Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has become pandemic. Cytokine release syndrome occurring in a minority of SARS-CoV-2 infections is associated with severe disease and high mortality. We profiled the composition, activation, and proliferation of T cells in 20 patients with severe or critical COVID-19 and 40 matched healthy controls by flow cytometry. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis based on 18 T cell subsets resulted in separation of healthy controls and COVID-19 patients. Compared to healthy controls, patients suffering from severe and critical COVID-19 had increased frequencies of activated and proliferating CD38+Ki67+ CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, suggesting active antiviral T cell defense. Frequencies of CD38+Ki67+ Th1 and CD4+ cells correlated negatively with plasma IL-6. Thus, our data suggest that patients suffering from COVID-19 have a distinct T cell composition that is potentially modulated by IL-6.

Objectives: New molecular tests for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are being rapidly launched in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The aim of this study was to evaluate the analytical and clinical performance of the VIASURE SARS-CoV-2 S gene RT-PCR Kit on the BD Max™ system and to compare results with those obtained with the cobas® SARS-CoV-2 test on the cobas® 6800 system. Methods: For testing the analytical performance, reference material was used. Clinical samples (n ¼ 101) obtained from individuals with symptoms compatible with COVID-19 were studied. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected by using either ESwab™ or UTM™ collection systems. Results: When the analytical performance was evaluated, the sample containing the lowest SARS-CoV-2 concentration tested negative with the VIASURE test whereas results obtained with the cobas® test were found to be concordant with the results expected. Six out of the 101 clinical samples (5.9%) showed an inhibition with the VIASURE test. When analysing the remaining 95 clinical samples, 27 were found to be negative with both assays. Of 68 samples that were positive with the cobas® test, the VIASURE test missed 21 (30.9 %) samples. All of those 21 samples had shown Ct values 31 with the cobas® 6800 system. None of the samples tested positive with the VIASURE test and negative with the cobas® test. Conclusions: The VIASURE test was impaired by a lack of sensitivity and a relatively high number of invalid results. When using the VIASURE test for routine testing, a significant number of COVID-19positive samples would have been missed.

No abstract

No abstract