Background Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. Methods A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2–4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. Findings From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. Interpretation A previous histo...

Summary Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic, relapsing condition with two subtypes, Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) in UC implicate a FCGR2A variant that alters the binding affinity of the antibody receptor it encodes, FcγRIIA, for immunoglobulin G (IgG). Here, we aimed to understand the mechanisms whereby changes in FcγRIIA affinity would affect inflammation in an IgA-dominated organ. We found a profound induction of anti-commensal IgG and a concomitant increase in activating FcγR signaling in the colonic mucosa of UC patients. Commensal-IgG immune complexes engaged gut-resident FcγR-expressing macrophages, inducing NLRP3- and reactive-oxygen-species-dependent production of interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and neutrophil-recruiting chemokines. These responses were modulated by the FCGR2A genotype. In vivo manipulation of macrophage FcγR signal strength in a mouse model of UC determined the magnitude of intestinal inflammation and IL-1β-dependent type 17 immunity. The identification of an important contribution of IgG-FcγR-dependent inflammation to UC has therapeutic implications.

No abstract

BackgroundThere is an urgent need to better understand whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection.MethodsA large multi-centre prospective cohort was recruited from publicly funded hospital staff in the UK. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed fortnightly questionnaires on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive or prior PCR/antibody test positive) or negative cohort (antibody negative, not previously known to be PCR/antibody positive). Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, possible (subdivided by symptom-status)) depending on hierarchy of evidence. Individuals in the primary infection were excluded from this analysis if infection was confirmed by antibody only. Reinfection rates in the positive cohort were compared against new PCR positives in the negative cohort using a mixed effective multivariable logistic regression analysis.FindingsBetween 18 June and 09 November 2020, 44 reinfections (2 probable, 42 possible) were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 6,614 participants, collectively contributing 1,339,078 days of follow-up. This compares with 318 new PCR positive infections and 94 antibody seroconversions in the negative cohort of 14,173 participants, contributing 1,868,646 days of follow-up. The incidence density per 100,000 person days between June and November 2020 was 3.3 reinfections in the positive cohort, compared with 22.4 new PCR confirmed infections in the negative cohort. The adjusted odds ratio was 0.17 for all reinfections (95% CI 0.13-0.24) compared to PCR confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was over 160 days.InterpretationA prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included.FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.

Mohs micrographic surgery is safe, with a very low rate of adverse events, an exceedingly low rate of serious adverse events, and an undetectable mortality rate. Common complications include infections, followed by impaired wound healing and bleeding. Bleeding and wound-healing issues are often associated with preexisting anticoagulation therapy, which is nonetheless managed safely during MMS. We are not certain whether the small effects seen with the use of sterile gloves and antiseptics and antibiotics are clinically significant and whether wide-scale practice changes would be cost-effective given the small risk reductions.