Respiratory failure in the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic is hypothesized to be driven by an overreacting innate immune response, where the complement system is a key player. In this prospective cohort study of 39 hospitalized coronavirus disease COVID-19 patients, we describe systemic complement activation and its association with development of respiratory failure. Clinical data and biological samples were obtained at admission, days 3 to 5, and days 7 to 10. Respiratory failure was defined as PO2/FiO2 ratio of ≤40 kPa. Complement activation products covering the classical/lectin (C4d), alternative (C3bBbP) and common pathway (C3bc, C5a, and sC5b-9), the lectin pathway recognition molecule MBL, and antibody serology were analyzed by enzyme-immunoassays; viral load by PCR. Controls comprised healthy blood donors. Consistently increased systemic complement activation was observed in the majority of COVID-19 patients during hospital stay. At admission, sC5b-9 and C4d were significantly higher in patients with than without respiratory failure (P = 0.008 and P = 0.034). Logistic regression showed increasing odds of respiratory failure with sC5b-9 (odds ratio 31.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 746, P = 0.03) and need for oxygen therapy with C4d (11.7, 1.1 to 130, P = 0.045). Admission sC5b-9 and C4d correlated significantly to ferritin (r = 0.64, P < 0.001; r = 0.69, P < 0.001). C4d, sC5b-9, and C5a correlated with antiviral antibodies, but not with viral load. Systemic complement activation is associated with respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients and provides a rationale for investigating complement inhibitors in future clinical trials.

BackgroundDespite recent advances in microbiological techniques, the etiology of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is still not well described. We applied polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and conventional methods to describe etiology of CAP in hospitalized adults and evaluated their respective diagnostic yields.Methods267 CAP patients were enrolled consecutively over our 3-year prospective study. Conventional methods (i.e., bacterial cultures, urinary antigen assays, serology) were combined with nasopharyngeal (NP) and oropharyngeal (OP) swab samples analyzed by real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) for Streptococcus pneumoniae, and by real-time PCR for Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Chlamydophila pneumoniae, Bordetella pertussis and 12 types of respiratory viruses.ResultsEtiology was established in 167 (63%) patients with 69 (26%) patients having ≥1 copathogen. There were 75 (28%) pure bacterial and 41 (15%) pure viral infections, and 51 (19%) viral–bacterial coinfections, resulting in 126 (47%) patients with bacterial and 92 (34%) patients with viral etiology. S. pneumoniae (30%), influenza (15%) and rhinovirus (12%) were most commonly identified, typically with ≥1 copathogen. During winter and spring, viruses were detected more frequently (45%, P=.01) and usually in combination with bacteria (39%). PCR improved diagnostic yield by 8% in 64 cases with complete sampling (and by 15% in all patients); 5% for detection of bacteria; 19% for viruses (P=.04); and 16% for detection of ≥1 copathogen. Etiology was established in 79% of 43 antibiotic-naive patients with complete sampling. S. pneumoniae qPCR positive rate was significantly higher for OP swab compared to NP swab (P<.001). Positive rates for serology were significantly higher than for real-time PCR in detecting B. pertussis (P=.001) and influenza viruses (P<.001).ConclusionsEtiology could be established in 4 out of 5 CAP patients with the aid of PCR, particularly in diagnosing viral infections. S. pneumoniae and viruses were most frequently identified, usually with copathogens. Viral–bacterial coinfections were more common than pure infections during winter and spring; a finding we consider important in the proper management of CAP. When swabbing for qPCR detection of S. pneumoniae in adult CAP, OP appeared superior to NP, but this finding needs further confirmation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01563315.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-0803-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background A high proportion of COVID‐19 patients have cardiac involvement, even those without known cardiac disease. Downregulation of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a receptor for SARS‐CoV‐2 and the renin‐angiotensin system, as well as inflammatory mechanisms have been suggested to play a role. ACE2 is abundant in the gut and associated with gut microbiota composition. We hypothesized that gut leakage of microbial products, and subsequent inflammasome activation could contribute to cardiac involvement in COVID‐19 patients. Methods Plasma levels of a gut leakage marker (LPS‐binding protein, LBP), a marker of enterocyte damage (intestinal fatty acid binding protein, IFABP), a gut homing marker (CCL25, ligand for chemokine receptor CCR9) and markers of inflammasome activation (IL‐1β, IL‐18 and their regulatory proteins) were measured at three time points (day 1, 3‐5 and 7‐10) in 39 hospitalized COVID‐19 patients and related to cardiac involvement. Results Compared to controls, COVID‐19 patients had elevated plasma levels of LBP and CCL25 but not IFABP, suggesting impaired gut barrier function and accentuated gut homing of T cells without excessive enterocyte damage. Levels of LBP were twice as high at baseline in patients with elevated cardiac markers compared with those without and remained elevated during hospitalization. Also, markers of inflammasome activation were moderately elevated in patients with cardiac involvement. LBP was associated with higher NT‐pro‐BNP levels, whereas IL‐18, IL‐18BP and IL‐1Ra were associated with higher troponin levels. Conclusion Patients with cardiac involvement had elevated markers of gut leakage and inflammasome activation, suggestive of a potential gut‐heart axis in COVID‐19.

BackgroundContributors to long-term mortality in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remain unclear, with little attention paid to pneumonia etiology. We examined long-term survival, causes of death, and risk factors for long-term mortality in adult patients who had been hospitalized for CAP, with emphasis on demographic, clinical, laboratory, and microbiological characteristics.MethodsTwo hundred and sixty-seven consecutive patients admitted in 2008–2011 to a general hospital with CAP were prospectively recruited and followed up. Patients who died during hospital stay were excluded. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected within 48 hours of admission. Extensive microbiological work-up was performed to establish the etiology of CAP in 63% of patients. Mortality data were obtained from the Norwegian Cause of Death Registry. Cox regression models were used to identify independent risk factors for all-cause mortality.ResultsOf 259 hospital survivors of CAP (median age 66 years), 79 (30.5%) died over a median of 1,804 days (range 1–2,520 days). Cumulative 5-year survival rate was 72.9% (95% CI 67.4–78.4%). Standardized mortality ratio was 2.90 for men and 2.05 for women. The main causes of death were chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), vascular diseases, and malignancy. Independent risk factors for death were the following (hazard ratio, 95% CI): age (1.83 per decade, 1.47–2.28), cardiovascular disease (2.63, 1.61–4.32), COPD (2.09, 1.27–3.45), immunocompromization (1.98, 1.17–3.37), and low serum albumin level at admission (0.75 per 5g/L higher, 0.58–0.96), whereas active smoking was protective (0.32, 0.14–0.74); active smokers were younger than non-smokers (P < 0.001). Microbial etiology did not predict mortality.ConclusionsResults largely confirm substantial comorbidity-related 5-year mortality after hospitalization for CAP and the impact of several well-known risk factors for death, and extend previous findings on the prognostic value of serum albumin level at hospital admission. Pneumonia etiology had no prognostic value, but this remains to be substantiated by further studies using extensive diagnostic microbiological methods in the identification of causative agents of CAP.

Images Figure 1 Figure 2

JBR has served as an advisor to GlaxoSmithKline and Deerfield Capital. His institution has received investigator-initiated grant funding from Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline and Biogen for projects unrelated to this paper. DP has served as an advisory board, and has received travel/research grants, speaking and teaching fees for Macopharma,

Objective To test the hypotheses that blood biomarkers for nervous system injury, serum concentrations of neurofilament light chain protein (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAp) can serve as biomarkers for disease severity in COVID-19 patients. Methods Forty-seven inpatients with confirmed COVID-19 had blood samples drawn on admission for assessing serum biomarkers of CNS injury by Single molecule array (Simoa), NfL and GFAp. Concentrations of NfL and GFAp were analyzed in relation to symptoms, clinical signs, inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes. We used multivariate linear models to test for differences in biomarker concentrations in the subgroups, accounting for confounding effects. Results In total, 21% (n = 10) of the patients were admitted to an intensive care unit, and the overall mortality rate was 13% (n = 6). Non-survivors had higher serum concentrations of NfL (p < 0.001) upon admission than patients who were discharged alive both in adjusted analyses (p = 2.6 × 10–7) and unadjusted analyses (p = 0.001). The concentrations of NfL in non-survivors increased over repeated measurements; whereas, the concentrations in survivors were stable. The GFAp concentration was also significantly higher in non-survivors than survivors (p = 0.02). Conclusion Increased concentrations of NfL and GFAp in COVID-19 patients on admission may indicate increased mortality risk. Measurement of blood biomarkers for nervous system injury can be useful to detect and monitor CNS injury in COVID-19.

Lymphoid infiltration and prognosis in colorectal carcinomaSir -I refer to the above article by J.L. Svennevig et al. (1984) which although carefully designed, shows one serious flaw.The authors have unfortunately failed to include a control group in order to exclude the nonspecific effects of infection, in an already infected viscus, which, in its own rights, may be responsible for the infiltration of the whole range of nonspecific mononuclear cells as described in their article.In our attempts to demonstrate an association between the lymphoid infiltration of bladder cancer and survival, Leigh et al. (1973), we were severely criticized for not attempting, simultaneously, to show that the urines of the cases we studied, at the time of cystoscopic biopsy, were in fact sterile, and as a result, infection would have been unlikely to have played a significant role in attracting the mononuclear cell infiltrate.Consequently, when we studied the lymphocytic infiltration of pleural mesothelioma, and its significance for survival Leigh & Webster, 1982 we excluded any mesothelioma that showed significant numbers of polymorphonuclear leukocytes in the infiltrate as being the only likely manifestation that infection was present, and could have been responsible for the mononuclear infiltrate of the tumour. Their failure, therefore, to make some acceptable attempt to exclude infection in their colorectal cancers, tends to nullify their results.Yours etc.,