RESUMEN
Genome sequencing is pivotal to SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, elucidating the emergence and global dissemination of acquired genetic mutations. Amplicon sequencing has proven very effective for sequencing SARS-CoV-2, but prevalent mutations disrupting primer binding sites have necessitated the revision of sequencing protocols in order to maintain performance for emerging virus lineages. We compared the performance of Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) Midnight and ARTIC tiling amplicon protocols using 196 Delta lineage SARS-CoV-2 clinical specimens, and 71 mostly Omicron lineage samples with S gene target failure (SGTF), reflecting circulating lineages in the United Kingdom during December 2021. 96-plexed nanopore sequencing was used. For Delta lineage samples, ARTIC v4 recovered the greatest proportion of [≥]90% complete genomes (81.1%; 159/193), followed by Midnight (71.5%; 138/193) and ARTIC v3 (34.1%; 14/41). Midnight protocol however yielded higher average genome recovery (mean 98.8%) than ARTIC v4 (98.1%) and ARTIC v3 (75.4%), resulting in less ambiguous final consensus assemblies overall. Explaining these observations were ARTIC v4s superior genome recovery in low viral titre/high cycle threshold (Ct) samples and inferior performance in high titre/low Ct samples, where Midnight excelled. We evaluated Omicron sequencing performance using a revised Midnight primer mix alongside prototype ARTIC v4.1 primers, head-to-head with the existing commercially available Midnight and ARTIC v4 protocols. The revised protocols both improved considerably the recovery of Omicron genomes and exhibited similar overall performance to one another. Revised Midnight protocol recovered [≥]90% complete genomes for 85.9% (61/71) of Omicron samples vs. 88.7% (63/71) for ARTIC v4.1. Approximate cost per sample for Midnight ({pound}12) is lower than ARTIC ({pound}16) while hands-on time is considerably lower for Midnight ([~]7 hours) than ARTIC protocols ([~]9.5 hours).
RESUMEN
Given high SARS-CoV-2 incidence, coupled with slow and inequitable vaccine roll-out, there is an urgent need for evidence to underpin optimum vaccine deployment, aiming to maximise global population immunity at speed. We evaluate whether a single vaccination in previously infected individuals generates similar initial and subsequent antibody responses to two vaccinations in those without prior infection. We compared anti-spike IgG antibody responses after a single dose of ChAdOx1, BNT162b2, or mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the COVID-19 Infection Survey in the UK general population. In 100,849 adults who received at least one vaccination, 13,404 (13.3%) had serological and/or PCR evidence of prior infection. Prior infection significantly boosted antibody responses for all three vaccines, producing a higher peak level and longer half-life, and a response comparable to those without prior infection receiving two vaccinations. In those with prior infection, median time above the positivity threshold was estimated to last for >1 year after the first dose. Single-dose vaccination targeted to those previously infected may provide protection in populations with high rates of previous infection faced with limited vaccine supply, as an interim measure while vaccine campaigns are scaled up.
RESUMEN
The COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a global crisis with unprecedented challenges for public health. Vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 have slowed the incidence of new infections and reduced disease severity. As the time-of-day of vaccination has been reported to influence host immune responses to multiple pathogens, we quantified the influence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination time, vaccine type, age, sex, and days post-vaccination on anti-Spike antibody responses in healthcare workers. The magnitude of the anti-Spike antibody response associated with the time-of-day of vaccination, vaccine type, participant age, sex, and days post vaccination. These results may be relevant for optimizing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy.
RESUMEN
ObjectiveTo describe the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the incidence of paediatric viral respiratory tract infection in Oxfordshire, UK. MethodsData on paediatric Emergency Department (ED) attendances (0-15 years inclusive), respiratory virus testing, vital signs and mortality at Oxford University Hospitals were summarised using descriptive statistics. ResultsBetween 1-March-2016 and 30-July-2021, 155,056 ED attendances occurred and 7,195 respiratory virus PCRs were performed. Detection of all pathogens was suppressed during the first national lockdown. Rhinovirus and adenovirus rates increased when schools reopened September-December 2020, then fell, before rising in March-May 2021. The usual winter RSV peak did not occur in 2020/21, with an inter-seasonal rise (32/1,000 attendances in 0-3yr olds) in July 2021. Influenza remained suppressed throughout. A higher Paediatric Early Warning Score (PEWS) was seen for attendees with adenovirus during the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic (p=0.04, Mann-Witney U test), no other differences in PEWS were seen. ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 caused major changes in the incidence of paediatric respiratory viral infection in Oxfordshire, with implications for clinical service demand, testing strategies, timing of palivizumab RSV prophylaxis, and highlighting the need to understand which public health interventions are most effective for preventing respiratory virus infections.
RESUMEN
We investigated anti-spike IgG antibody responses and correlates of protection following second doses of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the UK general population. In 222,493 individuals, we found significant boosting of anti-spike IgG by second doses of both vaccines in all ages and using different dosing intervals, including the 3-week interval for BNT162b2. After second vaccination, BNT162b2 generated higher peak levels than ChAdOX1. Older individuals and males had lower peak levels with BNT162b2 but not ChAdOx1, while declines were similar across ages and sexes with ChAdOX1 or BNT162b2. Prior infection significantly increased antibody peak level and half-life with both vaccines. Anti-spike IgG levels were associated with protection from infection after vaccination and, to an even greater degree, after prior infection. At least 67% protection against infection was estimated to last for 2-3 months after two ChAdOx1 doses and 5-8 months after two BNT162b2 doses in those without prior infection, and 1-2 years for those unvaccinated after natural infection. A third booster dose may be needed, prioritised to ChAdOx1 recipients and those more clinically vulnerable.
RESUMEN
The effectiveness of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1, and mRNA-1273 vaccines against new SARS-CoV-2 infections requires continuous re-evaluation, given the increasingly dominant Delta variant. We investigated the effectiveness of the vaccines in a large community-based survey of randomly selected households across the UK. We found that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAd0x1 against any infections (new PCR positives) and infections with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the Delta variant. A single dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine had similar or greater effectiveness compared to a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity following second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positives but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2. There was no evidence that effectiveness varied by dosing interval, but protection was higher among those vaccinated following a prior infection and younger adults. With Delta, infections occurring following two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden to those in unvaccinated individuals. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with Delta.
RESUMEN
We estimated the duration and determinants of antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population using representative data from 7,256 United Kingdom COVID-19 infection survey participants who had positive swab SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests from 26-April-2020 to 14-June-2021. A latent class model classified 24% of participants as non-responders not developing anti-spike antibodies. These seronegative non-responders were older, had higher SARS-CoV-2 cycle threshold values during infection (i.e. lower viral burden), and less frequently reported any symptoms. Among those who seroconverted, using Bayesian linear mixed models, the estimated anti-spike IgG peak level was 7.3-fold higher than the level previously associated with 50% protection against reinfection, with higher peak levels in older participants and those of non-white ethnicity. The estimated anti-spike IgG half-life was 184 days, being longer in females and those of white ethnicity. We estimated antibody levels associated with protection against reinfection likely last 1.5-2 years on average, with levels associated with protection from severe infection present for several years. These estimates could inform planning for vaccination booster strategies.
RESUMEN
BackgroundDespite robust efforts, patients and staff acquire SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitals. In this retrospective cohort study, we investigated whether whole-genome sequencing (WGS) could enhance the epidemiological investigation of healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 acquisition. Methods and findingsFrom 17-November-2020 to 5-January-2021, 803 inpatients and 329 staff were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection across four teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, UK. We classified cases according to epidemiological definitions, sought epidemiological evidence of a potential source for each nosocomial infection, and evaluated if epidemiologically-linked cases had genomic evidence supporting transmission. We compared epidemiological and genomic outbreak identification. Using national epidemiological definitions, 109/803 (14%) inpatient infections were classified as definite/probable nosocomial, 615 (77%) as community-acquired and 79 (10%) as indeterminate. There was strong epidemiological evidence to support definite/probable cases as nosocomial: 107/109 (98%) had a prior-negative PCR in the same hospital stay before testing positive, and 101(93%) shared time and space with known infected patients/staff. Many indeterminate cases were likely infected in hospital: 53/79 (67%) had a prior-negative PCR and 75 (95%) contact with a potential source. 89/615 (11% of all 803 patients) with apparent community-onset had a recent hospital exposure. WGS highlighted SARS-CoV-2 is mainly imported into hospitals: within 764 samples sequenced 607 genomic clusters were identified (>1 SNP distinct). Only 43/607 (7%) clusters contained evidence of onward transmission (subsequent cases within [≤]1 SNP). 20/21 epidemiologically-identified outbreaks contained multiple genomic introductions. Most (80%) nosocomial acquisition occurred in rapid super-spreading events in settings with a mix of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Hospitals not routinely admitting COVID-19 patients had low rates of transmission. Undiagnosed/unsequenced individuals prevent genomic data from excluding nosocomial acquisition. ConclusionsOur findings suggest current surveillance definitions underestimate nosocomial acquisition and reveal most nosocomial transmission occurs from a relatively limited number of highly infectious individuals.
RESUMEN
Real-world data on antibody response post-vaccination in the general population are limited. 45,965 adults in the UKs national COVID-19 Infection Survey receiving Pfizer-BioNTech or Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines had 111,360 anti-spike IgG measurements. Without prior infection, seroconversion rates and quantitative antibody levels post single dose were lower in older individuals, especially >60y. Two doses achieved high responses across all ages, particularly increasing seroconversion in older people, to similar levels to those achieved after prior infection followed by a single dose. Antibody levels rose more slowly and to lower levels with Oxford-AstraZeneca vs Pfizer-BioNTech, but waned following a single Pfizer-BioNTech dose. Latent class models identified four responder phenotypes: older people, males, and those having long-term health conditions were more commonly low responders. Where supplies are limited, vaccines should be prioritised for those not previously infected, and second doses to individuals >60y. Further data on the relationship between vaccine-mediated protection and antibody responses are needed.
RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. DesignProspective cohort study. SettingThe UK population-representative longitudinal COVID-19 Infection Survey. Participants373,402 participants aged [≥]16 years contributing 1,610,562 RT-PCR results from nose and throat swabs between 1 December 2020 and 3 April 2021. Main outcome measuresNew RT-PCR-positive episodes for SARS-CoV-2 overall, by self-reported symptoms, by cycle threshold (Ct) value (<30 versus [≥]30), and by gene positivity (compatible with the B.1.1.7 variant versus not). ResultsOdds of new SARS-CoV-2 infection were reduced 65% (95% CI 60 to 70%; P<0.001) in those [≥]21 days since first vaccination with no second dose versus unvaccinated individuals without evidence of prior infection (RT-PCR or antibody). In those vaccinated, the largest reduction in odds was seen post second dose (70%, 95% CI 62 to 77%; P<0.001).There was no evidence that these benefits varied between Oxford-AstraZeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines (P>0.9).There was no evidence of a difference in odds of new SARS-CoV-2 infection for individuals having received two vaccine doses and with evidence of prior infection but not vaccinated (P=0.89). Vaccination had a greater impact on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infections with evidence of high viral shedding Ct<30 (88% reduction after two doses; 95% CI 80 to 93%; P<0.001) and with self-reported symptoms (90% reduction after two doses; 95% CI 82 to 94%; P<0.001); effects were similar for different gene positivity patterns. ConclusionVaccination with a single dose of Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, or two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech, significantly reduced new SARS-CoV-2 infections in this large community surveillance study. Greater reductions in symptomatic infections and/or infections with a higher viral burden are reflected in reduced rates of hospitalisations/deaths, but highlight the potential for limited ongoing transmission from asymptomatic infections in vaccinated individuals. RegistrationThe study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382.
RESUMEN
BackgroundHow SARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies with viral load is incompletely understood. Whether rapid point-of-care antigen lateral flow devices (LFDs) detect most potential transmission sources despite imperfect sensitivity is unknown. MethodsWe combined SARS-CoV-2 testing and contact tracing data from England between 01-September-2020 and 28-February-2021. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate relationships between PCR-confirmed infection in contacts of community-diagnosed cases and index case viral load, S gene target failure (proxy for B.1.1.7 infection), demographics, SARS-CoV-2 incidence, social deprivation, and contact event type. We used LFD performance to simulate the proportion of cases with a PCR-positive contact expected to be detected using one of four LFDs. Results231,498/2,474,066 (9%) contacts of 1,064,004 index cases tested PCR-positive. PCR-positive results in contacts independently increased with higher case viral loads (lower Ct values) e.g., 11.7%(95%CI 11.5-12.0%) at Ct=15 and 4.5%(4.4-4.6%) at Ct=30. B.1.1.7 infection increased PCR-positive results by [~]50%, (e.g. 1.55-fold, 95%CI 1.49-1.61, at Ct=20). PCR-positive results were most common in household contacts (at Ct=20.1, 8.7%[95%CI 8.6-8.9%]), followed by household visitors (7.1%[6.8-7.3%]), contacts at events/activities (5.2%[4.9-5.4%]), work/education (4.6%[4.4-4.8%]), and least common after outdoor contact (2.9%[2.3-3.8%]). Contacts of children were the least likely to test positive, particularly following contact outdoors or at work/education. The most and least sensitive LFDs would detect 89.5%(89.4-89.6%) and 83.0%(82.8-83.1%) of cases with PCR-positive contacts respectively. ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 infectivity varies by case viral load, contact event type, and age. Those with high viral loads are the most infectious. B.1.1.7 increased transmission by [~]50%. The best performing LFDs detect most infectious cases. Key pointsIn 2,474,066 contacts of 1,064,004 SARS-CoV-2 cases, PCR-positive tests in contacts increased with higher index case viral loads, the B.1.1.7 variant and household contact. Children were less infectious. Lateral flow devices can detect 83.0-89.5% of infections leading to onward transmission.
RESUMEN
BackgroundA new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01, was identified in the UK in December-2020. Direct estimates of its potential to enhance transmission are limited. MethodsNose and throat swabs from 28-September-2020 to 2-January-2021 in the UKs nationally representative surveillance study were tested by RT-PCR for three genes (N, S and ORF1ab). Those positive only on ORF1ab+N, S-gene target failures (SGTF), are compatible with B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01. We investigated cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load), percentage of positives, population positivity and growth rates in SGTF vs non-SGTF positives. Results15,166(0.98%) of 1,553,687 swabs were PCR-positive, 8,545(56%) with three genes detected and 3,531(23%) SGTF. SGTF comprised an increasing, and triple-gene positives a decreasing, percentage of infections from late-November in most UK regions/countries, e.g. from 15% to 38% to 81% over 1.5 months in London. SGTF Ct values correspondingly declined substantially to similar levels to triple-gene positives. Population-level SGTF positivity remained low (<0.25%) in all regions/countries until late-November, when marked increases with and without self-reported symptoms occurred in southern England (to 1.5-3%), despite stable rates of non-SGTF cases. SGTF positivity rates increased on average 6% more rapidly than rates of non-SGTF positives (95% CI 4-9%) supporting addition rather than replacement with B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01. Excess growth rates for SGTF vs non-SGTF positives were similar in those up to high school age (5% (1-8%)) and older individuals (6% (4-9%)). ConclusionsDirect population-representative estimates show that the B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01 SARS-CoV-2 variant leads to higher infection rates, but does not seem particularly adapted to any age group.
RESUMEN
BackgroundIt is critical to understand whether infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects from subsequent reinfection. MethodsWe investigated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive results in seropositive and seronegative healthcare workers (HCWs) attending asymptomatic and symptomatic staff testing at Oxford University Hospitals, UK. Baseline antibody status was determined using anti-spike and/or anti-nucleocapsid IgG assays and staff followed for up to 30 weeks. We used Poisson regression to estimate the relative incidence of PCR-positive results and new symptomatic infection by antibody status, accounting for age, gender and changes in incidence over time. ResultsA total of 12219 HCWs participated and had anti-spike IgG measured, 11052 were followed up after negative and 1246 after positive antibody results including 79 who seroconverted during follow up. 89 PCR-confirmed symptomatic infections occurred in seronegative individuals (0.46 cases per 10,000 days at risk) and no symptomatic infections in those with anti-spike antibodies. Additionally, 76 (0.40/10,000 days at risk) anti-spike IgG seronegative individuals had PCR-positive tests in asymptomatic screening, compared to 3 (0.21/10,000 days at risk) seropositive individuals. Overall, positive baseline anti-spike antibodies were associated with lower rates of PCR-positivity (with or without symptoms) (adjusted rate ratio 0.24 [95%CI 0.08-0.76, p=0.015]). Rate ratios were similar using anti-nucleocapsid IgG alone or combined with anti-spike IgG to determine baseline status. ConclusionsPrior SARS-CoV-2 infection that generated antibody responses offered protection from reinfection for most people in the six months following infection. Further work is required to determine the long-term duration and correlates of post-infection immunity.
RESUMEN
LamPORE is a novel diagnostic platform for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA that combines loop-mediated isothermal amplification with nanopore sequencing, which could potentially be used to analyse thousands of samples per day on a single instrument. We evaluated the performance of LamPORE against RT-PCR using RNA extracted from spiked respiratory samples and from stored nose and throat swabs collected at two UK hospitals. The limit of detection of LamPORE was 7-10 genome copies/{micro}l of extracted RNA. This is above the limit achievable by RT-PCR but was not associated with a significant reduction of sensitivity in clinical samples. Positive clinical specimens came mostly from patients with acute symptomatic infection, and among these LamPORE had a diagnostic sensitivity of 99.1% (226/228 [95% CI 96.9-99.9%]). Among negative clinical specimens, including 153 with other respiratory pathogens detected, LamPORE had a diagnostic specificity of 99.6% (278/279 [98.0-100.0%]). Overall, 1.4% (7/514 [0.5-2.9]) of samples produced an indeterminate result on first testing, and repeat LamPORE testing on the same RNA extract had a reproducibility of 96.8% (478/494 [94.8-98.1]). This indicates that LamPORE has a similar performance to RT-PCR for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in symptomatic patients, and offers a promising approach to high-throughput testing.
RESUMEN
Thresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays have typically been determined using samples from symptomatic, often hospitalised, patients. Assay performance following mild/asymptomatic infection is unclear. We assessed IgG responses in asymptomatic healthcare workers with a high pre-test probability of Covid-19, e.g. 807/9292(8.9%) reported loss of smell/taste. The proportion reporting anosmia/ageusia increased at antibody titres below diagnostic thresholds for both an in-house ELISA and the Abbott Architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA): 424/903(47%) reported anosmia/ageusia with a positive ELISA, 59/387(13.2%) with high-negative titres, and 324/7943(4.1%) with low-negative results. Adjusting for the proportion of staff reporting anosmia/ageusia suggests the sensitivity of both assays is lower than previously reported: Oxford ELISA 90.8% (95%CI 86.1-92.1%) and Abbott CMIA 80.9% (77.5-84.3%). However, the sensitivity may be lower if some anosmia/ageusia in those with low-negative titres is Covid-19-associated. Samples from individuals with mild/asymptomatic infection should be included in SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay evaluations. Reporting equivocal SARS-CoV-2 antibody results should be considered.
RESUMEN
BackgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing are designed to mitigate risk of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitals. Why healthcare workers nevertheless remain at increased risk is uncertain. MethodsWe conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using nasopharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. A positive result by either modality determined a composite outcome. Risk-factors for Covid-19 were investigated using multivariable logistic regression. Results1083/9809(11.0%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time and provided data on potential risk-factors. Staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.63 [95%CI 3.30-6.50]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (21.2% vs. 8.2% elsewhere) (aOR 2.49 [2.00-3.12]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.50 [1.05-2.15]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit (ICU) staff were relatively protected (0.46 [0.29-0.72]). Positive results were more likely in Black (1.61 [1.20-2.16]) and Asian (1.58 [1.34-1.86]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (1.93 [1.25-2.97]). Contact tracing around asymptomatic staff did not lead to enhanced case identification. 24% of staff/patients remained PCR-positive at [≥]6 weeks post-diagnosis. ConclusionsIncreased Covid-19 risk was seen in acute medicine, among Black and Asian staff, and porters and cleaners. A bundle of PPE-related interventions protected staff in ICU.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic caused >1 million infections during January-March 2020. There is an urgent need for reliable antibody detection approaches to support diagnosis, vaccine development, safe release of individuals from quarantine, and population lock-down exit strategies. We set out to evaluate the performance of ELISA and lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices. MethodsWe tested plasma for COVID (SARS-CoV-2) IgM and IgG antibodies by ELISA and using nine different LFIA devices. We used a panel of plasma samples from individuals who have had confirmed COVID infection based on a PCR result (n=40), and pre-pandemic negative control samples banked in the UK prior to December-2019 (n=142). ResultsELISA detected IgM or IgG in 34/40 individuals with a confirmed history of COVID infection (sensitivity 85%, 95%CI 70-94%), vs. 0/50 pre-pandemic controls (specificity 100% [95%CI 93-100%]). IgG levels were detected in 31/31 COVID-positive individuals tested [≥]10 days after symptom onset (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 89-100%). IgG titres rose during the 3 weeks post symptom onset and began to fall by 8 weeks, but remained above the detection threshold. Point estimates for the sensitivity of LFIA devices ranged from 55-70% versus RT-PCR and 65-85% versus ELISA, with specificity 95-100% and 93-100% respectively. Within the limits of the study size, the performance of most LFIA devices was similar. ConclusionsCurrently available commercial LFIA devices do not perform sufficiently well for individual patient applications. However, ELISA can be calibrated to be specific for detecting and quantifying SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG and is highly sensitive for IgG from 10 days following first symptoms.