Virus World

To determine the effect of COVID-19 convalescent plasma on mortality, we aggregated patient outcome data from randomized clinical trials (RCT), matched-control, case series, and case report studies. Random-effects analyses of RCT data demonstrated that hospitalized COVID-19 patients transfused with convalescent plasma exhibited a lower mortality rate compared to patients receiving standard treatments. These data provide evidence favoring the efficacy of human convalescent plasma as a therapeutic agent in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Preprint in medRxiv (Oct. 29, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.29.20162917

CRISPR-based approach is much faster than current diagnostics, but does have some limitation. CRISPR diagnostics are just one way researchers are trying to speed coronavirus testing. The new test is the fastest CRISPR-based diagnostic yet. In May, for example, two teams reported creating CRISPR-based coronavirus tests that could detect the virus in about an hour, much faster than the 24 hours needed for conventional coronavirus diagnostic tests.  CRISPR tests work by identifying a sequence of RNA—about 20 RNA bases long—that is unique to SARS-CoV-2. They do so by creating a “guide” RNA that is complementary to the target RNA sequence and, thus, will bind to it in solution. When the guide binds to its target, the CRISPR tool’s Cas13 “scissors” enzyme turns on and cuts apart any nearby single-stranded RNA. These cuts release a separately introduced fluorescent particle in the test solution. When the sample is then hit with a burst of laser light, the released fluorescent particles light up, signaling the presence of the virus. These initial CRISPR tests, however, required researchers to first amplify any potential viral RNA before running it through the diagnostic to increase their odds of spotting a signal. That added complexity, cost, and time, and put a strain on scarce chemical reagents.

Now, researchers led by Jennifer Doudna, who won a share of this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry yesterday for her co-discovery of CRISPR, report creating a novel CRISPR diagnostic that doesn’t amplify coronavirus RNA. Instead, Doudna and her colleagues spent months testing hundreds of guide RNAs to find multiple guides that work in tandem to increase the sensitivity of the test. 

In a new preprint, the researchers report that with a single guide RNA, they could detect as few as 100,000 viruses per microliter of solution. And if they add a second guide RNA, they can detect as few as 100 viruses per microliter.  That’s still not as good as the conventional coronavirus diagnostic setup, which uses expensive lab-based machines to track the virus down to one virus per microliter, says Melanie Ott, a virologist at UC San Francisco who helped lead the project with Doudna. However, she says, the new setup was able to accurately identify a batch of five positive clinical samples with perfect accuracy in just 5 minutes per test, whereas the standard test can take 1 day or more to return results.

SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemic with millions infected and numerous fatalities. Questions regarding the robustness, functionality and longevity of the antibody response to the virus remain unanswered. Here we report that the vast majority of infected individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 experience robust IgG antibody responses against the viral spike protein, based on a dataset of 19,860 individuals screened at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

We also show that titers are stable for at least a period approximating three months, and that anti-spike binding titers significantly correlate with neutralization of authentic SARS-CoV-2. Our data suggests that more than 90% of seroconverters make detectible neutralizing antibody responses and that these titers are stable for at least the near-term future...

Preprint available at medRxiv (July 17, 2020):

 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.14.20151126

Antibody (Ab) responses to SARS-CoV-2 can be detected in most infected individuals 10-15 days following the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. However, due to the recent emergence of this virus in the human population it is not yet known how long these Ab responses will be maintained or whether they will provide protection from re-infection. Using sequential serum samples collected up to 94 days post onset of symptoms (POS) from 65 RT-qPCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, we show seroconversion in >95% of cases and neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses when sampled beyond 8 days POS.

We demonstrate that the magnitude of the nAb response is dependent upon the disease severity, but this does not affect the kinetics of the nAb response. Declining nAb titres were observed during the follow up period. Whilst some individuals with high peak ID50 (>10,000) maintained titres >1,000 at >60 days POS, some with lower peak ID50 had titres approaching baseline within the follow up period. A similar decline in nAb titres was also observed in a cohort of seropositive healthcare workers from Guy′s and St Thomas′ Hospitals. We suggest that this transient nAb response is a feature shared by both a SARS-CoV-2 infection that causes low disease severity and the circulating seasonal coronaviruses that are associated with common colds.

This study has important implications when considering widespread serological testing, Ab protection against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the durability of vaccine protection.

Preprint available  at medRxiv  (July 11, 2020):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.09.20148429v1

The spread of the COVID-19 virus is highly variable among U.S. counties. Seventeen factors known or thought to be related to spread of the COVID-19 virus were studied by Poisson regression analysis of confirmed cases and deaths in 883 U.S. counties with a population of 50,000 or more as of May 31, 2020. With little exception, each factor was predictive of incidence and mortality.

The regression equation can be used to identify priority locations for preventive efforts and preparation for medical care caseloads when prevention is unsuccessful. Based on the correlation of cases and deaths to days since stay-at-home orders were issued, the orders reduced the cases about 48 percent  and deaths about 50 percent. The shutdowns probably prevented about 1.4 million cases and 92,000 deaths. The study that claimed the warnings and shutdowns prevented 60 million COVID-19 cases in the U.S. appears to be grossly inflated by a factor of 40. Focusing preventive efforts on the more vulnerable counties may be more effective and less economically damaging than statewide shutdowns.

Preprint available at medRxiv (June 26, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.25.20139956

Accurate diagnostic strategies to rapidly identify SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals for management of patient care and protection of health care personnel are urgently needed. The predominant diagnostic test is viral RNA detection by RT-PCR from nasopharyngeal swabs specimens, however the results of this test are not promptly obtainable in all patient care locations. Routine laboratory testing, in contrast, is readily available with a turn-around time (TAT) usually within 1-2 hours. 

Here we present a machine learning model incorporating patient demographic features (age, sex, race) with 27 routine laboratory tests to predict an individual's SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Laboratory test results obtained within two days before the release of SARS-CoV-2-RT-PCR result were used to train a gradient boosted decision tree (GBDT) model from 3,346 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tested patients (1,394 positive and 1,952 negative) evaluated at a large metropolitan hospital. The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.853 (95% CI: 0.829-0.878). Application of this model to an independent patient dataset from a separate hospital resulted in a comparable AUC (0.838), validating the generalization of its use. Moreover, our model predicted initial SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity in 66% individuals whose RT-PCR result changed from negative to positive within two days. 

Overall, this model employing routine laboratory test results offers opportunities for early and rapid identification of high-risk SARS-COV-2 infected patients before their RT-PCR results are available. This may facilitate patient care and quarantine, indicate who requires retesting, and direct personal protective equipment use while awaiting definitive RT-PCR results.

Preprint available at medRxiv (June 19, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.17.20133892

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may exacerbate COVID-19 and worsen associated outcomes by upregulating the enzyme that SARS-CoV-2 binds to enter cells. However, to our knowledge, no study has examined the association between NSAID use and the risk of COVID-19-related outcomes among hospitalised patients.

We conducted a population-based cohort study using South Korea nationwide healthcare database, which contains data of all subjects who received a test for COVID-19 (n=69,793) as of April 8, 2020. We identified a cohort of adults hospitalised with COVID-19, where cohort entry was the date of hospitalisation. NSAIDs users were those prescribed NSAIDs in the 7 days before and including the date of cohort entry and non-users were those not prescribed NSAIDs during this period. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital death, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation use, and sepsis; our secondary outcome was cardiovascular or renal complications.

Of 1,824 adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (mean age 49.0 years, standard deviation 19.0 years; female 59%), 354 were NSAIDs users and 1,470 were non-users. Compared with non-use, NSAIDs use was associated with increased risks of the primary composite outcome (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.21-2.24) and of cardiovascular or renal complications (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.25-2.80). Our main findings remained consistent when we extended the exposure ascertainment window to include the first three days of hospitalisation (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.06-3.29).

Use of NSAIDs, compared with non-use, is associated with worse outcomes among hospitalised COVID-19 patients. While awaiting the results of confirmatory studies, we suggest NSAIDs be used with caution among patients with COVID-19 as the harms associated with their use may outweigh their benefits in this population.

Preprint Available at medRxiv (June 16, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.01.20119768

This study was published in medRxiv and was led by Dr Jean-Jacques Rajter a physician at Broward Health Medical Center. The study assessed 280 coronavirus patients over the age of 18, with 173 being treated with the drug and 107 having standard care for the virus. The study found that overall mortality in those who took the treatment was 15% compared to those who did not take it, who had a 25% mortality rate. This would equate to a 40% drop overall. The most notable result in the study showed that the drug had a significant effect on the very high risk group of COVID-19 patients suffering from severe pulmonary disease. Of the patients who did not receive ivermectin, 81% died, while only 39% died when receiving the treatment, improving their survival odds by just over 50%.

Ivermectin was developed in the 1970s as a new class of drug to treat parasitic infections. It was initially used in veterinary medicine before being used to treat onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis. 3.7 billion doses are estimated to have been given since its approval. It has also been studied as a potential treatment for influenza and HIV. Dr Peter Hibberd, a board certified emergency medicine physician, said on the trial: “This drug has been used for over 30 years by millions of people around the world and has a marked safety base. We understand fully its side effects, and the effect of a single dose in such a critically diseased state cannot be ignored. That’s why the results were so surprising, because these people had damage in their lungs with a rapidly downhill progression and their clinical course stabilised within 24 to 48 hours.”

Preprint available at medRxiv (June 10, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124461

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to more than 100,000 deaths in the United States. Several studies have revealed that the hyper-inflammatory response induced by SARS-CoV-2 is a major cause of disease severity and death in infected patients. However, predictive biomarkers of pathogenic inflammation to help guide targetable immune pathways are critically lacking. We implemented a rapid multiplex cytokine assay to measure serum IL-6, IL-8, TNF-a, and IL-1b in hospitalized COVID-19 patients upon admission to the Mount Sinai Health System in New York.

Patients (n=1484) were followed up to 41 days (median 8 days) and clinical information, laboratory test results and patient outcomes were collected. In 244 patients, cytokine measurements were repeated over time, and effect of drugs could be assessed. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to compare survival by cytokine strata, followed by Cox regression models to evaluate the independent predictive value of baseline cytokines. We found that high serum IL-6, IL-8, and TNFa levels at the time of hospitalization were strong and independent predictors of patient survival.

Importantly, when adjusting for disease severity score, common laboratory inflammation markers, hypoxia and other vitals, demographics, and a range of comorbidities, IL-6 and TNF-a serum levels remained independent and significant predictors of disease severity and death. We propose that serum IL-6 and TNF-a levels should be considered in the management and treatment of COVID-19 patients to stratify prospective clinical trials, guide resource allocation and inform therapeutic options. We also propose that patients with high IL-6 and TNF-a levels should be assessed for combinatorial blockade of pathogenic inflammation in this disease.

Preprint available at medRxiv (May 30, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.28.20115758

Laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (the cause of COVID-19) uses PCR to detect viral RNA (vRNA) in respiratory samples. SARS-CoV-2 RNA has also been detected in other sample types, but there is limited understanding of the clinical or laboratory significance of its detection in blood. Methods: We undertook a systematic literature review to assimilate the evidence for the frequency of vRNA in blood, and to identify associated clinical characteristics. 

We performed RT-PCR in serum samples from a UK clinical cohort of acute and convalescent COVID-19 cases (n=212), together with convalescent plasma samples collected by NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT) (n=212 additional samples). To determine whether PCR-positive blood samples could pose an infection risk, we attempted virus isolation from a subset of RNA-positive samples. 

We identified 28 relevant studies, reporting SARS-CoV-2 RNA in 0-76% of blood samples; pooled estimate 10% (95%CI 5-18%). Among serum samples from our clinical cohort, 27/212 (12.7%) had SARS-CoV-2 RNA detected by RT-PCR. RNA detection occurred in samples up to day 20 post symptom onset, and was associated with more severe disease (multivariable odds ratio 7.5). Across clinical and convalescent samples collected ≥28 days post symptom onset, 0/244 (0%, 95%CI 0.0-1.5%) had vRNA detected. Among our PCR-positive samples, cycle threshold (ct) values were high (range 33.5-44.8), suggesting low vRNA copy numbers. PCR-positive sera inoculated into cell culture did not produce any cytopathic effect or yield an increase in detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA. Conclusions: vRNA was detectable at low viral loads in a minority of serum samples collected in acute infection, but was not associated with infectious SARS-CoV-2 (within the limitations of the assays used). This work helps to inform biosafety precautions for handling blood products from patients with current or previous COVID-19.

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, is responsible for a world-wide pandemic. While the medical community understands the mode of viral transmission, less is known about how long viral shedding occurs once viral symptoms have resolved. Objective: To determine how long the SARS-CoV-2 remains detectable following self-reporting of viral symptom resolution. 

A cohort of 86 previously SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were re-tested for proof of viral recovery by nasal swab and nucleic acid amplification less than 28 days after self-reported symptom resolution. Setting: A tertiary care center in a mid-size city utilizing a drive-through SAR-CoV-2 testing center. Participants: 86 previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals less than 28 days after self-reported resolution of symptoms evaluated as potential donors for COVID-19 convalescent plasma. Intervention: Participants underwent nasopharyngeal sampling and subsequent nucleic acid amplification for SARS-CoV-2 genes. Main Outcome: SARS-CoV-2 RNA in nasopharyngeal secretions detected by rtPCR. 

11/86 (13%) previously confirmed SARS-CoV-2 subjects were still positive at a median of 19 days (range 12-24 days) after symptom resolution. Older patients were more likely to be test-positive, and older positive patients had lower rtPCR CT values. Test-positive patients were not significantly different from test-negative patients with respect to days since symptom recovery. Conclusions and Resolution: These results underscore the necessity of testing COVID-19 convalescent plasma donors less than 28 days after symptom resolution and suggests that COVID-19 positive patients may need to remain in quarantine beyond the recommended two weeks following "recovery."

Preprint available at medRxiv (May 12, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.07.20090621 

Research on archived blood does not bear out hopes that antibodies against ‘seasonal’ coronaviruses can protect against severe COVID-19. Paul Bieniasz and Theodora Hatziioannou at the Rockefeller University in New York City and their colleagues analysed 37 blood-serum samples collected before 2020 from people in the United Kingdom (D. Poston et al. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/fc4g; 2020). All of the study participants had tested positive for one of the seasonal human coronaviruses, which can cause the common cold.

The team found that each serum sample contained antibodies that could disable at least one common-cold coronavirus, blocking the virus’s ability to infect human cells in a lab dish. But the serum could not disable a hybrid virus that had been engineered to carry SARS-CoV-2’s spike protein, a crucial player in the virus’s invasion of host cell The results suggest that antibodies to common-cold coronaviruses do not have a major role in determining why some people with COVID-19 fare worse than others, the authors say. The findings have not yet been peer reviewed.

Preprint available at medRxiv (Oct. 11, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.10.08.20209650

Objective: To investigate if obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is an independent risk factor for severe COVID-19. To examine whether the risk for contracting COVID-19 is elevated among OSA patients. Design and setting: Registry based retrospective case-control study using Finnish nationwide health registries and the FinnGen Study cohort. Participants: Information regarding OSA diagnosis and COVID-19 infection was extracted from the FinnGen study (N=260,405) with a total of 305 patients who had a recorded PCR-validated COVID-19 infection including 26 (8.5%) individuals who were also OSA patients. Severe COVID-19 (N=83, 27.2%) was defined as an infection requiring hospitalization. Among the hospitalized individuals there were 16 (19.3%) with OSA diagnosis. In addition, we also included in our analysis previously reported risk factors for both severe COVID-19 or risk factors and comorbidities for OSA from FinnGen. Main outcome measures: OSA diagnosis, information concerning COVID-19 infection such as hospitalization, were derived from Finnish National Hospital Discharge Registry, Causes of Death Registry and the National Infectious Diseases Registry.

Results: We show that OSA is a risk factor for COVID-19 hospitalization independent from age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease (CHD), asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), (p-unadjusted=1.04x10^-4, OR-adjusted=5.24 [95%CI 1.33 to 23.43], p-adjusted=0.022). OSA was not associated with the risk of contracting COVID-19 (p=0.49). Conclusion: While an OSA patients risk of contracting COVID-19 is the same as non-OSA individuals, the OSA patients have a five-fold risk to be hospitalized when affected by COVID-19 than non-OSA individuals. Our findings suggest that, in assessment of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection, OSA needs to be recognized as one of the comorbidity risk factors for developing a severe form of the disease.

Preprint available at medRxiv (Sept. 28, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.26.20202051 

Humoral immunity in asymptomatic infections with SARS-CoV-2 has not been well established. 63 healthy contacts, 63 asymptomatic individuals, and 51 mild patients were enrolled in this study and screened using nucleic acid testing (NAT) and commercial kits of serum IgM and IgG antibodies against recombinant nucleoprotein (N) and spike (S) proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Asymptomatic and mild patients were classified into at least four types based on NAT and serological tests, especially 81% and 25.4% negative NAT but positive IgM/IgG responses, respectively. 

Antibody dynamics were further demonstrated by IgM and IgG profile responses to SARS-CoV-2 proteome. IgM antibody responses against S1 were elicited in asymptomatic individuals as early to the seventh day after exposure and peaked on days from 17d to 25d, which might be used as early diagnostic biomarkers. Moreover, asymptomatic individuals evoked weaker S1 specific IgM and neutralizing antibody responses than mild patients. Most importantly, S1 specific IgM/IgG responses and the titers of neutralizing antibody in asymptomatic individuals gradually vanished in two months. Our findings might have important implications for serological survey, public health and immunization strategy.

Preprint available at medRxiv (July 11, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.09.20149633

Scientists not involved in the study seriously doubt the findings, which challenge the current consensus on where and when the virus originated. In a study not yet published in a journal, scientists have reported that the new coronavirus was present in wastewater in Barcelona, Spain in March 2019, a finding that, if confirmed, would show that the pathogen had emerged much earlier than previously thought. But independent experts who reviewed the findings said they doubted the claim. The study was flawed, they said, and other lines of evidence strongly suggest the virus emerged in China late last year. Up until now, the earliest evidence of the virus anywhere in the world has been from December 2019 in China and it was only known to have hit mainland Spain in February 2020.

“Barcelona is a city that is frequented by Chinese people, in tourism and business, so probably this happened also elsewhere, and probably at the same time,” said the lead author, Albert Bosch, a professor in the Department of Microbiology of the University of Barcelona who has been studying viruses in wastewater for more than 40 years. Several experts not involved in the research pointed out problems with the new study, which has not yet been subjected to the critical review by outside experts that occurs before publication in a scientific journal. They suggested that the tests might very well have produced false positives because of contamination or improper storage of the samples. 

“I don’t trust the results,” said Irene Xagoraraki, an environmental engineer at Michigan State University. Researchers at the University of Barcelona posted their findings online on June 13. Most of their report described research on wastewater treatments from early 2020. 

Preprint available at medRxiv (June 13, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.13.20129627

In addition to the overwhelming lung inflammation that prevails in COVID-19, hypercoagulation and thrombosis contribute to the lethality of subjects infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Platelets are chiefly implicated in thrombosis. Moreover, they can interact with viruses and are an important source of inflammatory mediators. While a lower platelet count is associated with severity and mortality, little is known about platelet function during COVID-19. 

To evaluate the contribution of platelets to inflammation and thrombosis in COVID-19 patients. Methods and Results: We document the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in platelets of COVID-19 patients. Exhaustive assessment of cytokines in plasma and in platelets revealed the modulation of platelet-associated cytokine levels in COVID-19, pointing to a direct contribution of platelets to the plasmatic cytokine load. Moreover, we demonstrate that platelets release their alpha- and dense-granule contents and phosphatidylserine-exposing extracellular vesicles. Functionally, platelets were hyperactivated in COVID-19 subjects, with aggregation occurring at suboptimal thrombin concentrations. Furthermore, platelets adhered more efficiently onto collagen-coated surfaces under flow conditions. Conclusions: These data suggest that platelets could participate in the dissemination of SARS-CoV-2 and in the overwhelming thrombo-inflammation observed in COVID-19. Thus, blockade of platelet activation pathways may improve outcomes in this disease

Preprint Available (June 23, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.23.20137596

In the current COVID-19 pandemic a key unsolved question is the duration of acquired immunity in recovered individuals. The recent emergence of SARS-CoV-2 precludes a direct study on this virus, but the four seasonal human coronaviruses may reveal common characteristics applicable to all human coronaviruses.

We monitored healthy subjects over a time span of 35 years (1985-2020), providing a total of 2473 follow up person-months, and determined a) the time to reinfection by the same seasonal coronavirus and b) the dynamics of coronavirus antibody depletion post-infection. An alarmingly short duration of protective immunity to coronaviruses was found. Reinfections occurred frequently at 12 months post-infection and there was for each virus a substantial reduction in antibody levels as soon as 6 months post-infection.

Preprint Available (June 16, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439

Article published in Nat. Medecine (Sept. 14, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-1083-1

Human medical trials have begun on severely ill COVID-19 patients using low-doses of radiation. The first results on a very small group at Emory University Hospital were published this week and the results were quite extraordinary. Researchers at Emory University Hospital, led by Dr. Mohammad Khan, Associate Professor of Radiation Oncology, treated five COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia who were requiring supplemental oxygen and whose health was visibly deteriorating. Their mean age was 90 with a range from 64 to 94, four were female, four were African-American, and one was Caucasian. 

These patients were given a single low-dose of radiation (1.5 Gy) to both lungs, delivered by a front and back beam configuration. Patients were in an out of the Radiotherapy Department in 10 to 15 minutes. Within 24 hours, four of the patients showed rapid improvement in oxygenation and mental status (more awake, alert and talkative) and were being discharged from the hospital 12 days later. Blood tests and repeated imaging of the lungs confirmed that the radiation was safe and effective, and did not cause adverse effects – no acute skin, pulmonary, gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities.

The gray (Gy) is a dose unit of ionizing radiation defined as the absorption of one joule of radiation energy per kilogram of matter. The Gy replaces the older unit of the rad, and 1 Gy = 100 Rad. I should mention that medical doses are different than environmental doses as they are not whole body, but are targeted to a specific organ or tissue. So 1.5 Gy is quite low dose for medical uses. This treatment is critical because severe COVID-19 cases cause cytokine release syndrome, also known as a cytokine storm. Such a storm is a deadly uncontrolled systemic inflammatory response of the body’s immune system resulting from the release of great amounts of pro-inflammatory cytokines, which act as a major factor in producing acute respiratory distress syndrome, or ARDS, which is what kills....

Preprint of the origina, study available at medRxiv (June 8, 2020):

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.03.20116988v1

Respiratory failure is a key feature of severe Covid-19 and a critical driver of mortality, but for reasons poorly defined affects less than 10% of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Methods. We included 1,980 patients with Covid-19 respiratory failure at seven centers in the Italian and Spanish epicenters of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Europe (Milan, Monza, Madrid, San Sebastian and Barcelona) for a genome-wide association analysis. After quality control and exclusion of population outliers, 835 patients and 1,255 population-derived controls from Italy, and 775 patients and 950 controls from Spain were included in the final analysis. In total we analyzed 8,582,968 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and conducted a meta-analysis of both case-control panels. Results. We detected cross-replicating associations with rs11385942 at chromosome 3p21.31 and rs657152 at 9q34, which were genome-wide significant (P<5x10-8) in the meta-analysis of both study panels, odds ratio [OR], 1.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 2.11; P=1.14x10-10 and OR 1.32 (95% CI, 1.20 to 1.47; P=4.95x10-8), respectively. Among six genes at 3p21.31, SLC6A20 encodes a known interaction partner with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). 

The association signal at 9q34 was located at the ABO blood group locus and a blood-group-specific analysis showed higher risk for A-positive individuals (OR=1.45, 95% CI, 1.20 to 1.75, P=1.48x10-4) and a protective effect for blood group O (OR=0.65, 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79, P=1.06x10-5). Conclusions. We herein report the first robust genetic susceptibility loci for the development of respiratory failure in Covid-19. Identified variants may help guide targeted exploration of severe Covid-19 pathophysiology.

Preprint available at medRxiv (June 2, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.31.20114991

Since December 2019, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic, causing mass morbidity and mortality. Prior studies in other respiratory infections suggest that convalescent plasma transfusion may offer benefit to some patients. Here, the outcomes of thirty-nine hospitalized patients with severe to life-threatening COVID-19 who received convalescent plasma transfusion were compared against a cohort of retrospectively matched controls.

Plasma recipients were selected based on supplemental oxygen needs at the time of enrollment and the time elapsed since the onset of symptoms. Recipients were transfused with convalescent plasma from donors with a SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2) anti-spike antibody titer of ≥1:320 dilution. Matched control patients were retrospectively identified within the electronic health record database. Supplemental oxygen requirements and survival were compared between plasma recipients and controls.  Convalescent plasma recipients were more likely than control patients to remain the same or have improvements in their supplemental oxygen requirements by post-transfusion day 14, with an odds ratio of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.75~0.98; p=0.028). Plasma recipients also demonstrated improved survival, compared to control patients (log-rank test: p=0.039). In a covariates-adjusted Cox model, convalescent plasma transfusion improved survival for non-intubated patients (hazard ratio 0.19 (95% CI: 0.05 ~0.72); p=0.015), but not for intubated patients (1.24 (0.33~4.67); p=0.752). 

Convalescent plasma transfusion is a potentially efficacious treatment option for patients hospitalized with COVID-19; however, these data suggest that non-intubated patients may benefit more than those requiring mechanical ventilation.

Preprint available in medRxiv (May 22, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.20.20102236

We report a time course of SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations in primary sewage sludge during the Spring COVID-19 outbreak in a northeastern U.S. metropolitan area.

SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in all environmental samples and, when adjusted for the time lag, the virus RNA concentrations were highly correlated with the COVID-19 epidemiological curve (R2=0.99) and local hospital admissions (R2=0.99). SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations were a seven-day leading indicator ahead of compiled COVID-19 testing data and led local hospital admissions data by three days. Decisions to implement or relax public health measures and restrictions require timely information on outbreak dynamics in a community....

Our results demonstrate: (1) the utility of SARS-CoV-2 primary sludge monitoring to accurately track outbreaks in a community and (2) primary sludge SARS-CoV-2 RNA concentrations can be a leading indicator over other commonly used epidemiology approaches including summarized COVID-19 test results and hospital admissions.

Preprint available in medRxiv (May 22, 2020):

https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.19.20105999

On 22 January, Dave O’Connor and Tom Friedrich invited several dozen colleagues around the United States to join a new workspace on the instant messaging platform Slack. The scientists, both at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center, had seen news about a new disease emerging in China and realized researchers would need a primate model if they were going to answer some important questions about its biology. “We put out a call to a bunch of investigators and basically said: ‘Hey, let’s talk,’” O’Connor says. The idea is to coordinate research and make sure results are comparable, Friedrich adds. (They named the Slack workspace the Wu-han Clan, a play on the hip-hop group Wu-Tang Clan.)

The Wu-han Clan is just one example of how the COVID-19 outbreak is transforming how scientists communicate about fast-moving health crises. A torrent of data is being released daily by preprint servers that didn’t even exist a decade ago, then dissected on platforms such as Slack and Twitter, and in the media, before formal peer review begins. Journal staffers are working overtime to get manuscripts reviewed, edited, and published at record speeds. The venerable New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) posted one COVID-19 paper within 48 hours of submission. Viral genomes posted on a platform named GISAID, more than 200 so far, are analyzed instantaneously by a phalanx of evolutionary biologists who share their phylogenetic trees in preprints and on social media.

“This is a very different experience from any outbreak that I’ve been a part of,” says epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The intense communication has catalyzed an unusual level of collaboration among scientists that, combined with scientific advances, has enabled research to move faster than during any previous outbreak. “An unprecedented amount of knowledge has been generated in 6 weeks,” says Jeremy Farrar, head of the Wellcome Trust....