Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Despite pulmonary impairments being the most prevalent, extra-pulmonary manifestations of COVID-19 are abundant. Confirmed COVID-19 cases have now surpassed 57.8 million worldwide as of 22 November 2020. With estimated case fatality rates (number of deaths from COVID-19 divided by number of confirmed COVID-19 cases) varying between 1 and 7%, there will be a large population of recovered COVID-19 patients that may acquire a multitude of long-term health consequences. While the multi-organ manifestations of COVID-19 are now welldocumented, the potential long-term implications of these manifestations remain to be uncovered. In this review, we turn to previous similar coronaviruses (i.e. SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus [MERS-CoV]) in combination with known health implications of SARS-CoV-2 infection to predict potential long-term effects of COVID-19, including pulmonary, cardiovascular, hematologic, renal, central nervous system, gastrointestinal, and psychosocial manifestations, in addition to the well-known post-intensive care syndrome. It is necessary to monitor COVID-19 patients after discharge to understand the breadth and severity of long-term effects. This can be accomplished by repurposing or initiating large cohort studies to not only focus on the long-term consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but also on acquired immune function as well as ethno-racial group and household income disparities in COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations. The future for COVID-19 survivors remains uncertain, and if this virus circulates among us for years to come, long-term effects may accumulate exponentially.

Since its initial outbreak in late 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected the global community. In addition to the negative health consequences of contracting COVID-19, the implementation of strict quarantine and lockdown measures has also disrupted social networks and devastated the global economy. As a result, there is rising concern that the pandemic has taken a toll on the mental health of the general population. To better understand its impact, an increasing number of studies examined the effects of the pandemic on mental health and psychosocial implications of enforced quarantine and lockdown. In this article, we aim to review and summarize the findings from a variety of studies that have explored the psychosociological effects of the pandemic and its impact on the mental well-being of the general population. We will also examine how various demographic groups, such as the elderly and youth, can be more susceptible or resilient to the pandemic’s mental health effects. We hope to provide a broader understanding of the underlying causes of mental health issues triggered by the pandemic and provide recommendations that may be employed to address mental health issues in the population over the long-term.

Background Gliomas are among the most malignant tumors, with a very poor prognosis. Early diagnosis is highly desirable since it can help implement more effective treatments for smaller tumors, which have not yet extensively metastasized. Improving early diagnosis may facilitate access of patients to clinical trials and prepare them for the future availability of new disease-modifying treatments. Methods We analyzed retrospective samples collected at diagnosis (before therapy initiation), with PEA (Olink Proteomics), quantifying about 3000 proteins. We utilized 30 plasmas from gliomas (20 glioblastomas, 5 anaplastic astrocytomas, 5 anaplastic oligodendrogliomas) and 20 meningiomas (as controls). We then analyzed the data to identify proteins which either alone, or in combination, could discriminate gliomas from meningiomas, or correlate with clinical and molecular alterations. Results We identified 8 plasma proteins which were increased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (GFAP, NEFL, EDDM3B, PROK1, MMP3, CTRL, GP2, SPINT3) and 4 proteins which were decreased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (FABP4, ALDH3A1, IL-12B and OXT). Partition algorithms and logistic regression algorithms with two biomarkers (GFAP and FABP4) achieved sensitivity of 83% and 93% at 100% and 90% specificity, respectively. The strongest single marker was GFAP with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.86. The AUC for the GFAP-FABP4 combination was 0.98. Conclusion PEA is a powerful new proteomic technology for biomarker discovery. GFAP and a handful of other plasma biomarkers may be useful for early glioma detection and probably, prognosis. Statement Detecting gliomas as early as possible is highly desirable since it can significantly improve the chances of effective treatments. Reliable glioma biomarkers can timely inform glioma patients about the efficacy of their prescribed treatment. Our results reveal some novel putative glioma markers that may prove valuable, when used alone or in combination, towards improved clinical care of gliomas. In order to better appreciate the potential usefulness of these markers, their performance needs to be further validated in a larger cohort of samples.

Background Gliomas are among the most malignant tumors, with a very poor prognosis. Early diagnosis is highly desirable since it can help implement more effective treatments for smaller tumors, which have not yet extensively metastasized. Improving early diagnosis may facilitate access of patients to clinical trials and prepare them for the future availability of new disease-modifying treatments. Methods: We analyzed retrospective samples collected at diagnosis (before therapy initiation), with PEA (Olink Proteomics), quantifying about 3,000 proteins. We utilized 30 plasmas from gliomas (20 glioblastomas, 5 anaplastic astrocytomas, 5 anaplastic oligodendrogliomas) and 20 meningiomas (as controls). We then analyzed the data to identify proteins which either alone, or in combination, could discriminate gliomas from meningiomas, or correlate with clinical and molecular alterations. Results:We identified 8 plasma proteins which were increased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (GFAP, NEFL, EDDM3B, PROK1, MMP3, CTRL, GP2, SPINT3) and 4 proteins which were decreased in gliomas vs. meningiomas (FABP4, ALDH3A1, IL-12B and OXT). Partition algorithms and logistic regression algorithms with two biomarkers (GFAP and FABP4) achieved sensitivity of 83% and 93% at 100% and 90% specificity, respectively. The strongest single marker was GFAP with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.86. The AUC for the GFAP-FABP4 combination was 0.98. Conclusion:PEA is a powerful new proteomic technology for biomarker discovery. GFAP and a handful of other plasma biomarkers may be useful for early glioma detection and probably, prognosis.

Objectives Widespread SARS-CoV-2 testing is invaluable for identifying asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic individuals. There remains a technological gap for highly reliable, easy, and quick SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic tests suitable for frequent mass testing. Compared to nasopharyngeal (NP) swab-based tests, saliva-based methods are attractive due to easier and safer sampling. Current saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 rapid antigen tests (RATs) are hindered by limited analytical sensitivity. Here, we report one of the first ultrasensitive, saliva-based SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays with an analytical sensitivity of <0.32 pg/mL, corresponding to four viral RNA copies/µL, which is comparable to that of PCR-based tests. Methods Using the novel electrochemiluminescence (ECL)-based immunoassay, we measured the SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) antigen concentration in 105 salivas, obtained from non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 patients. We then verified the results with a second, independent cohort of 689 patients (3.8% SARS-CoV-2 positivity rate). We also compared our method with a widely used point-of-care rapid test. Results In the first cohort, at 100% specificity, the sensitivity was 92%. Our assay correctly identified samples with viral loads up to 35 CT cycles by saliva-based PCR. Paired NP swab-based PCR results were obtained for 86 cases. Our assay showed high concordance with saliva-based and NP swab-based PCR in samples with negative (<0.32 pg/mL) and strongly positive (>2 pg/mL) N antigen concentrations. In the second cohort, at 100% specificity, sensitivity was also 92%. Our assay is about 700-fold more sensitive than the Abbott Panbio Rapid Test. Conclusions We demonstrated the ultrasensitivity and specificity assay and its concordance with PCR. This novel assay is especially valuable when compliance to frequent swabbing may be problematic.