Search

Studies during the COVID-19 pandemic showed that children had heightened nasal innate immune responses compared with adults. To evaluate the role of nasal viruses and bacteria in driving these responses, we performed cytokine profiling and comprehensive, symptom-agnostic testing for respiratory viruses and bacterial pathobionts in nasopharyngeal samples from children tested for SARS-CoV-2 in 2021-22 (n = 467). Respiratory viruses and/or pathobionts were highly prevalent (82% of symptomatic and 30% asymptomatic children; 90 and 49% for children <5 years). Virus detection and load correlated with the nasal interferon response biomarker CXCL10, and the previously reported discrepancy between SARS-CoV-2 viral load and nasal interferon response was explained by viral coinfections. Bacterial pathobionts correlated with a distinct proinflammatory response with elevated IL-1β and TNF but not CXCL10. Furthermore, paired samples from healthy 1-year-olds collected 1-2 wk apart revealed frequent respiratory virus acquisition or clearance, with mucosal immunophenotype changing in parallel. These findings reveal that frequent, dynamic host-pathogen interactions drive nasal innate immune activation in children., (© 2024 Watkins et al.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 serologic assays are becoming increasingly available and may serve as a diagnostic aid in a multitude of settings relating to past infection status. However, there is limited literature detailing the longitudinal performance of EUA-cleared serologic assays in US populations, particularly in cohorts with a remote history of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (e.g., >2 months)., Methods: We evaluated the diagnostic sensitivities and specificities of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (anti-N) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (anti-S1-RBD) assays, using 174 residual clinical samples up to 267 days post-PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 154) and a subset of samples obtained prior to the COVID-19 pandemic as negative controls (n = 20)., Results: The calculated diagnostic sensitivities for the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays were 89% and 93%, respectively. Of the 154 samples in the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort, there were 6 discrepant results between the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays, 5 of which were specimens collected ≥200 days post-PCR positivity and only had detectable levels of anti-S1-RBD antibodies. When only considering specimens collected ≥100 days post-PCR positivity (n = 41), the sensitivities for the anti-N and anti-S1-RBD assays were 85% and 98%, respectively., Conclusions: The anti-S1-RBD assay demonstrated superior sensitivity at time points more remote to the PCR detection date, with 6 more specimens from the SARS-CoV-2-positive cohort detected, 5 of which were collected more than 200 days post-PCR positivity. While analytical differences and reagent lot-to-lot variability are possible, this may indicate that, in some instances, anti-S1-RBD antibodies may persist longer in vivo and may be a better target for detecting remote SARS-CoV-2 infection., (© American Association for Clinical Chemistry 2021. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

There is increasing evidence that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) produces more severe symptoms and higher mortality among men than among women 1-5 . However, whether immune responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) differ between sexes, and whether such differences correlate with the sex difference in the disease course of COVID-19, is currently unknown. Here we examined sex differences in viral loads, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody titres, plasma cytokines and blood-cell phenotyping in patients with moderate COVID-19 who had not received immunomodulatory medications. Male patients had higher plasma levels of innate immune cytokines such as IL-8 and IL-18 along with more robust induction of non-classical monocytes. By contrast, female patients had more robust T cell activation than male patients during SARS-CoV-2 infection. Notably, we found that a poor T cell response negatively correlated with patients' age and was associated with worse disease outcome in male patients, but not in female patients. By contrast, higher levels of innate immune cytokines were associated with worse disease progression in female patients, but not in male patients. These findings provide a possible explanation for the observed sex biases in COVID-19, and provide an important basis for the development of a sex-based approach to the treatment and care of male and female patients with COVID-19.

Whether SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccines confer exposure-dependent ("leaky") protection against infection remains unknown. We examined the effect of prior infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity on infection risk among residents of Connecticut correctional facilities during periods of predominant Omicron and Delta transmission. Residents with cell, cellblock, and no documented exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infected residents were matched by facility and date. During the Omicron period, prior infection, vaccination, and hybrid immunity reduced the infection risk of residents without a documented exposure (HR: 0.36 [0.25–0.54]; 0.57 [0.42–0.78]; 0.24 [0.15–0.39]; respectively) and with cellblock exposures (0.61 [0.49–0.75]; 0.69 [0.58–0.83]; 0.41 [0.31–0.55]; respectively) but not with cell exposures (0.89 [0.58–1.35]; 0.96 [0.64–1.46]; 0.80 [0.46–1.39]; respectively). Associations were similar during the Delta period and when analyses were restricted to tested residents. Although associations may not have been thoroughly adjusted due to dataset limitations, the findings suggest that prior infection and vaccination may be leaky, highlighting the potential benefits of pairing vaccination with non-pharmaceutical interventions in crowded settings. Measuring an individual's level of exposure to COVID-19 is challenging, and it is therefore unclear whether high exposure may impact immunity. Here, the authors investigate this question using data from a correctional facility in Connecticut, USA, by comparing rates of infection in people who share cells, cellblocks, and with no known exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact variant-specific immune evasion and waning protection have on declining COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness remains unclear. Using whole-genome-sequencing (WGS), we examined the contribution of these factors on the decline observed following the introduction of the Delta variant. Further, we evaluated the utility of calendar-period-based classification as an alternative to WGS.Methods: We conducted a test-negative-case-control study among people who received SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in the Yale New Haven Health System between April 1 and August 24, 2021. Variant classification was performed using WGS and calendar-period.Results: Overall, 2,029 cases (RT-PCR positive, sequenced samples [infections]) and 343,985 controls (negative RT-PCRs) were included. VE 14-89 days after 2nd dose was significantly higher against WGS-classified Alpha-infection (84.4%, CI: 75.6-90.0%) than Delta-infection (68.9%, CI: 58.0-77.1%, p-value = 0.013). The odds of WGS-classified Delta-infection were significantly higher 90-149 than 14-89 days after 2nd dose (p-value = 0.003). VE estimates against calendar-period-classified infections approximated estimates against WGS-classified infections, however, calendar-period-based classification was subject to outcome misclassification (35%: Alpha-period, 4%: Delta-period).Conclusions: Both waning protection and variant-specific immune evasion contributed to the lower effectiveness. While VE estimates against calendar-period-classified infections mirrored those against WGS-classified infections, our analysis highlights the need for WGS when variants are co-circulating and misclassification is likely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The benefit of primary and booster vaccination in people who experienced a prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains unclear. The objective of this study was to estimate the effectiveness of primary (two-dose series) and booster (third dose) mRNA vaccination against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with a prior documented infection.Methods and Findings: We conducted a test-negative case-control study of reverse transcription PCRs (RT-PCRs) analyzed with the TaqPath (Thermo Fisher Scientific) assay and recorded in the Yale New Haven Health system from November 1, 2021, to April 30, 2022. Overall, 11,307 cases (positive TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs with S-gene target failure [SGTF]) and 130,041 controls (negative TaqPath analyzed RT-PCRs) were included (median age: cases: 35 years, controls: 39 years). Among cases and controls, 5.9% and 8.1% had a documented prior infection (positive SARS-CoV-2 test record ≥90 days prior to the included test), respectively. We estimated the effectiveness of primary and booster vaccination relative to SGTF-defined Omicron (lineage BA.1) variant infection using a logistic regression adjusted for date of test, age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, comorbidities, social venerability index, municipality, and healthcare utilization. The effectiveness of primary vaccination 14 to 149 days after the second dose was 41.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 14.1% to 59.4%, p 0.006) and 27.1% (95% CI: 18.7% to 34.6%, p < 0.001) for people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. The effectiveness of booster vaccination (≥14 days after booster dose) was 47.1% (95% CI: 22.4% to 63.9%, p 0.001) and 54.1% (95% CI: 49.2% to 58.4%, p < 0.001) in people with and without a documented prior infection, respectively. To test whether booster vaccination reduced the risk of infection beyond that of the primary series, we compared the odds of infection among boosted (≥14 days after booster dose) and booster-eligible people (≥150 days after second dose). The odds ratio (OR) comparing boosted and booster-eligible people with a documented prior infection was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.54 to 1.16, p 0.222), whereas the OR comparing boosted and booster-eligible people without a documented prior infection was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.49 to 0.59, p < 0.001). This study's limitations include the risk of residual confounding, the use of data from a single system, and the reliance on TaqPath analyzed RT-PCR results.Conclusions: In this study, we observed that primary vaccination provided significant but limited protection against Omicron (lineage BA.1) infection among people with and without a documented prior infection. While booster vaccination was associated with additional protection against Omicron BA.1 infection in people without a documented prior infection, it was not found to be associated with additional protection among people with a documented prior infection. These findings support primary vaccination in people regardless of documented prior infection status but suggest that infection history may impact the relative benefit of booster doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]