We studied plasma antibody responses of 35 patients about 1 month after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Titers of antibodies binding to the viral nucleocapsid and spike proteins were significantly higher in patients with severe disease. Likewise, mean antibody neutralization titers against SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus and live virus were higher in the sicker patients, by ∼5-fold and ∼7-fold, respectively. These findings have important implications for those pursuing plasma therapy, isolation of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, and determinants of immunity.
Whether solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are at increased risk of poor outcomes due to COVID‐19 in comparison to the general population remains uncertain. In this study, we compared outcomes of SOT recipients and non‐SOT patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 in a propensity score matched analysis based on age, race, ethnicity, BMI, diabetes, and hypertension. After propensity matching, 117 SOT recipients and 350 non‐SOT patients were evaluated. The median age of SOT recipients was 61 years, with a median time from transplant of 5.68 years. The most common transplanted organs were kidney (48%), followed by lung (21%), heart (19%), and liver (10%). Overall, SOT recipients were more likely to receive COVID‐19 specific therapies and to require ICU admission. However, mortality (23.08% in SOT recipients vs. 23.14% in controls,
P
= .21) and highest level of supplemental oxygen (
P
= .32) required during hospitalization did not significantly differ between groups. In this propensity matched cohort study, SOT recipients hospitalized with COVID‐19 had similar overall outcomes as non‐SOT recipients, suggesting that chronic immunosuppression may not be an independent risk factor for poor outcomes in COVID‐19.
BackgroundRift Valley fever (RVF) is a zoonotic disease caused by Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) found in Africa and the Middle East. Outbreaks can cause extensive morbidity and mortality in humans and livestock. Following the diagnosis of two acute human RVF cases in Kabale district, Uganda, we conducted a serosurvey to estimate RVFV seroprevalence in humans and livestock and to identify associated risk factors.MethodsHumans and animals at abattoirs and villages in Kabale district were sampled. Persons were interviewed about RVFV exposure risk factors. Human blood was tested for anti-RVFV IgM and IgG, and animal blood for anti-RVFV IgG.Principal findings655 human and 1051 animal blood samples were collected. Anti-RVFV IgG was detected in 78 (12%) human samples; 3 human samples (0.5%) had detectable IgM only, and 7 (1%) had both IgM and IgG. Of the 10 IgM-positive persons, 2 samples were positive for RVFV by PCR, confirming recent infection. Odds of RVFV seropositivity were greater in participants who were butchers (odds ratio [OR] 5.1; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 1.7–15.1) and those who reported handling raw meat (OR 3.4; 95% CI 1.2–9.8). No persons under age 20 were RVFV seropositive. The overall animal seropositivity was 13%, with 27% of cattle, 7% of goats, and 4% of sheep seropositive.In a multivariate logistic regression, cattle species (OR 9.1; 95% CI 4.1–20.5), adult age (OR 3.0; 95% CI 1.6–5.6), and female sex (OR 2.1; 95%CI 1.0–4.3) were significantly associated with animal seropositivity. Individual human seropositivity was significantly associated with animal seropositivity by subcounty after adjusting for sex, age, and occupation (p < 0.05).ConclusionsAlthough no RVF cases had been detected in Uganda from 1968 to March 2016, our study suggests that RVFV has been circulating undetected in both humans and animals living in and around Kabale district. RVFV seropositivity in humans was associated with occupation, suggesting that the primary mode of RVFV transmission to humans in Kabale district could be through contact with animal blood or body fluids.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.