A Multivariant Surrogate Neutralization Assay Identifies Variant-Specific Neutralizing Antibody Profiles in Primary SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Infection.

Primary infection with the Omicron variant of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be serologically identified with distinct profiles of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs), as indicated by high titers against the Omicron variant and low titers against the ancestral wild-type (WT). Here, we evaluated whether a novel surrogate virus neutralization assay (sVNT) that simultaneously quantifies the binding inhibition of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) to the proteins of the WT- and Omicron-specific receptor-binding domains (RBDs) can identify nAb profiles after primary Omicron infection with accuracy similar to that of variant-specific live-virus neutralization tests (NTs). Therefore, we comparatively tested 205 samples from individuals after primary infection with the Omicron variant and the WT, and vaccinated subjects with or without Omicron breakthrough infections. Indeed, variant-specific RBD-ACE2 binding inhibition levels significantly correlated with respective NT titers (p < 0.0001, Spearman's r = 0.92 and r = 0.80 for WT and Omicron, respectively). In addition, samples from individuals after primary Omicron infection were securely identified with the sVNT according to their distinctive nAb profiles (area under the curve = 0.99; sensitivity: 97.2%; specificity: 97.84%). Thus, when laborious live-virus NTs are not feasible, the novel sVNT we evaluated in this study may serve as an acceptable substitute for the serological identification of individuals with primary Omicron infection.

Tocilizumab vs. baricitinib in hospitalized severe COVID-19 patients: results from a real-world cohort.

BACKGROUND: Tocilizumab and baricitinib are recommended treatment options for hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. Literature about its efficacy and safety in a head-to-head comparison is scarce. METHODS: Hospitalized COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen were treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to dexamethasone. Tocilizumab was available from February till the 19th of September 2021 and baricitinib from 21st of September. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome parameters were progression to mechanical ventilation (MV), length-of-stay (LOS) and potential side effects. RESULTS: 159 patients (tocilizumab 68, baricitinib 91) with a mean age of 60.5 years, 64% male were included in the study. Tocilizumab patients were admitted 1 day earlier, were in a higher WHO category at the time of inclusion and had a higher CRP level on admission and treatment initiation. Patients receiving Tocilizumab were treated with remdesivir more often and only patients in the baricitinib group were treated with monoclonal antibodies. Other characteristics did not differ significantly. In-hospital mortality (18% vs. 11%, p = 0.229), progression to MV (19% vs. 11%, p = 0.173) and LOS (13 vs. 12 days, p = 0.114) did not differ between groups. Side effects were equally distributed between groups, except ALAT elevation which was significantly more often observed in the tocilizumab group (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality, progression to MV and LOS were not significantly different in patients treated with tocilizumab or baricitinib additionally to standard of care. Both drugs seem equally effective but further head-to-head trials are needed.

Evaluation of RT-qPCR of mouthwash and buccal swabs for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: The use of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs as a specimen collection method to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 infection is frequently perceived as uncomfortable by patients and requires trained personnel. In this study, detection rate of SARS-CoV-2 in mouthwash samples and buccal swabs were compared in both children and adults. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In patients admitted to hospital with confirmed COVID-19 within the previous 72 hours, NP and buccal swabs as well as mouthwash samples were collected. RT-qPCR was performed on all samples. RESULTS: In total, 170 samples were collected from 155 patients (137 adults and 18 children). Approximately 91.7% of the collected NP swabs were positive in RT-PCR compared to 63.1% of mouthwash samples and 42.4% of buccal swabs. Compared to NP swabs, the sensitivity of using mouthwash was 96.3% and 65.4% for buccal swabs in NP swab samples with a CT value <25. With increasing CT values, sensitivity decreased in both mouthwash and buccal swabs. The virus load was highest during the first week of infection, with a continuous decline observed in all three collection methods over time. DISCUSSION: Mouthwash presents an alternative collection method for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in the case of unfeasible NP swab sampling. Buccal swabs should not be used due to their low sensitivity.

Management of hospitalized influenza A patients during the season 2018/19 : Comparison of three medical departments and the effect on outcome and antibiotic usage.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis and treatment of influenza patients are often provided across several medical specialties. We compared patient outcomes at an infectious diseases (ID), a rheumatology (Rheu) and a pulmonology (Pul) department. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this prospective observational multicenter study we included all influenza positive adults who were hospitalized and treated at flu isolation wards in three hospitals in Vienna during the season 2018/2019. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients (49% female) with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range [IQR] 61-82) were included. No differences regarding age, sex and most underlying diseases were present at admission. Frequencies of the most common complications differed: acute kidney failure (ID 12.7%, Rheu 21.2%, Pulm 37.1%, p < 0.001), acute heart failure (ID 4.3%, Rheu 17.1%, Pulm 14.4%, p < 0.001) and respiratory insufficiency (ID 45.1%, Rheu 41.5%, Pulm 56.3%, p = 0.030). Oseltamivir prescription was lowest at the pulmonology flu ward (ID 79.6%, Rheu 90.5%, Pulm 61.7%, p < 0.001). In total 176 patients (35.9%) developed pneumonia. Antibiotic selection varied between the departments: amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (ID 28.9%, Rheu 63.8%, Pulm 5.9%, p < 0.001), cefuroxime (ID 28.9%, Rheu 1.3%, Pulm 0%, p < 0.001), 3rd generation cephalosporins (ID 4.4%, Rheu 5%, Pulm 72.5%, p < 0.001), doxycycline (ID 17.8%, Rheu 0%, Pulm 0%, p < 0.001). The median length of stay was significantly different between wards: ID 6 days (IQR 5-8), Rheu 6 days (IQR 5-7) and Pulm 7 days (IQR 5-9.5, p = 0.034). In-hospital mortality was 4.3% and did not differ between specialties. CONCLUSION: We detected differences in oseltamivir usage, length of in-hospital stay and antibiotic choices for pneumonia. Influenza-associated mortality was unaffected by specialty.

COVID-19 is not "just another flu": a real-life comparison of severe COVID-19 and influenza in hospitalized patients in Vienna, Austria.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is regularly compared to influenza. Mortality and case-fatality rates vary widely depending on incidence of COVID-19 and the testing policy in affected countries. To date, data comparing hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and influenza is scarce. METHODS: Data from patients with COVID-19 were compared to patients infected with influenza A (InfA) and B (InfB) virus during the 2017/18 and 2018/19 seasons. All patients were ≥ 18 years old, had PCR-confirmed infection and needed hospital treatment. Demographic data, medical history, length-of-stay (LOS), complications including in-hospital mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: In total, 142 patients with COVID-19 were compared to 266 patients with InfA and 300 with InfB. Differences in median age (COVID-19 70.5 years vs InfA 70 years and InfB 77 years, p < 0.001) and laboratory results were observed. COVID-19 patients had fewer comorbidities, but complications (respiratory insufficiency, pneumonia, acute kidney injury, acute heart failure and death) occurred more frequently. Median length-of-stay (LOS) was longer in COVID-19 patients (12 days vs InfA 7 days vs. InfB 7 days, p < 0.001). There was a fourfold higher in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients (23.2%) when compared with InfA (5.6%) or InfB (4.7%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In hospitalized patients, COVID-19 is associated with longer LOS, a higher number of complications and higher in-hospital mortality compared to influenza, even in a population with fewer co-morbidities. This data, a high reproduction number and limited treatment options, alongside excess mortality during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, support the containment strategies implemented by most authorities.

Assessment of S1-, S2-, and NCP-Specific IgM, IgA, and IgG Antibody Kinetics in Acute SARS-CoV-2 Infection by a Microarray and Twelve Other Immunoassays.

In this study, we comprehensively analyzed multispecific antibody kinetics of different immunoglobulins in hospitalized patients with acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Three hundred fifty-four blood samples longitudinally obtained from 81 IgG-seroconverting progressed coronavirus disease 2019 (CoVID-19) patients were quantified for spike 1 (S1), S2, and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)-specific IgM, IgA, IgG, and total Ig antibodies using a microarray, 11 different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs)/chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs), and 1 rapid test by seven manufacturers. The assays' specificity was assessed in 130 non-CoVID-19 pneumonia patients. Using the microarray, NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies continuously displayed higher detection rates during acute CoVID-19 than S1- and S2-specific ones. S1-specific IgG antibodies, however, reached higher peak values. Until the 26th day post-symptom onset, all patients developed IgG responses against S1, S2, and NCP. Although detection rates by ELISAs/CLIAs generally resembled those of the microarray, corresponding to the target antigen, sensitivities and specificities varied among all tests. Notably, patients with more severe CoVID-19 displayed higher IgG and IgA levels, but this difference was mainly observed with S1-specific immunoassays. In patients with high SARS-CoV-2 levels in the lower respiratory tract, we observed high detection rates of IgG and total Ig immunoassays with a particular rise of S1-specific IgG antibodies when viral concentrations in the tracheal aspirate subsequently declined over time. In summary, our study demonstrates that differences in sensitivity among commercial immunoassays during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are only partly related to the target antigen. Importantly, our data indicate that NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies are detected earlier, while higher S1-specific IgA antibody levels occur in severely ill patients.

Clinical and Angiographic Features in Three COVID-19 Patients with Takotsubo Cardiomyopathy. Case Report.

While coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has often been perceived as a predominantly respiratory condition, it is characterized by complications in multiple organ systems. Especially the involvement of the cardiovascular system, along with the possibly severe pulmonary injury, is crucial for prognosis. We identified three COVID-19 patients with takotsubo (TT) cardiomyopathy at our infectious diseases treatment center and present their clinical, laboratory, echocardiographic, electrocardiographic, and angiographic features. All patients were female (median age, 67 years); disease severity regarding COVID-19 ranged from asymptomatic to ARDS (adult respiratory syndrome) necessitating mechanical ventilation for 22 days. Angiography revealed normal coronary arteries in patient 1, severe three-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in patient 2, and insignificant bystander CAD in patient 3. All patients showed classic apical hypokinesia with basal hyperkinesia. In patient 3, TT cardiomyopathy resulted in transient cardiogenic shock. Twenty-eight-day mortality was 0% in this case series. In conclusion, takotsubo cardiomyopathy may be yet another clinical entity associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Diagnosis of COVID-19 using multiple antibody assays in two cases with negative PCR results from nasopharyngeal swabs.

We report of two cases of progressed COVID-19 with negative PCR tests from nasopharyngeal swabs, in whom diagnosis was made by different antibody assays, including a lateral flow rapid test and multiple commercial ELISAs, finally confirmed by comprehensive serological assays. These cases highlight that commercial ELISAs and even rapid tests might significantly aid the diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly, if a combination of serological assays is used with a specific clinical question, in severely ill patients after seroconversion and when comprehensive serological methods are used for confirmation.

Hydroxychloroquine versus lopinavir/ritonavir in severe COVID-19 patients : Results from a real-life patient cohort.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a high mortality. To date no trial comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) has been performed. METHODS: Hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were treated with either HCQ or LPV/RTV if they had either respiratory insufficiency (SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air or the need for oxygen insufflation) or bilateral consolidations on chest X­ray and at least 2 comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. Outcomes investigated included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) negativity and side effects of treatment. RESULTS: Of 156 patients (41% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR 55.25-81) admitted to our department, 67 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20 received HCQ, 47 LPV/RTV). Groups were comparable regarding most baseline characteristics. Median time from symptom onset to treatment initiation was 8 days and was similar between the groups (p = 0.727). There was no significant difference (HCQ vs. LPV/RTV) in hospital mortality (15% vs. 8.5%, p = 0.418), ICU admission rate (20% vs. 12.8%, p = 0.470) and length of stay (9 days vs. 11 days, p = 0.340). A PCR negativity from nasopharyngeal swabs was observed in approximately two thirds of patients in both groups. Side effects led to treatment discontinuation in 15% of patients in the LPV/RTV group. CONCLUSION: No statistically significant differences were observed in outcome parameters in patients treated with HCQ or LPV/RTV but patients in the LPV/RTV group showed a numerically lower hospital mortality rate. Additionally, in comparison to other studies we demonstrated a lower mortality in patients treated with LPV/RTV despite having similar patient groups, perhaps due to early initiation of treatment.