Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: A multicenter,retrospective, cross-sectional study in Japan

BackgroundThere are many commercially available automated assays for assessing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) immune responses; however, owing to insufficient data, their validities remain unknown. Here, we examined antibody responses during acute-phase COVID-19 using four assays that detect anti-spike protein IgM (S-IgM), anti-nucleocapsid protein IgG (N-IgG), anti-spike protein total Ig (S-total Ig), and anti-spike protein IgG (S-IgG).MethodsWe measured antibody levels in 1154 serum samples collected from 286 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 by a gene amplification method between February and December 2020 in Japan. Sera from 860 healthcare workers were used as negative controls.ResultsThe antibody positivity rates increased on week 2, peaked, and then started to plateau by the beginning of week 3 after symptom onset. On week 1, there were some significant differences in seropositivity rates between assays (p = 0.032): 14.9% (11.0%–19.4%) for S-IgM and 8.9% (6.0%–12.7%) for N-IgG. The seropositivity for the S-total Ig (10.6% [7.3%–14.6%]) assay was considerably better than that for the S-IgG (6.9% [4.3%–10.4%]) assay, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.150). The levels of S-IgM antibodies and the three others peaked on weeks 3 and 5, respectively. All four assays showed high specificities (>99%).ConclusionsAll four assays had good specificities and were suitable for seropositivity detection after week 3 of symptom onset. Assays of IgM alone or total Ig (containing IgM) were better than those of IgG alone as an adjunct serological test for early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis, albeit the use of a serological assay alone is insufficient.     

Trends in clinical features of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published from December 2019 to February 2020

BackgroundSince novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) emerged, various clinical features of COVID-19 have been reported.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of published studies reporting the clinical features of COVID-19. Two investigators independently searched PubMed (December 2019–February 2020) for eligible articles. A meta-analysis was performed to measure the frequencies of clinical outcomes and symptoms of COVID-19. A stratified analysis was conducted according to the timeline of outbreak and exposure histories: Group I, most patients were exposed to the Hunan seafood wholesale market and lived in Wuhan, Hubei province; Group II, patients lived in Hubei province but were not directly exposed to the market; and Group III, patients lived outside Hubei.ResultsThirteen studies, all from China, were eligible. The estimated mortality rate among all studies was 2.12%, but that in Group I was 8.66%. The incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome in Group I was 20.00%. Both fever and cough were major symptoms, and their frequencies were higher in Group I than in Groups II and III, while the frequency of diarrhea in Group I was lower than that in Group III. The estimated frequency of dyspnea in Group I was 37.18%, while those in Groups II and III were 16.95% and 7.03%, respectively.ConclusionsThe trends in the clinical features of COVID-19 changed from December 2019 to February 2020. During this observation period, as the infection continued to spread, the clinical conditions for majority of patients became less severe with the changes in the route of transmission.     

Cardiovascular Deaths During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States

BackgroundAlthough the direct toll of COVID-19 in the United States has been substantial, concerns have also arisen about the indirect effects of the pandemic. Hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions have declined, raising concern that patients may be avoiding hospitals because of fear of contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome- coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Other factors, including strain on health care systems, may also have had an indirect toll.ObjectivesThis investigation aimed to evaluate whether population-level deaths due to cardiovascular causes increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsThe authors conducted an observational cohort study using data from the National Center for Health Statistics to evaluate the rate of deaths due to cardiovascular causes after the onset of the pandemic in the United States, from March 18, 2020, to June 2, 2020, relative to the period immediately preceding the pandemic (January 1, 2020 to March 17, 2020). Changes in deaths were compared with the same periods in the previous year.ResultsThere were 397,042 cardiovascular deaths from January 1, 2020, to June 2, 2020. Deaths caused by ischemic heart disease increased nationally after the onset of the pandemic in 2020, compared with changes over the same period in 2019 (ratio of the relative change in deaths per 100,000 in 2020 vs. 2019: 1.11, 95% confidence interval: 1.04 to 1.18). An increase was also observed for deaths caused by hypertensive disease (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 1.26), but not for heart failure, cerebrovascular disease, or other diseases of the circulatory system. New York City experienced a large relative increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease (2.39, 95% confidence interval: 1.39 to 4.09) and hypertensive diseases (2.64, 95% confidence interval: 1.52 to 4.56) during the pandemic. More modest increases in deaths caused by these conditions occurred in the remainder of New York State, New Jersey, Michigan, and Illinois but not in Massachusetts or Louisiana.ConclusionsThere was an increase in deaths caused by ischemic heart disease and hypertensive diseases in some regions of the United States during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that the pandemic may have had an indirect toll on patients with cardiovascular disease.     

Adverse reactions to BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in medical staff with a history of allergy

BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) vaccination is progressing globally. Several adverse reactions have been reported with vaccination against COVID-19. It is unknown whether adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccination are severe in individuals with allergies.MethodsWe administered the COVID-19 vaccine to the medical staff at Yamagata University Hospital from March to August 2021. Subsequently, we conducted an online questionnaire-based survey to investigate the presence of allergy and adverse reactions after vaccination and examine the association between allergy and adverse reactions after immunization.ResultsResponses were collected from 1586 to 1306 participants after the first and second administration of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. Adverse reactions included injection site pain, injection site swelling, fever, fatigue or malaise, headache, chills, nausea, muscle pain outside the injection site, and arthralgia. The frequency of some adverse reactions and their severity were higher, and the duration of symptoms was longer in participants with allergies than in those without allergies. Although several participants visited the emergency room for treatment after the first and second vaccinations, no participant was diagnosed with anaphylaxis.ConclusionsThis study suggests that the frequency and severity of adverse reactions after injection of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were higher in individuals with allergy; however, no severe adverse reactions such as anaphylaxis or death were observed. These results indicate that individuals with allergic histories may tolerate the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.     

Cardiovascular Considerations for Patients,Health Care Workers,and Health Systems During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 that has significant implications for the cardiovascular care of patients. First, those with COVID-19 and pre-existing cardiovascular disease have an increased risk of severe disease and death. Second, infection has been associated with multiple direct and indirect cardiovascular complications including acute myocardial injury, myocarditis, arrhythmias, and venous thromboembolism. Third, therapies under investigation for COVID-19 may have cardiovascular side effects. Fourth, the response to COVID-19 can compromise the rapid triage of non-COVID-19 patients with cardiovascular conditions. Finally, the provision of cardiovascular care may place health care workers in a position of vulnerability as they become hosts or vectors of virus transmission. We hereby review the peer-reviewed and pre-print reports pertaining to cardiovascular considerations related to COVID-19 and highlight gaps in knowledge that require further study pertinent to patients, health care workers, and health systems.     

Polymerase-chain reaction testing to prevent hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in Shinjuku,an epicenter in Tokyo: The Tokyo Women's Medical University model

Hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory virus coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is a healthcare challenge. We hypothesized that polymerase chain reaction testing of symptomatic triaged outpatients and all inpatients before hospitalization in Shinjuku, a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epicenter in Tokyo, using the Tokyo Women's Medical University (TMWU) model would be feasible and efficient at preventing COVID-19. This retrospective study enrolled 2981 patients from March to May 2020. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.81% (95% credible interval [CI]: 0.95–3.47%) in triaged symptomatic outpatients, 0.04% (95% CI: 0.0002–0.2%) in scheduled asymptomatic inpatients, 3.78% (95% CI: 1.82–7.26%) in emergency inpatients, and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.49–3.82%) in symptomatic patients. There were no cases of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. This shows that the TWMU model could prevent hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection and is feasible and effective in reducing the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the hospitals.     

Clinical impact of combination therapy with baricitinib,remdesivir, and dexamethasone in patients with severe COVID-19

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread worldwide and is also an important disease in Japan. Thus, the optimal treatment strategy for severe COVID-19 should be established urgently. The effects of combination treatment with baricitinib—a Janus kinase inhibitor, remdesivir, and dexamethasone (BRD) are unknown.MethodsPatients who received combination therapy with BRD at the Japanese Red Cross Medical Center were enrolled in the study. All patients received baricitinib (≤14 d), remdesivir (≤10 d), and dexamethasone (≤10 d). The efficacy and adverse events were evaluated.ResultsIn total, 44 patients with severe COVID-19 were enrolled in this study. The 28-d mortality rate was low at 2.3% (1/44 patients). The need for invasive mechanical ventilation was avoided in most patients (90%, 17/19 patients). Patients who received BRD therapy had a median hospitalization duration of 11 d, time to recovery of 9 d, duration of intensive care unit stay of 6 d, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation of 5 d, and duration of supplemental oxygen therapy of 5 d. Adverse events occurred in 15 patients (34%). Liver dysfunction, thrombosis, iliopsoas hematoma, renal dysfunction, ventilator-associated pneumonia, infective endocarditis, and herpes zoster occurred in 11%, 11%, 2%, 2%, 2%, 2%, and 2% of patients, respectively.ConclusionsCombination therapy with BRD was effective in treating severe COVID-19, and the incidence rate of adverse events was low. The results of the present study are encouraging; however, further randomized clinical studies are needed.