John Ioannidis

Objective To estimate the infection fatality rate of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from data of seroprevalence studies. Methods Population studies with sample size of at least 500 and published as peer-reviewed papers or preprints as of July 11, 2020 were retrieved from PubMed, preprint servers, and communications with experts. Studies on blood donors were included, but studies on healthcare workers were excluded. The studies were assessed for design features and seroprevalence estimates. Infection fatality rate was estimated from each study dividing the number of COVID-19 deaths at a relevant time point by the number of estimated people infected in each relevant region. Correction was also attempted accounting for the types of antibodies assessed. Secondarily, results from national studies were also examined from preliminary press releases and reports whenever a country had no other data presented in full papers of preprints. Results 36 studies (43 estimates) were identified with usable data to enter into calculations and another 7 preliminary national estimates were also considered for a total of 50 estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.222% to 47%. Infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 1.63% and corrected values ranged from 0.00% to 1.31%. Across 32 different locations, the median infection fatality rate was 0.27% (corrected 0.24%). Most studies were done in pandemic epicenters with high death tolls. Median corrected IFR was 0.10% in locations with COVID-19 population mortality rate less than the global average (<73 deaths per million as of July 12, 2020), 0.27% in locations with 73-500 COVID-19 deaths per million, and 0.90% in locations exceeding 500 COVID-19 deaths per million. Among people <70 years old, infection fatality rates ranged from 0.00% to 0.57% with median of 0.05% across the different locations (corrected median of 0.04%). Conclusions The infection fatality rate of COVID-19 can vary substantially across different locations and this may reflect differences in population age structure and case-mix of infected and deceased patients as well as multiple other factors. Estimates of infection fatality rates inferred from seroprevalence studies tend to be much lower than original speculations made in the early days of the pandemic.

Xuping Xie, Jing Zou, Camila R. Fontes-Garfias, Hongjie Xia, Kena A. Swanson, Mark Cutler, David Cooper, Vineet Menachery, Scott C Weaver, Philip R. Dormitzer, Pei-Yong Shi

Rapidly spreading variants of SARS-CoV-2 that have arisen in the United Kingdom and South Africa share the spike N501Y substitution, which is of particular concern because it is located in the viral receptor binding site for cell entry and increases binding to the receptor (angiotensin converting enzyme 2). We generated isogenic N501 and Y501 SARS-CoV-2. Sera of 20 participants in a previously reported trial of the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2 had equivalent neutralizing titers to the N501 and Y501 viruses.

Constantinos Kurt Wibmer, Frances Ayres, Tandile Hermanus, Mashudu Madzivhandila, Prudence Kgagudi, Bronwen E Lambson, Marion Vermeulen, Karin van den Berg, Theresa Rossouw, Michael Boswell, Veronica Ueckermann, Susan Meiring, Anne von Gottberg, Cheryl Cohen, Lynn Morris, Jinal N Bhiman, Penny L Moore

SARS-CoV-2 501Y.V2, a novel lineage of the coronavirus causing COVID-19, contains multiple mutations within two immunodominant domains of the spike protein. Here we show that this lineage exhibits complete escape from three classes of therapeutically relevant monoclonal antibodies. Furthermore 501Y.V2 shows substantial or complete escape from neutralizing antibodies in COVID-19 convalescent plasma. These data highlight the prospect of reinfection with antigenically distinct variants and may foreshadow reduced efficacy of current spike-based vaccines.

Jean-Claude Tardif, Nadia Bouabdallaoui, Philippe L L'Allier, Daniel Gaudet, Binita Shah, Michael H Pillinger, Jose Lopez-Sendon, Protasio da Luz, Lucie Verret, Sylvia Audet, Jocelyn Dupuis, Andre Y Denault, Martin Pelletier, Philippe A Tessier, Sarah Samson, Denis Fortin, Jean-Daniel Tardif, David Busseuil, Elisabeth Goulet, Chantal Lacoste, Anick Dubois, Avni Y Joshi, David D Waters, Priscilla Hsue, Norman E Lepor, Frederic Lesage, Nicolas Sainturet, Eve Roy-Clavel, Zohar Bassevitch, Andreas Orfanos, Jean C Gregoire, Lambert Busque, Christian Lavallee, Pierre-Olivier Hetu, Jean-Sebastien Paquette, Sylvie Levesque, Marieve Cossette, Anna Nozza, Malorie Chabot-Blanchet, Marie-Pierre Dube, Marie-Claude Guertin, Guy Boivin

Background Evidence suggests the role of an inflammatory storm in COVID-19 complications. Colchicine is an orally administered, anti-inflammatory medication beneficial in gout, pericarditis and coronary disease. Methods We performed a randomized, double-blind trial involving non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing or clinical criteria. The patients were randomly assigned to receive colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily for 3 days and once daily thereafter) or placebo for 30 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death or hospitalization for COVID-19. Results A total of 4488 patients were enrolled. The primary endpoint occurred in 4.7% of the patients in the colchicine group and 5.8% of those in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.79; 95.1% confidence interval (CI), 0.61 to 1.03; P=0.08). Among the 4159 patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, the primary endpoint occurred in 4.6% and 6.0% of patients in the colchicine and placebo groups, respectively (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.04). In these patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19, the odds ratios were 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99) for hospitalization due to COVID-19, 0.50 (95% CI, 0.23 to 1.07) for mechanical ventilation, and 0.56 (95% CI, 0.19 to 1.66) for death. Serious adverse events were reported in 4.9% and 6.3% in the colchicine and placebo groups (P=0.05); pneumonia occurred in 2.9% and 4.1% of patients (P=0.02). Diarrhea was reported in 13.7% and 7.3% in the colchicine and placebo groups (P<0.0001). Conclusion Among non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19, colchicine reduces the composite rate of death or hospitalization. (COLCORONA ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04322682)

Zijun Wang, Fabian Schmidt, Yiska Weisblum, Frauke Muecksch, Christopher O. Barnes, Shlomo Finkin, Dennis Schaefer-Babajew, Melissa Cipolla, Christian Gaebler, Jenna A Lieberman, Thiago Y. Oliveira, Zhi Yang, Morgan E. Abernathy, Kathryn E. Huey-Tubman, Arlene Hurley, Martina Turroja, Kamille A West, Kristie Gordon, Katrina G Millard, Victor Ramos, Justin Da Silva, Jianliang Xu, Robert A Colbert, Roshni Patel, Juan P. Dizon, Cecille Unson-O'Brien, Irina Shimeliovich, Anna Gazumyan, Marina Caskey, Pamela J Bjorkman, Rafael Casellas, Theodora Hatziioannou, Paul D. Bieniasz, Michel C. Nussenzweig

To date severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected nearly 100 million individuals resulting in over two million deaths. Many vaccines are being deployed to prevent coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) including two novel mRNA-based vaccines. These vaccines elicit neutralizing antibodies and appear to be safe and effective, but the precise nature of the elicited antibodies is not known. Here we report on the antibody and memory B cell responses in a cohort of 20 volunteers who received either the Moderna (mRNA-1273) or Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines. Consistent with prior reports, 8 weeks after the second vaccine injection volunteers showed high levels of IgM, and IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (S), receptor binding domain (RBD) binding titers. Moreover, the plasma neutralizing activity, and the relative numbers of RBD-specific memory B cells were equivalent to individuals who recovered from natural infection. However, activity against SARS-CoV-2 variants encoding E484K or N501Y or the K417N:E484K:N501Y combination was reduced by a small but significant margin. Consistent with these findings, vaccine-elicited monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) potently neutralize SARS-CoV-2, targeting a number of different RBD epitopes epitopes in common with mAbs isolated from infected donors. Structural analyses of mAbs complexed with S trimer suggest that vaccine- and virus-encoded S adopts similar conformations to induce equivalent anti-RBD antibodies. However, neutralization by 14 of the 17 most potent mAbs tested was reduced or abolished by either K417N, or E484K, or N501Y mutations. Notably, the same mutations were selected when recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (rVSV)/SARS-CoV-2 S was cultured in the presence of the vaccine elicited mAbs. Taken together the results suggest that the monoclonal antibodies in clinical use should be tested against newly arising variants, and that mRNA vaccines may need to be updated periodically to avoid potential loss of clinical efficacy.

Allison J. Greaney, Andrea N. Loes, Katharine H.D. Crawford, Tyler N. Starr, Keara D Malone, Helen Y. Chu, Jesse Bloom

The evolution of SARS-CoV-2 could impair recognition of the virus by human antibody-mediated immunity. To facilitate prospective surveillance for such evolution, we map how convalescent serum antibodies are impacted by all mutations to the spikes receptor-binding domain (RBD), the main target of serum neutralizing activity. Binding by polyclonal serum antibodies is affected by mutations in three main epitopes in the RBD, but there is substantial variation in the impact of mutations both among individuals and within the same individual over time. Despite this inter- and intra-person heterogeneity, the mutations that most reduce antibody binding usually occur at just a few sites in the RBDs receptor binding motif. The most important site is E484, where neutralization by some sera is reduced >10-fold by several mutations, including one in emerging viral lineages in South Africa and Brazil. Going forward, these serum escape maps can inform surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 evolution.

Ronnie E Baticulon, Nicole Rose I Alberto, Maria Beatriz C Baron, Robert Earl C Mabulay, Lloyd Gabriel T Rizada, Jinno Jenkin Sy, Christl Jan S Tiu, Charlie A Clarion, John Carlo B Reyes

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic forced medical schools in the Philippines to stop face-to-face learning activities and abruptly shift to an online curriculum. This study aimed to identify barriers to online learning from the perspective of medical students in a developing country. METHOD: The authors sent out an electronic survey to medical students in the Philippines from 11 to 24 May 2020. Using a combination of multiple choice, Likert scale, and open-ended questions, the following data were obtained: demographics, medical school information, access to technological resources, study habits, living conditions, self-assessment of capacity for and perceived barriers to online learning, and proposed interventions. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Responses were compared between student subgroups using nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Among 3,670 medical students, 3,421 (93%) owned a smartphone and 3,043 (83%) had a laptop or desktop computer. To access online resources, 2,916 (79%) had a postpaid internet subscription while 696 (19%) used prepaid mobile data. Under prevailing conditions, only 1,505 students (41%) considered themselves physically and mentally capable of engaging in online learning. Barriers were classified under five categories: technological, individual, domestic, institutional, and community barriers. Most frequently encountered were difficulty adjusting learning styles, having to perform responsibilities at home, and poor communication between educators and learners. CONCLUSION: Medical students in the Philippines confronted several interrelated barriers as they tried to adapt to online learning. By implementing student-centered interventions, medical schools and educators play a significant role in addressing these challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Gabriel Chodcik, Lilac Tene, Tal Patalon, Sivan Gazit, Amir Ben-Tov, Dani Cohen, Khitam Muhsen

Background BNT162b2 vaccines showed high efficacy against COVID-19 in a randomized controlled phase-III trial. A vaccine effectiveness evaluation in real life settings is urgently needed, especially given the global disease surge. Hence, we assessed the short-term effectiveness of the first dose of BNT162b2-vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection. Given the BNT162b2 Phase-III results, we hypothesized that the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinees will decline after 12 days following immunization compared to the incidence during the preceding days. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from 2.6 million-member state-mandated health provider in Israel. Study population consisted of all members aged 16 or above years who were vaccinated with BNT162b2-vaccine between December/19/2020 and January/15/2021. We collected information regarding medical history and positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction test from days after first dose to January/17/2021. Daily and cumulative infection rates in days 13-24 were compared to days 1-12 after first dose using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and generalized linear models. Findings Data of 503,875 individuals (mean age 59.7 years SD=14.7, 47.8% males) were analyzed, of whom 351,897 had 13-24 days of follow-up. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.57% (n=2484) during days 1-12 and 0.27% (n=614) in days 13-24. A 51.4% relative risk reduction (RRR) was calculated in weighted-average daily incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection from 43.41-per-100,000(SE=12.07) in days 1-12 to 21.08-per-100,000(SE=6.16) in days 13-24 following immunization. The decrement in incidence was evident from day 18 after first dose. Similar RRRs were calculated in individuals aged 60 or above (44.5%), younger individuals (50.2%), females (50.0%) and males (52.1%). Findings were similar in sub-populations and patients with various comorbidities. Conclusions We demonstrated an effectiveness of 51% of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection 13-24 days after immunization with the first dose. Immunization with the second dose should be continued to attain the anticipated protection.

The REMAP-CAP Investigators, Anthony C Gordon, Paul R. Mouncey, Farah Al-Beidh, Kathryn M. Rowan, Alistair D. Nichol, Yaseen M. Arabi, Djillali Annane, Abi Beane, Wilma van Bentum-Puijk, Lindsay R. Berry, Zahra Bhimani, Marc J.M. Bonten, Charlotte A. Bradbury, Frank M. Brunkhorst, Adrian Buzgau, Allen C Cheng, Michelle A. Detry, Eamon J. Duffy, Lise J. Estcourt, Mark Fitzgerald, Herman Goossens, Rashan Haniffa, Alisa M. Higgins, Thomas E. Hills, Christopher M. Horvat, Francois Lamontagne, Patrick R. Lawler, Helen L Leavis, Kelsey M. Linstrum, Edward Litton, Elizabeth Lorenzi, John C Marshall, Florian B. Mayr, Danny McAuley, Anna McGlothlin, Shay P McGuinness, Bryan J. McVerry, Stephanie K. Montgomery, Susan C Morpeth, Srinivas Murthy, Katrina Orr, Rachael L. Parke, Jane C. Parker, Asad E. Patanwala, Ville Pettilä, Emma Rademaker, Marlene S. Santos, Christina T. Saunders, Christopher W. Seymour, Manu Shankar-Hari, Wendy I. Sligl, Alexis F Turgeon, Anne M. Turner, Frank L van de Veerdonk, Ryan Zarychanski, Cameron Green, Roger J. Lewis, Derek C. Angus, Colin J. McArthur, Scott Berry, Steve A. Webb, Lennie P.G. Derde

BackgroundThe efficacy of interleukin-6 receptor antagonists in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. MethodsWe evaluated tocilizumab and sarilumab in an ongoing international, multifactorial, adaptive platform trial. Adult patients with Covid-19, within 24 hours of commencing organ support in an intensive care unit, were randomized to receive either tocilizumab (8mg/kg) or sarilumab (400mg) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was an ordinal scale combining in-hospital mortality (assigned -1) and days free of organ support to day 21. The trial uses a Bayesian statistical model with pre-defined triggers to declare superiority, efficacy, equivalence or futility. ResultsTocilizumab and sarilumab both met the pre-defined triggers for efficacy. At the time of full analysis 353 patients had been assigned to tocilizumab, 48 to sarilumab and 402 to control. Median organ support-free days were 10 (interquartile range [IQR] -1, 16), 11 (IQR 0, 16) and 0 (IQR -1, 15) for tocilizumab, sarilumab and control, respectively. Relative to control, median adjusted odds ratios were 1.64 (95% credible intervals [CrI] 1.25, 2.14) for tocilizumab and 1.76 (95%CrI 1.17, 2.91) for sarilumab, yielding >99.9% and 99.5% posterior probabilities of superiority compared with control. Hospital mortality was 28.0% (98/350) for tocilizumab, 22.2% (10/45) for sarilumab and 35.8% (142/397) for control. All secondary outcomes and analyses supported efficacy of these IL-6 receptor antagonists. ConclusionsIn critically ill patients with Covid-19 receiving organ support in intensive care, treatment with the IL-6 receptor antagonists, tocilizumab and sarilumab, improved outcome, including survival. (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02735707)

Florian Krammer, Komal Srivastava, PARIS team, Viviana Simon

As COVID-19 vaccines are getting rolled out, an important question is arising: Should individuals who already had a SARS-CoV-2 infection receive one or two shots of the currently authorized mRNA vaccines. In this short report, we are providing evidence that the antibody response to the first vaccine dose in individuals with pre-existing immunity is equal to or even exceeds the titers found in naive individuals after the second dose. We also show that the reactogenicity is significantly higher in individuals who already have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in the past. Changing the policy to give these individuals only one dose of vaccine would not negatively impact on their antibody titers, spare them from unnecessary pain and free up many urgently needed vaccine doses.

Daniel Ayoubkhani, Kamlesh Khunti, Vahe Nafilyan, Thomas Maddox, Ben Humberstone, Ian Diamond, Amitava Banerjee

Objectives: The epidemiology of post-COVID syndrome (PCS) is currently undefined. We quantified rates of organ-specific impairment following recovery from COVID-19 hospitalisation compared with those in a matched control group, and how the rate ratio (RR) varies by age, sex, and ethnicity. Design: Observational, retrospective, matched cohort study. Setting: NHS hospitals in England. Participants: 47,780 individuals (mean age 65 years, 55% male) in hospital with COVID-19 and discharged alive by 31 August 2020, matched to controls on demographic and clinical characteristics. Outcome measures: Rates of hospital readmission, all-cause mortality, and diagnoses of respiratory, cardiovascular, metabolic, kidney and liver diseases until 30 September 2020. Results: Mean follow-up time was 140 days for COVID-19 cases and 153 days for controls. 766 (95% confidence interval: 753 to 779) readmissions and 320 (312 to 328) deaths per 1,000 person-years were observed in COVID-19 cases, 3.5 (3.4 to 3.6) and 7.7 (7.2 to 8.3) times greater, respectively, than in controls. Rates of respiratory, diabetes and cardiovascular events were also significantly elevated in COVID-19 cases, at 770 (758 to 783), 127 (122 to 132) and 126 (121 to 131) events per 1,000 person-years, respectively. RRs were greater for individuals aged <70 than [&ge;]70 years, and in ethnic minority groups than the White population, with the biggest differences observed for respiratory disease: 10.5 [9.7 to 11.4] for <70 years versus 4.6 [4.3 to 4.8] for [&ge;]70 years, and 11.4 (9.8 to 13.3) for Non-White versus 5.2 (5.0 to 5.5) for White. Conclusions: Individuals discharged from hospital following COVID-19 face elevated rates of multi-organ dysfunction compared with background levels, and the increase in risk is neither confined to the elderly nor uniform across ethnicities. The diagnosis, treatment and prevention of PCS require integrated rather than organ- or disease-specific approaches. Urgent research is required to establish risk factors for PCS.

Hannah E Davis, Gina S. Assaf, Lisa McCorkell, Hannah Wei, Ryan J. Low, Yochai Re’em, Signe Redfield, Jared P. Austin, Athena Akrami

ObjectiveTo characterize the symptom profile and time course in patients with Long COVID, along with the impact on daily life, work, and return to baseline health. DesignInternational web-based survey of suspected and confirmed COVID-19 cases with illness lasting over 28 days and onset prior to June 2020. SettingSurvey distribution via online COVID-19 support groups and social media Participants3,762 respondents from 56 countries completed the survey. 1166 (33.7%) were 40-49 years old, 937 (27.1%) were 50-59 years old, and 905 (26.1%) were 30-39 years old. 2961 (78.9%) were women, 718 (19.1%) were men, and 63 (1.7%) were nonbinary. 8.4% reported being hospitalized. 27% reported receiving a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. 96% reported symptoms beyond 90 days. ResultsPrevalence of 205 symptoms in 10 organ systems was estimated in this cohort, with 66 symptoms traced over seven months. Respondents experienced symptoms in an average of 9.08 (95% confidence interval 9.04 to 9.13) organ systems. The most frequent symptoms reported after month 6 were: fatigue (77.7%, 74.9% to 80.3%), post-exertional malaise (72.2%, 69.3% to 75.0%), and cognitive dysfunction (55.4%, 52.4% to 58.8%). These three symptoms were also the three most commonly reported overall. In those who recovered in less than 90 days, the average number of symptoms peaked at week 2 (11.4, 9.4 to 13.6), and in those who did not recover in 90 days, the average number of symptoms peaked at month 2 (17.2, 16.5 to 17.8). Respondents with symptoms over 6 months experienced an average of 13.8 (12.7 to 14.9) symptoms in month 7. 85.9% (84.8% to 87.0%) experienced relapses, with exercise, physical or mental activity, and stress as the main triggers. 86.7% (85.6% to 92.5%) of unrecovered respondents were experiencing fatigue at the time of survey, compared to 44.7% (38.5% to 50.5%) of recovered respondents. 45.2% (42.9% to 47.2%) reported requiring a reduced work schedule compared to pre-illness and 22.3% (20.5% to 24.3%) were not working at the time of survey due to their health conditions. ConclusionsPatients with Long COVID report prolonged multisystem involvement and significant disability. Most had not returned to previous levels of work by 6 months. Many patients are not recovered by 7 months, and continue to experience significant symptom burden.

Sandra Lopez-Leon, Talia Wegman-Ostrosky, Carol Perelman, Rosalinda Sepulveda, Paulina A Rebolledo, Angelica Cuapio, Sonia Villapol

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, can involve sequelae and other medical complications that last weeks to months after initial recovery, which has come to be called Long-COVID or COVID long-haulers. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to identify studies assessing long-term effects of COVID-19 and estimates the prevalence of each symptom, sign, or laboratory parameter of patients at a post-COVID-19 stage. LitCOVID (PubMed and Medline) and Embase were searched by two independent researchers. All articles with original data for detecting long-term COVID-19 published before 1st of January 2021 and with a minimum of 100 patients were included. For effects reported in two or more studies, meta-analyses using a random-effects model were performed using the MetaXL software to estimate the pooled prevalence with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewers and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. A total of 18,251 publications were identified, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. The prevalence of 55 long-term effects was estimated, 21 meta-analyses were performed, and 47,910 patients were included. The follow-up time ranged from 15 to 110 days post-viral infection. The age of the study participants ranged between 17 and 87 years. It was estimated that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of the patients that were infected with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%). All meta-analyses showed medium (n=2) to high heterogeneity (n=13). In order to have a better understanding, future studies need to stratify by sex, age, previous comorbidities, severity of COVID-19 (ranging from asymptomatic to severe), and duration of each symptom. From the clinical perspective, multi-disciplinary teams are crucial to developing preventive measures, rehabilitation techniques, and clinical management strategies with whole-patient perspectives designed to address long COVID-19 care.

Pengfei Wang, Manoj S. Nair, Lihong Liu, Sho Iketani, Yang Luo, Yicheng Guo, Maple Wang, Jian Yu, Baoshan Zhang, Peter D. Kwong, Barney Graham, John R. Mascola, Jennifer Y Chang, Michael T. Yin, Magdalena E Sobieszczyk, Christos A Kyratsous, Lawrence Shapiro, Zizhang Sheng, Yaoxing Huang, David D Ho

The COVID-19 pandemic has ravaged the globe, and its causative agent, SARS-CoV-2, continues to rage. Prospects of ending this pandemic rest on the development of effective interventions. Single and combination monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapeutics have received emergency use authorization, with more in the pipeline. Furthermore, multiple vaccine constructs have shown promise, including two with ~95% protective efficacy against COVID-19. However, these interventions were directed toward the initial SARS-CoV-2 that emerged in 2019. The recent emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants B.1.1.7 in the UK and B.1.351 in South Africa is of concern because of their purported ease of transmission and extensive mutations in the spike protein. We now report that B.1.1.7 is refractory to neutralization by most mAbs to the N-terminal domain (NTD) of spike and relatively resistant to a few mAbs to the receptor-binding domain (RBD). It is not more resistant to convalescent plasma or vaccinee sera. Findings on B.1.351 are more worrisome in that this variant is not only refractory to neutralization by most NTD mAbs but also by multiple individual mAbs to the receptor-binding motif on RBD, largely due to an E484K mutation. Moreover, B.1.351 is markedly more resistant to neutralization by convalescent plasma (9.4 fold) and vaccinee sera (10.3-12.4 fold). B.1.351 and emergent variants with similar spike mutations present new challenges for mAb therapy and threaten the protective efficacy of current vaccines.

Alexander Muik, Ann-Kathrin Wallisch, Bianca Saenger, Kena A. Swanson, Julia Muehl, Wei Chen, Hui Cai, Ritu Sarkar, Oezlem Tuereci, Philip R. Dormitzer, Ugur Sahin

Recently, a new SARS-CoV-2 lineage called B.1.1.7 has emerged in the United Kingdom that was reported to spread more efficiently than other strains. This variant has an unusually large number of mutations with 10 amino acid changes in the spike protein, raising concerns that its recognition by neutralizing antibodies may be affected. Here, we investigated SARS-CoV-2-S pseudoviruses bearing either the Wuhan reference strain or the B.1.1.7 lineage spike protein with sera of 16 participants in a previously reported trial with the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine BNT162b2. The immune sera had equivalent neutralizing titers to both variants. These data, together with the combined immunity involving humoral and cellular effectors induced by this vaccine, make it unlikely that the B.1.1.7 lineage will escape BNT162b2-mediated protection.

Liguo Zhang, Alexsia Richards, Andrew Khalil, Emile Wogram, Haiting Ma, Richard A. Young, Rudolf Jaenisch

Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 RNA shedding and recurrence of PCR-positive tests have been widely reported in patients after recovery, yet these patients most commonly are non-infectious. Here we investigated the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse-transcribed and integrated into the human genome and that transcription of the integrated sequences might account for PCR-positive tests. In support of this hypothesis, we found chimeric transcripts consisting of viral fused to cellular sequences in published data sets of SARS-CoV-2 infected cultured cells and primary cells of patients, consistent with the transcription of viral sequences integrated into the genome. To experimentally corroborate the possibility of viral retro-integration, we describe evidence that SARS-CoV-2 RNAs can be reverse transcribed in human cells by reverse transcriptase (RT) from LINE-1 elements or by HIV-1 RT, and that these DNA sequences can be integrated into the cell genome and subsequently be transcribed. Human endogenous LINE-1 expression was induced upon SARS-CoV-2 infection or by cytokine exposure in cultured cells, suggesting a molecular mechanism for SARS-CoV-2 retro-integration in patients. This novel feature of SARS-CoV-2 infection may explain why patients can continue to produce viral RNA after recovery and suggests a new aspect of RNA virus replication.

Emanuele Andreano, Giulia Piccini, Danilo Licastro, Lorenzo Casalino, Nicole V Johnson, Ida Paciello, Simeone Dal Monego, Elisa Pantano, Noemi Manganaro, Alessandro Manenti, Rachele Manna, Elisa Casa, Inesa Hyseni, Linda Benincasa, Emanuele Montomoli, Rommie E Amaro, Jason S McLellan, Rino Rappuoli

To investigate the evolution of SARS-CoV-2 in the immune population, we co-incubated authentic virus with a highly neutralizing plasma from a COVID-19 convalescent patient. The plasma fully neutralized the virus for 7 passages, but after 45 days, the deletion of F140 in the spike N-terminal domain (NTD) N3 loop led to partial breakthrough. At day 73, an E484K substitution in the receptor-binding domain (RBD) occurred, followed at day 80 by an insertion in the NTD N5 loop containing a new glycan sequon, which generated a variant completely resistant to plasma neutralization. Computational modeling predicts that the deletion and insertion in loops N3 and N5 prevent binding of neutralizing antibodies. The recent emergence in the United Kingdom and South Africa of natural variants with similar changes suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to escape an effective immune response and that vaccines and antibodies able to control emerging variants should be developed. One Sentence SummaryThree mutations allowed SARS-CoV-2 to evade the polyclonal antibody response of a highly neutralizing COVID-19 convalescent plasma.

Palash Ghosh, Rik Ghosh, Bibhas Chakraborty

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a highly infectious disease, was first detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. The disease has spread to 212 countries and territories around the world and infected (confirmed) more than three million people. In India, the disease was first detected on 30 January 2020 in Kerala in a student who returned from Wuhan. The total (cumulative) number of confirmed infected people is more than 37000 till now across India (3 May 2020). Most of the research and newspaper articles focus on the number of infected people in the entire country. However, given the size and diversity of India, it may be a good idea to look at the spread of the disease in each state separately, along with the entire country. For example, currently, Maharashtra has more than 10000 confirmed cumulative infected cases, whereas West Bengal has less than 800 confirmed infected cases (1 May 2020). The approaches to address the pandemic in the two states must be different due to limited resources. In this article, we will focus the infected people in each state (restricting to only those states with enough data for prediction) and build three growth models to predict infected people for that state in the next 30 days. The impact of preventive measures on daily infected-rate is discussed for each state.

Maxime Taquet, John R Geddes, Masud Husain, Sierra Luciano, Paul J Harrison

Background. Neurological and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 have been reported, but there are limited data on incidence rates and relative risks. Methods. Using retrospective cohort studies and time-to-event analysis, we estimated the incidence of ICD-10 diagnoses in the 6 months after a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19: intracranial haemorrhage; ischaemic stroke; Parkinsonism; Guillain-Barre syndrome; nerve/nerve root/plexus disorders; myoneural/muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders; substance misuse; and insomnia. Data were obtained from the TriNetX electronic health records network (over 81 million patients). We compared incidences with those in propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with influenza or other respiratory infections using a Cox model. We investigated the effect on incidence estimates of COVID-19 severity, as proxied by hospitalization and encephalopathy (including delirium and related disorders). Findings. 236,379 patients survived a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Among them, the estimated incidence of neurological or psychiatric sequelae at 6 months was 33.6%, with 12.8% receiving their first such diagnosis. Most diagnostic categories were commoner after COVID-19 than after influenza or other respiratory infections (hazard ratios from 1.21 to 5.28), including stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, dementia, and psychotic disorders. Findings were equivocal for Parkinsonism and Guillain-Barre syndrome. Amongst COVID-19 cases, incidences and hazard ratios for most disorders were higher in patients who had been hospitalized, and markedly so in those who had experienced encephalopathy. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses, including comparisons against an additional four index health events. Interpretation. The study provides evidence for substantial neurological and psychiatric morbidity following COVID-19 infection. Risks were greatest in, but not limited to, those who had severe COVID-19. The information can help in service planning and identification of research priorities.

Yea-Hung Chen, Maria Glymour, Alicia Riley, John Balmes, Kate Duchowny, Robert Harrison, Ellicott Matthay, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo

Background Though SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks have been documented in occupational settings and though there is speculation that essential workers face heightened risks for COVID-19, occupational differences in excess mortality have, to date, not been examined. Such information could point to opportunities for intervention, such as workplace modifications and prioritization of vaccine distribution. Methods and findings Using death records from the California Department of Public Health, we estimated excess mortality among Californians 18--65 years of age by occupational sector and occupation, with additional stratification of the sector analysis by race/ethnicity. During the COVID-19 pandemic, working age adults experienced a 22% increase in mortality compared to historical periods. Relative excess mortality was highest in food/agriculture workers (39% increase), transportation/logistics workers (28% increase), facilities (27%) and manufacturing workers (23% increase). Latino Californians experienced a 36% increase in mortality, with a 59% increase among Latino food/agriculture workers. Black Californians experienced a 28% increase in mortality, with a 36% increase for Black retail workers. Asian Californians experienced an 18% increase, with a 40% increase among Asian healthcare workers. Excess mortality among White working-age Californians increased by 6%, with a 16% increase among White food/agriculture workers. Conclusions Certain occupational sectors have been associated with high excess mortality during the pandemic, particularly among racial and ethnic groups also disproportionately affected by COVID-19. In-person essential work is a likely venue of transmission of coronavirus infection and must be addressed through strict enforcement of health orders in workplace settings and protection of in-person workers. Vaccine distribution prioritizing in-person essential workers will be important for reducing excess COVID mortality.