Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. MethodsThe Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A posthoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). Findings We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5•9 months (IQR 4•9-6•5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity.Interpretation We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments w...

ObjectiveTo determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers.DesignA cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020.SettingUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK.Participants545 asymptomatic healthcare workers were recruited while at work. Participants were invited to participate via the UHBFT social media. Exclusion criteria included current symptoms consistent with COVID-19. No potential participants were excluded.InterventionParticipants volunteered a nasopharyngeal swab and a venous blood sample that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies, respectively. Results were interpreted in the context of prior illnesses and the hospital departments in which participants worked.Main outcome measureProportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.ResultsThe point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral carriage was 2.4% (n=13/545). The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 24.4% (n=126/516). Participants who reported prior symptomatic illness had higher seroprevalence (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2=21.1034, p<0.0001) and quantitatively greater antibody responses than those who had remained asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was greatest among those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%), with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) ethnicity was associated with a significantly increased risk of seropositivity (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.23, p=0.01). Working on the intensive care unit was associated with a significantly lower risk of seropositivity compared with working in other areas of the hospital (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78, p=0.02).Conclusions and relevanceWe identify differences in the occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 between hospital departments and confirm asymptomatic seroconversion occurs in healthcare workers. Further investigation of these observations is required to inform future infection control and occupational health practices.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Detecting antibody responses during and after SARS-CoV-2 infection is essential in determining the seroepidemiology of the virus and the potential role of antibody in disease. Scalable, sensitive and specific serological assays are essential to this process. The detection of antibody in hospitalized patients with severe disease has proven straightforward; detecting responses in subjects with mild disease and asymptomatic infections has proven less reliable. We hypothesized that the suboptimal sensitivity of antibody assays and the compartmentalization of the antibody response may contribute to this effect. Methods: We systemically developed an ELISA assay, optimising different antigens and amplification steps, in serum and saliva from symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects. Results: Using trimeric spike glycoprotein, rather than nucleocapsid enabled detection of responses in individuals with low antibody responses. IgG1 and IgG3 predominate to both antigens, but more anti-spike IgG1 than IgG3 was detectable. All antigens were effective for detecting responses in hospitalized patients. Anti-spike, but not nucleocapsid, IgG, IgA and IgM antibody responses were readily detectable in saliva from non-hospitalized symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Antibody responses in saliva and serum were largely independent of each other and symptom reporting. Conclusions. Detecting antibody responses in both saliva and serum is optimal for determining virus exposure and understanding immune responses after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Funding. This work was funded by the University of Birmingham, the National Institute for Health Research (UK), the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the University of Southampton.

Summary Coronavirus 19 (COVID‐19) has been associated with both transient and persistent systemic symptoms that do not appear to be a direct consequence of viral infection. The generation of autoantibodies has been proposed as a mechanism to explain these symptoms. To understand the prevalence of autoantibodies associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection, we investigated the frequency and specificity of clinically relevant autoantibodies in 84 individuals previously infected with SARS‐CoV‐2, suffering from COVID‐19 of varying severity in both the acute and convalescent setting. These were compared with results from 32 individuals who were on the intensive therapy unit (ITU) for non‐COVID reasons. We demonstrate a higher frequency of autoantibodies in the COVID‐19 ITU group compared with non‐COVID‐19 ITU disease control patients and that autoantibodies were also found in the serum 3–5 months post‐COVID‐19 infection. Non‐COVID patients displayed a diverse pattern of autoantibodies; in contrast, the COVID‐19 groups had a more restricted panel of autoantibodies including skin, skeletal muscle and cardiac antibodies. Our results demonstrate that respiratory viral infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 is associated with the detection of a limited profile of tissue‐specific autoantibodies, detectable using routine clinical immunology assays. Further studies are required to determine whether these autoantibodies are specific to SARS‐CoV‐2 or a phenomenon arising from severe viral infections and to determine the clinical significance of these autoantibodies.

Inhibition of cytotoxicity by two different human A-LAK cell populations through F(abЈ) 2 of affinity-purified anti-laminin Ab. Sorted Leu-19 ϩ /CD3 Ϫ and Leu-19 ϩ /CD3 ϩ A-LAK cell populations were mixed with Cr-labeled target cells in the continued presence of 150 g/ml Ab for 4 h, and the resulting lytic activity was calculated as specified in Materials and Methods.

Detecting antibody responses during and after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is essential in determining the seroepidemiology of the virus and the potential role of antibody in disease. Scalable, sensitive and specific serological assays are essential to this process. The detection of antibody in hospitalized patients with severe disease has proven relatively straightforward; detecting responses in subjects with mild disease and asymptomatic infections has proven less reliable. We hypothesized that the suboptimal sensitivity of antibody assays and the compartmentalization of the antibody response may contribute to this effect. We systematically developed an ELISA, optimizing different antigens and amplification steps, in serum and saliva from non‐hospitalized SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected subjects. Using trimeric spike glycoprotein, rather than nucleocapsid, enabled detection of responses in individuals with low antibody responses. IgG1 and IgG3 predominate to both antigens, but more anti‐spike IgG1 than IgG3 was detectable. All antigens were effective for detecting responses in hospitalized patients. Anti‐spike IgG, IgA and IgM antibody responses were readily detectable in saliva from a minority of RT‐PCR confirmed, non‐hospitalized symptomatic individuals, and these were mostly subjects who had the highest levels of anti‐spike serum antibodies. Therefore, detecting antibody responses in both saliva and serum can contribute to determining virus exposure and understanding immune responses after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.