Purpose According to the European Public Health Authority guidance for ending isolation in the context of COVID-19, a convalescent healthcare worker (HCW) can end their isolation at home and resume work upon clinical improvement and two negative RT-PCR tests from respiratory specimens obtained at 24-h intervals at least 8 days after the onset of symptoms. However, convalescent HCWs may shed SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA for prolonged periods. Methods 40 healthy HCWs off work because of ongoing positive RT-PCR results in combined nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swabs following SARS-CoV-2 infection were invited to participate in this study. These HCWs had been in self-isolation because of a PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. NP and OP swabs as well as a blood sample were collected from each participant. RT-PCR and virus isolation was performed with each swab sample and serum neutralization test as well as two different ELISA tests were performed on all serum samples. Results No viable virions could be detected in any of 29 nasopharyngeal and 29 oropharyngeal swabs taken from 15 long-time carriers. We found SARSCoV- 2 RNA in 14/29 nasopharyngeal and 10/29 oropharyngeal swabs obtained from screening 15 HCWs with previous COVID-19 up to 55 days after symptom onset. Six (40%) of the 15 initially positive HCWs converted to negative and later reverted to positive again according to their medical records. All but one HCW, a healthy volunteer banned from work, showed the presence of neutralizing antibodies in concomitantly taken blood samples. Late threshold cycle (Ct) values in RT-PCR [mean 37.4; median 37.3; range 30.8–41.7] and the lack of virus growth in cell culture indicate that despite the positive PCR results no infectivity remained. Conclusion We recommend lifting isolation if the RT-PCR Ct-value of a naso- or oropharyngeal swab sample is over 30. Positive results obtained from genes targeted with Ct-values > 30 correspond to non-viable/noninfectious particles that are still detected by RT-PCR. In case of Ct-values lower than 30, a blood sample from the patient should be tested for the presence of neutralizing antibodies. If positive, non-infectiousness can also be assumed.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a high mortality. To date no trial comparing hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) has been performed. Methods Hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were treated with either HCQ or LPV/RTV if they had either respiratory insufficiency (SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air or the need for oxygen insufflation) or bilateral consolidations on chest X-ray and at least 2 comorbidities associated with poor COVID-19 prognosis. Outcomes investigated included in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, length of stay, PCR (polymerase chain reaction) negativity and side effects of treatment. Results Of 156 patients (41% female) with a median age of 72 years (IQR 55.25-81) admitted to our department, 67 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria (20 received HCQ, 47 LPV/RTV). Groups were comparable regarding most baseline characteristics. Median time from symptom onset to treatment The authors M. Karolyi and E. Pawelka contributed equally to the manuscript.

In this study, we comprehensively analyzed multispecific antibody kinetics of different immunoglobulins in hospitalized patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. Three-hundred-fifty-four blood samples longitudinally obtained from 81 IgG seroconverting CoVID-19 patients were quantified for spike (S)1, S2, and nucleocapsid protein (NCP)- specific IgM, IgA, IgG, and total Ig antibodies using a microarray, eleven different ELISAs/CLIAs, and one rapid test by seven manufacturers. The assays’ specificity was assessed in 130 non-CoVID19 pneumonia patients. Using the microarray, NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies continuously displayed higher detection rates during acute CoVID-19 than S1- and S2-specific ones. S1-specific IgG antibodies, however, reached higher peak values. Until the 26th-day post symptom onset, all patients developed IgG responses against S1, S2, and NCP, respectively. Although detection rates by ELISAs/CLIAs generally resembled those of the microarray, corresponding to the target antigen, sensitivities and specificities varied among all tests. Notably, patients with more severe CoVID-19 displayed higher IgG and IgA levels, but this difference was mainly observed with S1-specific immunoassays. In patients with high SARS-CoV-2 levels in the lower respiratory tract, we observed high detection rates of IgG and total Ig immunoassays with a particular rise of S1-specific IgG antibodies when viral concentrations in the tracheal aspirate subsequently declined over time. In summary, our study demonstrates that differences in sensitivity among commercial immunoassays during acute SARS-CoV-2 infection are only partly related to the target antigen. Importantly, our data indicate that NCP-specific IgA and IgG antibodies are detected earlier, while higher S1-specific IgA antibody levels occur in severely ill patients.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with increased risk of thrombosis in severely ill patients but little is known about the risk in outpatients with mild to moderate disease. Our case series consists of four male otherwise healthy patients between 32 and 50 years of age. Initial symptoms completely resolved but they developed new onset of dyspnea and thoracic pain at days 14 to 26. CT scan revealed pulmonary embolism in all patients which led to hospitalization. Standard anticoagulation practice needs to be re-evaluated and may  be considered for certain outpatients with COVID-19.

We report of two cases of progressed COVID-19 with negative PCR tests from nasopharyngeal swabs, in whom diagnosis was made by different antibody assays, including a lateral flow rapid test and multiple commercial ELISAs, finally confirmed by comprehensive serological assays. These cases highlight that commercial ELISAs and even rapid tests might significantly aid the diagnosis of COVID-19, particularly, if a combination of serological assays is used with a specific clinical question, in severely ill patients after seroconversion and when comprehensive serological methods are used for confirmation.