Recent studies have provided insights into the pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 1 – 4 . However, the longitudinal immunological correlates of disease outcome remain unclear. Here we serially analysed immune responses in 113 patients with moderate or severe COVID-19. Immune profiling revealed an overall increase in innate cell lineages, with a concomitant reduction in T cell number. An early elevation in cytokine levels was associated with worse disease outcomes. Following an early increase in cytokines, patients with moderate COVID-19 displayed a progressive reduction in type 1 (antiviral) and type 3 (antifungal) responses. By contrast, patients with severe COVID-19 maintained these elevated responses throughout the course of the disease. Moreover, severe COVID-19 was accompanied by an increase in multiple type 2 (anti-helminths) effectors, including interleukin-5 (IL-5), IL-13, immunoglobulin E and eosinophils. Unsupervised clustering analysis identified four immune signatures, representing growth factors (A), type-2/3 cytokines (B), mixed type-1/2/3 cytokines (C), and chemokines (D) that correlated with three distinct disease trajectories. The immune profiles of patients who recovered from moderate COVID-19 were enriched in tissue reparative growth factor signature A, whereas the profiles of those with who developed severe disease had elevated levels of all four signatures. Thus, we have identified a maladapted immune response profile associated with severe COVID-19 and poor clinical outcome, as well as early immune signatures that correlate with divergent disease trajectories.

CLIA-certified laboratories were enrolled through the IMPACT biorepository study 15. In the IMPACT study, biospecimens including blood, nasopharyngeal swabs, saliva, urine and stool samples were collected at study enrolment (baseline denotes the first time point) and longitudinally on average every 3 to 7 days (serial time points). The detailed demographics and clinical characteristics of these 98 participants are shown in Extended Data Table 1. Plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were isolated from whole blood, and plasma was used for titre measurements of SARS-CoV-2 spike S1 protein-specific IgG and IgM antibodies (anti-S1-IgG and-IgM) and cytokine or chemokine measurements. Freshly isolated PBMCs were stained and analysed by flow cytometry 15. We obtained longitudinal serial time-point samples from a subset of these 98 study participants (n = 48; information in Extended Data Table 1). To compare the immune phenotypes between sexes, two sets of data analyses were performed in parallel-baseline and longitudinal, as described below. As a control group, healthcare workers (HCWs) from Yale-New Haven Hospital were enrolled who were uninfected with COVID-19. Demographics and background information for the HCW group and the demographics of HCWs for cytokine assays and flow cytometry assays for the primary analyses are in Extended Data Table 1. Demographic data, time-point information of the samples defined by the days from the symptom onset (DFSO) in each patient, treatment information, and raw data used to generate figures and tables is in Supplementary Table 1. Baseline analysis The baseline analysis was performed on samples from the first time point of patients who met the following criteria: not in intensive care unit (ICU), had not received tocilizumab, and had not received high doses of corticosteroids (prednisone equivalent of more than 40 mg) before the first sample collection date. This patient group, cohort A, consisted of 39 patients (17 male and 22 female) (Extended Data Tables 1, 2). Intersex and transgender individuals were not represented in this study. Figures 1-4 represent analyses of baseline raw values obtained from patients in cohort A. In cohort A patients, male and female patients were matched in terms of age, body mass index (BMI), and DFSO at the first time point sample collection (Extended Data Fig. 1a). However, there were significant differences in age and BMI between HCW controls and patients (patients had higher age and BMI values) (Extended Data Table 1), and therefore an age-and BMI-adjusted difference-indifferences analysis was also performed in parallel (Extended Data Table 3). Longitudinal analysis As parallel secondary analyses, we performed longitudinal analysis on a total patient cohort (cohort B) to evaluate the difference in immune response over the course of the disease between male and female patients. Cohort B included all patient samples from cohort A (including several time-point samples from the cohort A patients) as well as an additional 59 patients who d...

Rapid and accurate SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing is essential for controlling the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The current gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is real-time RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 from nasopharyngeal swabs. Low sensitivity, exposure risks to healthcare workers, and global shortages of swabs and personal protective equipment, however, necessitate the validation of new diagnostic approaches. Saliva is a promising candidate for SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics because (1) collection is minimally invasive and can reliably be self-administered and (2) saliva has exhibited comparable sensitivity to nasopharyngeal swabs in detection of other respiratory pathogens, including endemic human coronaviruses, in previous studies. To validate the use of saliva for SARS-CoV-2 detection, we tested nasopharyngeal and saliva samples from confirmed COVID-19 patients and self-collected samples from healthcare workers on COVID-19 wards. When we compared SARS-CoV-2 detection from patient-matched nasopharyngeal and saliva samples, we found that saliva yielded greater detection sensitivity and NOTE: This preprint reports new research that has not been certified by peer review and should not be used to guide clinical practice.consistency throughout the course of infection. Furthermore, we report less variability in self-sample collection of saliva. Taken together, our findings demonstrate that saliva is a viable and more sensitive alternative to nasopharyngeal swabs and could enable at-home self-administered sample collection for accurate large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing.

No abstract

This is a PDF file of a peer-reviewed paper that has been accepted for publication. Although unedited, the content has been subjected to preliminary formatting. Nature is providing this early version of the typeset paper as a service to our authors and readers. The text and figures will undergo copyediting and a proof review before the paper is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

The recent spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exemplifies the critical need for accurate and rapid diagnostic assays to prompt clinical and public health interventions. Currently, several quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) assays are being used by clinical, research, and public health laboratories. However, it is currently unclear if results from different tests are comparable. Our goal was to evaluate the primer-probe sets used in four common diagnostic assays available on the World Health Organization (WHO) website. To facilitate this effort, we generated RNA transcripts to be used as assay standards and distributed them to other laboratories for internal validation. We then used these (1) RNA transcript standards, (2) full-length SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and (3) pre-COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swabs, and (4) clinical samples from COVID-19 patients to determine analytical efficiency and sensitivity of the qRT-PCR primer-probe sets. We show that all primer-probe sets can be used to detect SARS-CoV-2, but there are clear differences in the ability to differentiate between true negatives and positives with low amounts of virus. We found that several primer-probe sets cross-react with SARS-CoV-2-negative nasopharyngeal swabs. However, background cross-reactivity by the 2019-nCoV_N2 set issued by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did not interfere with outcomes of the combined "N1" and "N2" assay when testing COVID-19 clinical samples. Our findings characterize the limitations of currently used primer-probe sets and can assist other laboratories in selecting appropriate assays for the detection of SARS-CoV-2.

No abstract

Highlights Source isolation and quarantine for infectious diseases is associated with a range of intended and unintended consequences. Patients in isolation quarantine with SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 report a range of positive and negative intended and unintended consequences. Personal planning, access to information, social and family resources, communication and the physical environment are significant mediators of the patient experience of isolation and quarantine.