins of the 229E and NL63 seasonal coronaviruses, and three non-coronavirus antigens. Antibodies were measured in serum samples from patients in French hospitals with RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 259), and negative control serum samples collected before the start of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic (n = 335). A random forests algorithm was trained with the multiplex data to classify individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. A mathematical model of antibody kinetics informed by prior information from other coronaviruses was used to estimate time-varying antibody responses and assess the potential sensitivity and classification performance of serological diagnostics during the first year following symptom onset. A statistical estimator is presented that can provide estimates of seroprevalence in very low transmission settings. ResultsIgG antibody responses to trimeric Spike protein identified individuals with previous RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection with 91.6% sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI); 87.5%, 94.5%) and 99.1% specificity (95% CI; 97.4%, 99.7%). Using a serological signature of IgG and IgM to multiple antigens, it was possible to identify infected individuals with 98.8% sensitivity (95% CI; 96.5%, 99.6%) and 99.3% specificity (95% CI; 97.6%, 99.8%). Informed by prior data from other coronaviruses, we estimate that one year following infection a monoplex assay with optimal anti-Stri IgG cutoff has 88.7% sensitivity (95% CI: 63.4%, 97.4%), and that a multiplex assay can increase sensitivity to 96.4% (95% CI: 80.9%, 100.0%). When applied to population-level serological surveys, statistical analysis of multiplex data allows estimation of seroprevalence levels less than 1%, below the false positivity rate of many other assays. ConclusionSerological signatures based on antibody responses to multiple antigens can provide accurate and robust serological classification of individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. This provides potential solutions to two pressing challenges for SARS-CoV-2 serological surveillance: classifying individuals who were infected greater than six months ago, and measuring seroprevalence in serological surveys in very low transmission settings.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundFrom the start of the pandemic, health-care workers (HCW) have paid a heavy toll to the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) outbreak. ObjectivesTo describe the dynamics and determinants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in HCW. DesignProspective observational study conducted from February 24th until April 10th, 2020. SettingComparison of a 1,500-bed adult and a 600-bed pediatric setting of a tertiary-care university hospital located in central Paris. ParticipantsAll symptomatic HCW screened for SARS-CoV-2 on a nasopharyngeal swab. MeasurementsHCW screened positive were prospectively questioned on their profession, symptoms, occupational and non-occupational exposures to SARS-CoV-2. ResultsAmong 1344 symptomatic HCW tested, 373 were positive (28%) and 336 (90%) corresponding questionnaires were completed. Three hospitalizations and no death were reported. Most HCW (70%) had patient-facing occupational activities (22% in COVID-19 dedicated units). The total number of HCW cases peaked on March 23rd, then decreased slowly, concomitantly with a continuous increase of compliance to preventive measures (including universal medical masking and personal protective equipment (PPE) for direct care to COVID-19 patients). Attack rates were of 3.2% and 2.3% in the adult and pediatric setting, respectively (p=0.0022). In the adult setting, HCW more frequently reported exposure to COVID-19 patients without PPE (25% versus 15%, p=0.046). Report of contacts with children attending out-of-home care facilities dramatically decreased over the study period. LimitationsLack of COVID-19 negative controls and recall bias. ConclusionUniversal masking, reinforcement of hand hygiene, and PPE with medical masks for patients care allowed protection of HCW and containment of the outbreak. Residual transmissions were related to persistent exposures with undiagnosed patients or colleagues and not to contacts with children attending out-of-home care facilities.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundThere is an urgent need of active treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Although efficacy have not been proven, lopinavir/ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily has been proposed as a treatment of moderate to severe Covid-19. Previously published cohorts showed Covid-19 is associated with major inflammation. To date, no data are available regarding lopinavir/ritonavir plasma concentration and its safety in Covid-19 patients. MethodsReal-world Covid-19 experience based on a retrospective cohort study. ResultsOn the cohort of 31 patients treated by lopinavir/ritonavir for Covid-19, we observed very high lopinavir plasma concentrations, increased of 4.6-fold (IQR 2.9-6.4), with regards to average plasma concentrations in HIV treatment. All except two patients were above the upper limit of the concentration ranges of HIV treatment. In this cohort, about one over four to five patients prematurely stopped lopinavir/ritonavir therapy due to a moderate adverse drug reaction, mainly hepatic and gastrointestinal disorders. ConclusionPatients with Covid-19 pneumonitis treated with lopinavir/ritonavir have plasma concentrations dramatically higher than expected. Owing to that high plasma concentration may be required for antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2, it appears that lopinavir dosage should not be reduced in the absence of adverse effect. About 80% of the patients well tolerated lopinavir/ritonavir therapy under these plasma concentrations. However, cautious is necessary as drug repurposing can be associated with a new drug safety profile. FundingNone
ABSTRACT
BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is a major global threat that has already caused more than 100,000 deaths worldwide. It is characterized by distinct patterns of disease progression implying a diverse host immune response. However, the immunological features and molecular mechanisms involved in Covid-19 severity remain so far poorly known. MethodsWe performed an integrated immune analysis that included in-depth phenotypical profiling of immune cells, whole-blood transcriptomic and cytokine quantification on a cohort of fifty Covid19 patients with a spectrum of disease severity. All patient were tested 8 to 12 days following first symptoms and in absence of anti-inflammatory therapy. ResultsA unique phenotype in severe and critically ill patients was identified. It consists in a profoundly impaired interferon (IFN) type I response characterized by a low interferon production and activity, with consequent downregulation of interferon-stimulated genes. This was associated with a persistent blood virus load and an exacerbated inflammatory response that was partially driven by the transcriptional factor NFB. It was also characterized by increased tumor necrosis factor (TNF)- and interleukin (IL)-6 production and signaling as well as increased innate immune chemokines. ConclusionWe propose that type-I IFN deficiency in the blood is a hallmark of severe Covid-19 and could identify and define a high-risk population. Our study provides a rationale for testing IFN administration combined with adapted anti-inflammatory therapy targeting IL-6 or TNF- in most severe patients. These data also raise concern for utilization of drugs that interfere with the IFN pathway.