Recent studies have provided insights into the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 1 – 4 . However, the longitudinal immunological correlates of disease outcome remain unclear. Here we serially analysed immune responses in 113 patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. Immune profiling revealed an overall increase in innate cell lineages, with a concomitant reduction in T cell number. An early elevation in cytokine levels was associated with worse disease outcomes. Following an early increase in cytokines, patients with moderate COVID-19 displayed a progressive reduction in type 1 (antiviral) and type 3 (antifungal) responses. By contrast, patients with severe COVID-19 maintained these elevated responses throughout the course of the disease. Moreover, severe COVID-19 was accompanied by an increase in multiple type 2 (anti-helminths) effectors, including interleukin-5 (IL-5), IL-13, immunoglobulin E and eosinophils. Unsupervised clustering analysis identified four immune signatures, representing growth factors (A), type-2/3 cytokines (B), mixed type-1/2/3 cytokines (C), and chemokines (D) that correlated with three distinct disease trajectories. The immune profiles of patients who recovered from moderate COVID-19 were enriched in tissue reparative growth factor signature A, whereas the profiles of those with who developed severe disease had elevated levels of all four signatures. Thus, we have identified a maladapted immune response profile associated with severe COVID-19 and poor clinical outcome, as well as early immune signatures that correlate with divergent disease trajectories.

Background The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major healthcare threat. The current method of detection involves a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)–based technique, which identifies the viral nucleic acids when present in sufficient quantity. False-negative results can be achieved and failure to quarantine the infected patient would be a major setback in containing the viral transmission. We aim to describe the time kinetics of various antibodies produced against the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) and evaluate the potential of antibody testing to diagnose COVID-19. Methods The host humoral response against SARS-CoV-2, including IgA, IgM, and IgG response, was examined by using an ELISA-based assay on the recombinant viral nucleocapsid protein. 208 plasma samples were collected from 82 confirmed and 58 probable cases (qPCR negative but with typical manifestation). The diagnostic value of IgM was evaluated in this cohort. Results The median duration of IgM and IgA antibody detection was 5 (IQR, 3–6) days, while IgG was detected 14 (IQR, 10–18) days after symptom onset, with a positive rate of 85.4%, 92.7%, and 77.9%, respectively. In confirmed and probable cases, the positive rates of IgM antibodies were 75.6% and 93.1%, respectively. The detection efficiency by IgM ELISA is higher than that of qPCR after 5.5 days of symptom onset. The positive detection rate is significantly increased (98.6%) when combining IgM ELISA assay with PCR for each patient compared with a single qPCR test (51.9%). Conclusions The humoral response to SARS-CoV-2 can aid in the diagnosis of COVID-19, including subclinical cases.

CLIA-certified laboratories were enrolled through the IMPACT biorepository study 15. In the IMPACT study, biospecimens including blood, nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, urine and stool samples were collected at study enrolment (baseline denotes the first time point) and longitudinally on average every 3 to 7 days (serial time points). The detailed demographics and clinical characteristics of these 98 participants are shown in Extended Data Table 1. Plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from whole blood, and plasma was used for titre measurements of SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 protein-specific IgG and IgM antibodies (anti-S1-IgG and-IgM) and cytokine or chemokine measurements. Freshly isolated PBMCs were stained and analysed by flow cytometry 15. We obtained longitudinal serial time-point samples from a subset of these 98 study participants (n = 48; information in Extended Data Table 1). To compare the immune phenotypes between sexes, two sets of data analyses were performed in parallel-baseline and longitudinal, as described below. As a control group, healthcare workers (HCWs) from Yale-New Haven Hospital were enrolled who were uninfected with COVID-19. Demographics and background information for the HCW group and the demographics of HCWs for cytokine assays and flow cytometry assays for the primary analyses are in Extended Data Table 1. Demographic data, time-point information of the samples defined by the days from the symptom onset (DFSO) in each patient, treatment information, and raw data used to generate figures and tables is in Supplementary Table 1. Baseline analysis The baseline analysis was performed on samples from the first time point of patients who met the following criteria: not in intensive care unit (ICU), had not received tocilizumab, and had not received high doses of corticosteroids (prednisone equivalent of more than 40 mg) before the first sample collection date. This patient group, cohort A, consisted of 39 patients (17 male and 22 female) (Extended Data Tables 1, 2). Intersex and transgender individuals were not represented in this study. Figures 1-4 represent analyses of baseline raw values obtained from patients in cohort A. In cohort A patients, male and female patients were matched in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), and DFSO at the first time point sample collection (Extended Data Fig. 1a). However, there were significant differences in age and BMI between HCW controls and patients (patients had higher age and BMI values) (Extended Data Table 1), and therefore an age-and BMI-adjusted difference-indifferences analysis was also performed in parallel (Extended Data Table 3). Longitudinal analysis As parallel secondary analyses, we performed longitudinal analysis on a total patient cohort (cohort B) to evaluate the difference in immune response over the course of the disease between male and female patients. Cohort B included all patient samples from cohort A (including several time-point samples from the cohort A patients) as well as an additional 59 patients who d...

No abstract

Protecting health-care workers from subclinical coronavirus infectionHealth-care workers face an elevated risk of exposure to infectious diseases, including the novel coronavirus in China. It is imperative to ensure the safety of healthcare workers not only to safeguard continuous patient care but also to ensure they do not transmit the virus. COVID-19 can spread via cough or respiratory droplets, contact with bodily fluids, or from contaminated surfaces. 1 According to recent guidelines from the China National Health Commission, pneumonia caused by COVID-19 was included as a Group B infectious disease, which is in the same category as other infectious viruses such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and highly patho genic avian influenza (HPAI). How ever, current guidelines suggest ensuring protective measures for all health-care workers similar to those indicated for Group A infections-a category reserved for highly infectious pathogens, such as cholera and plague. 2 WHO confirmed 8098 cases and 774 (9•6%) deaths during the SARS outbreak in 2002, of which health-care workers accounted for 1707 (21%) cases.Recent evidence suggests that even someone who is non-symptomatic can spread COVID-19 with high efficiency, and conventional measures of protection, such as face masks,