Does pre-existing immunity determine the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers? Single-center experience

Excretion of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in feces has no prognostic benefit in the outcome of COVID-19: A clinical and immunological study

This study explores the correlation between immunological and clinical characteristics in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with detectable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA in feces, analyzing data from 251 patients admitted to Mostar University Clinical Hospital (UCH) from December 2021 to January 2022. Methods involved reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) from nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and feces, alongside serological tests for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgGs. Demographic and clinical data were collected through questionnaires and medical records. The data analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software. Death occurred in 53 patients (21.1%, P < 0.001), mostly in the elderly (47/53, 88.7%, P = 0.001) and immunocompromised (19/53, 35.8%, P = 0.05), particularly those developing acute respiratory insufficiency (ARI) (46/53, 86.8%, P = 0.004), and severe/critical disease (46/53, 86.8%, P = 0.002). Among the patients with positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (86/251, 34.3%, P < 0.001), 41 (47.7%) were vaccinated and 45 (52.3%) unvaccinated (P = 0.666), showing no significant differences in clinical outcomes or mortality. Unvaccinated patients with a negative antibody titer had a higher incidence of ARI (96/123, 78%, P = 0.029) and intensive care unit (ICU) admission (22/123, 17.9%, P = 0.026), than those with a positive antibody titer. Forty-seven (62.7%) patients, out of the 75 hospitalized who provided a feces sample, were positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA (P = 0.028), without statistical differences between fecal SARS-CoV-2 positive and negative groups regarding vaccination status (15/47, 31.9%, P = 0.493), antibody status (18/47, 38.3%, P = 0.628), or death outcome (5/47, 10.6%, P = 0.706). In conclusion, unvaccinated hospitalized patients with a severe COVID-19 presentation and a negative anti-spike SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer had adverse outcomes more frequently. This suggests cautious consideration for the diagnostic use of fecal samples compared to NP swabs.

Does COVID-19 Vaccination Protect Contact Persons? A Systematic Review

The protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination for contact persons is controversial. Therefore, the aim of this review was to determine whether COVID-19 vaccination provides significant protection for them. A PubMed search was carried out using the terms “unvaccinated vaccinated covid” in combination with “viral load” and “transmission”. Studies were included if they reported original comparative data on the SARS-CoV-2 viral load, duration of SARS-CoV-2 detection, or SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates. A total of 332 articles were identified, of which 68 were included and analyzed. The differences in the viral load were equivocal in 57% of the 35 studies, significantly lower in the vaccinated in 11 studies and in the unvaccinated in 3 studies. The infectious virus levels were significantly lower in the vaccinated in two out of six studies. Virus clearance was significantly faster in vaccinated subjects in two of eight studies (detection of viral RNA) and two of four studies (detection of infectious virus). The secondary attack rates were significantly lower in vaccinated index cases in 6 of 15 studies. The vaccination status of contacts was described in two of the six studies and was 31.8% and 39.9% lower in households with an unvaccinated index case. The inconsistent and variable differences in the viral load, viral clearance and secondary attack rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, especially during the omicron predominance, suggests that COVID-19 vaccination is unlikely to prevent a relevant proportion of transmissions to contact persons, taking into account the relevance of the immunological status of the contact population (vaccination rates and previous infection).

Does the COVID-19 Vaccination Reduce the Risk to Transmit SARS-CoV-2 to Others?

It has been assumed that the COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of transmission to others. Results during the delta predominance show that the viral load in the vaccinated population is not consistently lower compared to the unvaccinated, and during the omicron predominance, the viral load was even somewhat higher. Levels of infectious SARS-CoV-2 were partly lower in the vaccinated population. Viral loads were mostly lower in re-infections compared to breakthrough infections. Viral clearance including the detection of infectious virus has mostly been described to be faster in the vaccinated population suggesting a shorter duration as a possible source for transmission. The epidemiological relevance of this finding remains uncertain. Approximately half of the transmission studies found lower secondary attack rates from the fully vaccinated population, but the results are probably best explained by the vaccination status of the contact population. Public health data from the UK show that the number of COVID-19 cases is higher among the fully vaccinated and boosted population who might be possible sources, in contrast to lower case numbers within the first three months among the vaccinated obtained in phase 3 trials on symptomatic cases. Overall, there is no convincing evidence that the COVID-19 vaccination significantly reduces the risk to transmit SARS-CoV-2 to others.

Weighted gene co-expression network-based identification of genetic effect of mRNA vaccination and previous infection on SARS-CoV-2 infection

To investigate the effect conferred by vaccination and previous infection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in molecular level, weighted gene co-expression network analysis was applied to screen vaccination, prior infection and Omicron infection-related gene modules in 46 Omicron outpatients and 8 controls, and CIBERSORT algorithm was used to infer the proportions of 22 subsets of immune cells. 15 modules were identified, where the brown module showed positive correlations with Omicron infection (r = 0.35, P = 0.01) and vaccination (r = 0.62, P = 1 × 10^-6). Enrichment analysis revealed that LILRB2 was the unique gene shared by both phosphatase binding and MHC class I protein binding. Pathways including "B cell receptor signaling pathway" and "FcγR-mediated phagocytosis" were enriched in the vaccinated samples of the highly correlated LILRB2. LILRB2 was also identified as the second hub gene through PPI network, after LCP2. In conclusion, attenuated LILRB2 transcription in PBMC might highlight a novel target in overcoming immune evasion and improving vaccination strategies.

Prevalence of Olfactory Dysfunction with the Omicron Variant of SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The omicron variant is thought to cause less olfactory dysfunction than previous variants of SARS-CoV-2, but the reported prevalence differs greatly between populations and studies. Our systematic review and meta-analysis provide information about regional differences in prevalence as well as an estimate of the global prevalence of olfactory dysfunction based on 62 studies reporting on 626,035 patients infected with the omicron variant. Our estimate of the omicron-induced prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in populations of European ancestry is 11.7%, while it is significantly lower in all other populations, ranging between 1.9% and 4.9%. When ethnic differences and population sizes are taken into account, the global prevalence of omicron-induced olfactory dysfunction in adults is estimated at 3.7%. Omicron’s effect on olfaction is twofold to tenfold lower than that of the alpha or delta variant, according to previous meta-analyses and our analysis of studies that directly compared prevalence of olfactory dysfunction between omicron and previous variants. The profile of prevalence differences between ethnicities mirrors the results of a recent genome-wide association study that implicated a gene locus encoding an odorant-metabolizing enzyme, UDP glycosyltransferase, to be linked to the extent of COVID-related loss of smell. Our analysis is consistent with the hypothesis that this enzyme contributes to the observed population differences.

Two-Year Follow-Up on Chemosensory Dysfunction and Adaptive Immune Response after Infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a Cohort of 44 Healthcare Workers

Persistent chemosensory dysfunction (PCD) is a common symptom of long-COVID. Chemosensory dysfunction (CD) as well as SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels and CD8+ T-cell immunity were investigated in a cohort of 44 healthcare workers up to a median of 721 days after a positive PCR test. CD was assessed using questionnaires and psychophysical screening tests. After 721 days, 11 of 44 (25%) participants reported PCD, with five describing an impaired quality of life. One participant reported hyperosmia (increased sense of smell). The risk of PCD at 721 days was higher for participants reporting qualitative changes (parosmia (altered smell), dysgeusia (altered taste), or phantosmia (hallucination of smell)) during initial infection than in those with isolated quantitative losses during the first COVID-19 infection (62.5% vs. 7.1%). The main recovery rate occurred within the first 100 days and did not continue until follow-up at 2 years. No correlation was found between antibody levels and CD, but we observed a trend of a higher percentage of T-cell responders in participants with CD. In conclusion, a significant proportion of patients suffer from PCD and impaired quality of life 2 years after initial infection. Qualitative changes in smell or taste during COVID-19 pose a higher risk for PCD.