SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript

Large-scale phenotyping of patients with long COVID post-hospitalization reveals mechanistic subtypes of disease

One in ten severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections result in prolonged symptoms termed long coronavirus disease (COVID), yet disease phenotypes and mechanisms are poorly understood1. Here we profiled 368 plasma proteins in 657 participants ≥3 months following hospitalization. Of these, 426 had at least one long COVID symptom and 233 had fully recovered. Elevated markers of myeloid inflammation and complement activation were associated with long COVID. IL-1R2, MATN2 and COLEC12 were associated with cardiorespiratory symptoms, fatigue and anxiety/depression; MATN2, CSF3 and C1QA were elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms and C1QA was elevated in cognitive impairment. Additional markers of alterations in nerve tissue repair (SPON-1 and NFASC) were elevated in those with cognitive impairment and SCG3, suggestive of brain–gut axis disturbance, was elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) was persistently elevated in some individuals with long COVID, but virus was not detected in sputum. Analysis of inflammatory markers in nasal fluids showed no association with symptoms. Our study aimed to understand inflammatory processes that underlie long COVID and was not designed for biomarker discovery. Our findings suggest that specific inflammatory pathways related to tissue damage are implicated in subtypes of long COVID, which might be targeted in future therapeutic trials

Virtual visits for Parkinson disease

BackgroundPrevious small-scale studies have demonstrated the feasibility of providing remote specialty care via virtual visits. We assessed the feasibility and benefits of a one-time consultation between a remote Parkinson Disease (PD) specialist and an individual with PD at home on a larger scale.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter noncontrolled cohort of virtual visits administered over videoconferencing between remote PD specialists and individuals with PD in their home. Specialists performed a patient history and a PD-specific physical examination and provided recommendations to patients and their local physicians. The primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion of visits completed as scheduled, and the 6-month change in quality of life, as measured by the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire 39. Additional outcomes included satisfaction with visits and interest in future virtual visits.ResultsA total of 277 participants from 5 states enrolled, 258 participants completed virtual visits with 14 different physicians, and 91% of visits were completed as scheduled. No improvement in quality of life was observed at 6 months (0.4-point improvement; 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 0.6; p = 0.39). Overall satisfaction with virtual visits was high among physicians (94% satisfied or very satisfied) and patients (94% satisfied or very satisfied), and 74% of participants were interested in receiving future care via virtual visits.ConclusionsProviding specialty care remotely into the homes of individuals with PD is feasible, but a one-time visit did not improve quality of life. Satisfaction with the visits was high among physicians and patients, who were interested in receiving such care in the future.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class IV evidence that for patients with PD, remote specialty care is feasible but does not improve quality of life.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02144220

National randomized controlled trial of virtual house calls for Parkinson disease

To determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable. In a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings. A total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; < 0.0001). Providing remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience. NCT02038959. This study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type

National Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtual House Calls for People with Parkinson's Disease: Interest and Barriers

BackgroundDelivering specialty care remotely directly into people's homes can enhance access for and improve the healthcare of individuals with chronic conditions. However, evidence supporting this approach is limited.Materials and methodsConnect.Parkinson is a randomized comparative effectiveness study that compares usual care of individuals with Parkinson's disease in the community with usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson's disease specialist from 1 of 18 centers nationally. Individuals in the intervention arm receive four virtual visits from a Parkinson's disease specialist over 1 year via secure, Web-based videoconferencing directly into their homes. All study activities, including recruitment, enrollment, and assessments, are conducted remotely. Here we report on interest, feasibility, and barriers to enrollment in this ongoing study.ResultsDuring recruitment, 11,734 individuals visited the study's Web site, and 927 unique individuals submitted electronic interest forms. Two hundred ten individuals from 18 states enrolled in the study from March 2014 to June 2015, and 195 were randomized. Most participants were white (96%) and college educated (73%). Of the randomized participants, 73% had seen a Parkinson's disease specialist within the previous year.ConclusionsAmong individuals with Parkinson's disease, national interest in receiving remote specialty care directly into the home is high. Remote enrollment in this care model is feasible but is likely affected by differential access to the Internet

National randomized controlled trial of virtual house calls for Parkinson disease

ObjectiveTo determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.MethodsIn a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.ResultsA total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p &lt; 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p &lt; 0.0001).ConclusionsProviding remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02038959.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type

National Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtual House Calls for People with Parkinson's Disease: Interest and Barriers

BackgroundDelivering specialty care remotely directly into people's homes can enhance access for and improve the healthcare of individuals with chronic conditions. However, evidence supporting this approach is limited.Materials and methodsConnect.Parkinson is a randomized comparative effectiveness study that compares usual care of individuals with Parkinson's disease in the community with usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson's disease specialist from 1 of 18 centers nationally. Individuals in the intervention arm receive four virtual visits from a Parkinson's disease specialist over 1 year via secure, Web-based videoconferencing directly into their homes. All study activities, including recruitment, enrollment, and assessments, are conducted remotely. Here we report on interest, feasibility, and barriers to enrollment in this ongoing study.ResultsDuring recruitment, 11,734 individuals visited the study's Web site, and 927 unique individuals submitted electronic interest forms. Two hundred ten individuals from 18 states enrolled in the study from March 2014 to June 2015, and 195 were randomized. Most participants were white (96%) and college educated (73%). Of the randomized participants, 73% had seen a Parkinson's disease specialist within the previous year.ConclusionsAmong individuals with Parkinson's disease, national interest in receiving remote specialty care directly into the home is high. Remote enrollment in this care model is feasible but is likely affected by differential access to the Internet

National Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtual House Calls for People with Parkinson's Disease: Interest and Barriers

Background: Delivering specialty care remotely directly into people's homes can enhance access for and improve the healthcare of individuals with chronic conditions. However, evidence supporting this approach is limited. Materials and Methods: Connect.Parkinson is a randomized comparative effectiveness study that compares usual care of individuals with Parkinson's disease in the community with usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson's disease specialist from 1 of 18 centers nationally. Individuals in the intervention arm receive four virtual visits from a Parkinson's disease specialist over 1 year via secure, Web-based videoconferencing directly into their homes. All study activities, including recruitment, enrollment, and assessments, are conducted remotely. Here we report on interest, feasibility, and barriers to enrollment in this ongoing study. Results: During recruitment, 11,734 individuals visited the study's Web site, and 927 unique individuals submitted electronic interest forms. Two hundred ten individuals from 18 states enrolled in the study from March 2014 to June 2015, and 195 were randomized. Most participants were white (96%) and college educated (73%). Of the randomized participants, 73% had seen a Parkinson's disease specialist within the previous year. Conclusions: Among individuals with Parkinson's disease, national interest in receiving remote specialty care directly into the home is high. Remote enrollment in this care model is feasible but is likely affected by differential access to the Internet