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

Evidence of Slow Neural Processing, Developmental Differences and Sensitivity to Cannabis Effects in a Sample at Clinical High Risk for Psychosis From the NAPLS Consortium Assessed With the Human Startle Paradigm

Biomarkers are important in the study of the prodromal period of psychosis because they can help to identify individuals at greatest risk for future psychotic illness and provide insights into disease mechanism underlying neurodevelopmental abnormalities. The biomarker abnormalities can then be targeted with treatment, with an aim toward prevention or mitigation of disease. The human startle paradigm has been used in translational studies of psychopathology including psychotic illness to assess preattentive information processing for over 50 years. In one of the largest studies to date in clinical high risk (CHR) for psychosis participants, we aimed to evaluate startle indices as biomarkers of risk along with the role of age, sex, treatment, and substance use in this population of high risk individuals. Methods: Startle response reactivity, latency, and prepulse inhibition (PPI) were assessed in 543 CHR and 218 Normal Comparison (NC) participants between the ages of 12 and 35. Results: At 1 year follow-up, 58 CHR participants had converted to psychosis. CHR and NC groups did not differ across any of the startle measures but those CHR participants who later converted to psychosis had significantly slower startle latency than did those who did not convert to psychosis, and this effect was driven by female CHR participants. PPI was significantly associated with age in the CHR, but not the NC, participants with the greatest positive age correlations present in those CHR participants who later converted to psychosis, consistent with a prior report. Finally, there was a significant group by cannabis use interaction due to greater PPI in cannabis users and opposite PPI group effects in users (CHR>NC) and non-users (NC>CHR). Discussion: This is the first study to demonstrate a relationship of startle response latency to psychotic conversion in a CHR population. PPI is an important biomarker that may be sensitive to the neurodevelopmental abnormalities thought to be present in psychosis prone individuals and the effects of cannabis. The significant correlations with age in this sample as well as the finding of greater PPI in CHR cannabis users replicate findings from another large sample of CHR participants

Between-site reliability of startle prepulse inhibition across two early psychosis consortia

Prepulse inhibition (PPI) and reactivity of the acoustic startle response are widely used biobehavioral markers in psychopathology research. Previous studies have demonstrated that PPI and startle reactivity exhibit substantial within-site stability; between-site stability, however, has not been established. In two separate consortia investigating biomarkers of early psychosis, traveling subjects studies were performed as part of quality assurance procedures in order to assess the fidelity of data across sites. In the North American Prodromal Longitudinal Studies (NAPLS) Consortium, 8 normal subjects traveled to each of the 8 NAPLS sites and were tested twice at each site on the startle PPI paradigm. In preparation for a binational study, 10 healthy subjects were assessed twice in both San Diego and Mexico City. Intraclass correlations between and within sites were significant for PPI and startle response parameters, confirming the reliability of startle measures across sites in both consortia. There were between site differences in startle magnitude in the NAPLS study that did not appear to be related to methods or equipment. In planning multi-site studies, it is essential to institute quality assurance procedures early and establish between site reliability to assure comparable data across sites

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders

A novel formulation of inhaled sodium cromoglicate (PA101) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

Background Cough can be a debilitating symptom of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and is difficult to treat. PA101 is a novel formulation of sodium cromoglicate delivered via a high-efficiency eFlow nebuliser that achieves significantly higher drug deposition in the lung compared with the existing formulations. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of inhaled PA101 in patients with IPF and chronic cough and, to explore the antitussive mechanism of PA101, patients with chronic idiopathic cough (CIC) were also studied. Methods This pilot, proof-of-concept study consisted of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with IPF and chronic cough and a parallel study of similar design in patients with CIC. Participants with IPF and chronic cough recruited from seven centres in the UK and the Netherlands were randomly assigned (1:1, using a computer-generated randomisation schedule) by site staff to receive PA101 (40 mg) or matching placebo three times a day via oral inhalation for 2 weeks, followed by a 2 week washout, and then crossed over to the other arm. Study participants, investigators, study staff, and the sponsor were masked to group assignment until all participants had completed the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in objective daytime cough frequency (from 24 h acoustic recording, Leicester Cough Monitor). The primary efficacy analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement. Safety analysis included all those who took at least one dose of study drug. In the second cohort, participants with CIC were randomly assigned in a study across four centres with similar design and endpoints. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02412020) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number 2014-004025-40) and both cohorts are closed to new participants. Findings Between Feb 13, 2015, and Feb 2, 2016, 24 participants with IPF were randomly assigned to treatment groups. 28 participants with CIC were enrolled during the same period and 27 received study treatment. In patients with IPF, PA101 reduced daytime cough frequency by 31·1% at day 14 compared with placebo; daytime cough frequency decreased from a mean 55 (SD 55) coughs per h at baseline to 39 (29) coughs per h at day 14 following treatment with PA101, versus 51 (37) coughs per h at baseline to 52 (40) cough per h following placebo treatment (ratio of least-squares [LS] means 0·67, 95% CI 0·48–0·94, p=0·0241). By contrast, no treatment benefit for PA101 was observed in the CIC cohort; mean reduction of daytime cough frequency at day 14 for PA101 adjusted for placebo was 6·2% (ratio of LS means 1·27, 0·78–2·06, p=0·31). PA101 was well tolerated in both cohorts. The incidence of adverse events was similar between PA101 and placebo treatments, most adverse events were mild in severity, and no severe adverse events or serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation This study suggests that the mechanism of cough in IPF might be disease specific. Inhaled PA101 could be a treatment option for chronic cough in patients with IPF and warrants further investigation

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

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

Data sharing statement This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license The ISARIC4C protocol, data sharing and publication policy are available at https://isaric4c.net. ISARIC4C's Independent Data and Material Access Committee welcomes applications for access to data and materials (https://isaric4c.net). The PHOSP-COVID protocol, consent form, definition and derivation of clinical characteristics and outcomes, training materials, regulatory documents, information about requests for data access, and other relevant study materials are available online: https://phosp.org/resource/. Access to these materials can be granted by contacting [email protected] and [email protected]. All data used in this study is available within ODAP and accessible under reasonable request. Data access criteria and information about how to request access is available online: https://phosp.org/resource/. If criteria are met and a request is made, access can be gained by signing the eDRIS user agreement.Supplementary data are available online at https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(22)00584-9/fulltext#supplementaryMaterial .Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). 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.This work is supported by the following grants: The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research (grant references: MR/V027859/1 and COV0319). ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (award CO-CIN-01) and the Medical Research Council (grant MC_PC_19059) Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research (grant reference: C18616/A25153). Other grants which have supported this work include: the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium [funder reference:1257927], the Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Imperial BRC, grant IS-BRC-1215-20013), the Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU) in Respiratory Infections at Imperial College London and NIHR HPRU in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at University of Liverpool, both in partnership with Public Health England, [NIHR award 200907], Wellcome Trust and Department for International Development [215091/Z/18/Z], Health Data Research UK (HDR UK) [grant code: 2021.0155], Medical Research Council [grant code: MC_UU_12014/12], and NIHR Clinical Research Network for providing infrastructure support for this research. FL is supported by an MRC clinical training fellowship [award MR/W000970/1]. LPH is supported by Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. AART is supported by a BHF Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (FS/18/13/33281). SLRJ receives support from UKRI, GCRF, Rosetrees Trust, BHIVA, EDCTP, Globvac. JDC has grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead Sciences, Grifols, Novartis and Insmed. RAE holds a NIHR Clinician Scientist Fellowship (CS-2016-16-020). AH is currently supported by UK Research and Innovation. NIHR and NIHR Manchester BRC. BR receives support from BHF Oxford Centre of Research Excellence, NIHR Oxford BRC and MRC. SJD is funded by an NIHR Global Research Professorship [NIHR300791]. DW is supported by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. AH has received support from MRC and the Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (MR/V028448/1). LVW has received support from UKRI, GSK/Asthma + Lung UK and NIHR for this study. MGS has received support from NIHR UK, MRC UK and Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging & Zoonotic Infections, University of Liverpool. JKB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223164/Z/21/Z) and UKRI (MC_PC_20004, MC_PC_19025, MC_PC_1905, MRNO2995X/1, and MC_PC_20029). PJMO is supported by a NIHR Senior Investigator Award [award 201385]. LT is supported by the Wellcome Trust [clinical career development fellowship grant number 205228/Z/16/Z], the Centre of Excellence in Infectious Diseases Research (CEIDR) and the Alder Hey Charity