Search

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, the agent of the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, has spread worldwide since it was first identified in November 2019 in Wuhan, China. Since then, progress in pathogenesis linked severity of this systemic disease to the hyperactivation of network of cytokine‐driven pro‐inflammatory cascades. Here, we aimed to identify molecular biomarkers of disease severity by measuring the serum levels of inflammatory mediators in a Brazilian cohort of patients with COVID‐19 and healthy controls (HCs). Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit were defined as such by dependence on oxygen supplementation (93% intubated and 7% face mask), and computed tomography profiles showing ground‐glass opacity pneumonia associated to and high levels of D‐dimer. Our panel of mediators included HMGB1, ATP, tissue factor, PGE2, LTB4, and cys‐LTs. Follow‐up studies showed increased serum levels of every inflammatory mediator in patients with COVID‐19 as compared to HCs. Originally acting as a transcription factor, HMGB1 acquires pro‐inflammatory functions following secretion by activated leukocytes or necrotic tissues. Serum levels of HMGB1 were positively correlated with cys‐LTs, D‐dimer, aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase. Notably, the levels of the classical alarmin HMGB1 were higher in deceased patients, allowing their discrimination from patients that had been discharged at the early pulmonary and hyperinflammatory phase of COVID‐19. In particular, we verified that HMGB1 levels above 125.4 ng/ml is the cutoff that distinguishes patients that are at higher risk of death. In conclusion, we propose the use of serum levels of HMGB1 as a biomarker of severe prognosis of COVID‐19.

The SARS-CoV-2 P.1 variant, responsible for an outbreak in Manaus, Brazil, is distinguished by 12 amino acid differences in the S protein, potentially increasing its ACE-2 affinity and immune evasion capability. We investigated the innate immune response of this variant compared to the original B.1 strain, particularly concerning cytokine production. Blood samples from three severe COVID-19 patients were analyzed post-infection with both strains. Results showed no significant difference in cytokine production of mononuclear cells and neutrophils for either variant. While B.1 had higher cytopathogenicity, neither showed viral replication in mononuclear cells. Structural analyses of the S protein highlighted physicochemical variations, which might be linked to the differences in infectivity between the strains. Our studies point to the increased infectivity of P.1 could stem from altered immunogenicity and receptor-binding affinity.

Abstract ACE2 and TMPRSS2 are key players on SARS-CoV-2 entry into host cells. However, it is still unclear whether expression levels of these factors could reflect disease severity. Here, a case–control study was conducted with 213 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals where cases were defined as COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress requiring oxygen support (N = 38) and controls were those with mild to moderate symptoms of the disease who did not need oxygen therapy along the entire clinical course (N = 175). ACE2 and TMPRSS2 mRNA levels were evaluated in nasopharyngeal swab samples by RT-qPCR and logistic regression analyzes were applied to estimate associations with respiratory outcomes. ACE2 and TMPRSS2 levels positively correlated with age, which was also strongly associated with respiratory distress. Increased nasopharyngeal ACE2 levels showed a protective effect against this outcome (adjOR = 0.30; 95% CI 0.09–0.91), while TMPRSS2/ACE2 ratio was associated with risk (adjOR = 4.28; 95% CI 1.36–13.48). On stepwise regression, TMPRSS2/ACE2 ratio outperformed ACE2 to model COVID-19 severity. When nasopharyngeal swabs were compared to bronchoalveolar lavages in an independent cohort of COVID-19 patients under mechanical ventilation, similar expression levels of these genes were observed. These data suggest nasopharyngeal TMPRSS2/ACE2 as a promising candidate for further prediction models on COVID-19.

BACKGROUND The high demand for adequate material for the gold standard reverse transcription real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR)-based diagnosis imposed by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, combined with the inherent contamination risks for healthcare workers during nasopharyngeal swab (NP) sample collection and the discomfort it causes patients, brought the need to identify alternative specimens suitable for the diagnosis of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). OBJECTIVES The aim of this work was to compare saliva and gingival fluid swabs to NP swabs as specimens for RT-qPCR-based SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. METHODS We compared gingival fluid swabs (n = 158) and saliva (n = 207) to the rayon-tipped NP swabs obtained from mild-symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects as specimens for RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 detection. FINDINGS When compared to NP swabs, gingival fluid swabs had a concordance rate of 15.4% among positive samples, zero among inconclusive, and 100% among negative ones. For saliva samples, the concordance rate was 67.6% among positive samples, 42.9% among inconclusive, and 96.8% among negative ones. However, the concordance rate between saliva and NP swabs was higher (96.9%) within samples with lower cycle threshold (Ct) values (Ct > 10 ≤ 25). MAIN CONCLUSIONS Our data suggests that whereas gingival fluid swabs are not substitutes for NP swabs, saliva might be considered whenever NP swabs are not available or recommended.