Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Meta‐analysis of the demographic and prognostic significance of gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID‐19 patients

Background and Aim To evaluate the demographic and prognostic significance of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Methods A systematic search of electronic information sources was conducted. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random‐effects models for baseline demographic factors and outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and length of hospital stay. Results Twenty‐four comparative observational studies reporting a total of 51 522 COVID‐19 patients with (n = 6544) or without (n = 44 978) GI symptoms were identified. The patients with GI symptoms were of comparable age (mean difference [MD]: 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] −2.42 to 2.92, P = 0.86), rate of pre‐existing hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11, 95% CI 0.86–1.42, P = 0.42), diabetes mellitus (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.91–1.44, P = 0.26), and coronary artery disease (OR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.86–1.16, P = 0.98) compared with those without GI symptoms. However, there were significantly more male patients in the GI symptoms group (OR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.95, P = 0.005). The presence of GI symptoms was associated with similar risk of mortality (OR: 0.73;95% CI 0.47–1.13, P = 0.16), ICU admission (OR: 1.15;95% CI 0.67–1.96, P = 0.62), and length of hospital stay (MD: 0.43;95% CI −0.73 to 1.60, P = 0.47) when compared with their absence. Conclusion Meta‐analysis of the best possible available evidence demonstrated that GI symptoms in COVID‐19 patients do not seem to affect patients with any specific demographic patterns and may not have any important prognostic significance. Although no randomized studies can be conducted on this topic, future high‐quality studies can provide stronger evidence to further understand the impact of GI symptoms on outcomes of COVID‐19 patients. Meta‐analysis of the best possible available evidence demonstrated that gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID‐19 patients do not seem to affect patients with any specific demographic patterns and may not have any important prognostic significance.

Meta-analysis of the demographic and prognostic significance of gastrointestinal symptoms in COVID-19 patients.

Background and Aim: To evaluate the demographic and prognostic significance of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: A systematic search of electronic information sources was conducted. Combined overall effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models for baseline demographic factors and outcomes including mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and length of hospital stay. Results: Twenty-four comparative observational studies reporting a total of 51 522 COVID-19 patients with (n = 6544) or without (n = 44 978) GI symptoms were identified. The patients with GI symptoms were of comparable age (mean difference [MD]: 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.42 to 2.92, P = 0.86), rate of pre-existing hypertension (odds ratio [OR]: 1.11, 95% CI 0.86-1.42, P = 0.42), diabetes mellitus (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.44, P = 0.26), and coronary artery disease (OR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.16, P = 0.98) compared with those without GI symptoms. However, there were significantly more male patients in the GI symptoms group (OR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.95, P = 0.005). The presence of GI symptoms was associated with similar risk of mortality (OR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.47-1.13, P = 0.16), ICU admission (OR: 1.15; 95% CI 0.67-1.96, P = 0.62), and length of hospital stay (MD: 0.43; 95% CI -0.73 to 1.60, P = 0.47) when compared with their absence. Conclusion: Meta-analysis of the best possible available evidence demonstrated that GI symptoms in COVID-19 patients do not seem to affect patients with any specific demographic patterns and may not have any important prognostic significance. Although no randomized studies can be conducted on this topic, future high-quality studies can provide stronger evidence to further understand the impact of GI symptoms on outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Reverse-Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Has High Accuracy for Detecting Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Saliva and Nasopharyngeal/Oropharyngeal Swabs from Asymptomatic and Symptomatic Individuals.

Previous studies have described reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) for the rapid detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swab and saliva samples. This multisite clinical evaluation describes the validation of an improved sample preparation method for extraction-free RT-LAMP and reports clinical performance of four RT-LAMP assay formats for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Direct RT-LAMP was performed on 559 swabs and 86,760 saliva samples and RNA RT-LAMP on extracted RNA from 12,619 swabs and 12,521 saliva samples from asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals across health care and community settings. For direct RT-LAMP, overall diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) was 70.35% (95% CI, 63.48%-76.60%) on swabs and 84.62% (95% CI, 79.50%-88.88%) on saliva, with diagnostic specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98.98%-100.00%) on swabs and 100% (95% CI, 99.72%-100.00%) on saliva, compared with quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR); analyzing samples with RT-qPCR ORF1ab CT values of ≤25 and ≤33, DSe values were 100% (95% CI, 96.34%-100%) and 77.78% (95% CI, 70.99%-83.62%) for swabs, and 99.01% (95% CI, 94.61%-99.97%) and 87.61% (95% CI, 82.69%-91.54%) for saliva, respectively. For RNA RT-LAMP, overall DSe and diagnostic specificity were 96.06% (95% CI, 92.88%-98.12%) and 99.99% (95% CI, 99.95%-100%) for swabs, and 80.65% (95% CI, 73.54%-86.54%) and 99.99% (95% CI, 99.95%-100%) for saliva, respectively. These findings demonstrate that RT-LAMP is applicable to a variety of use cases, including frequent, interval-based direct RT-LAMP of saliva from asymptomatic individuals who may otherwise be missed using symptomatic testing alone.

Ultrarapid detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA using a reverse transcription-free exponential amplification reaction, RTF-EXPAR.

A rapid isothermal method for detecting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for COVID-19, is reported. The procedure uses an unprecedented reverse transcription-free (RTF) approach for converting genomic RNA into DNA. This involves the formation of an RNA/DNA heteroduplex whose selective cleavage generates a short DNA trigger strand, which is then rapidly amplified using the exponential amplification reaction (EXPAR). Deploying the RNA-to-DNA conversion and amplification stages of the RTF-EXPAR assay in a single step results in the detection, via a fluorescence read-out, of single figure copy numbers per microliter of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in under 10 min. In direct three-way comparison studies, the assay has been found to be faster than both RT-qPCR and reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), while being just as sensitive. The assay protocol involves the use of standard laboratory equipment and is readily adaptable for the detection of other RNA-based pathogens.

Diagnostic accuracy of loop-mediated isothermal amplification coupled to nanopore sequencing (LamPORE) for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection at scale in symptomatic and asymptomatic populations.

OBJECTIVES: Rapid, high throughput diagnostics are a valuable tool, allowing the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in populations so as to identify and isolate people with asymptomatic and symptomatic infections. Reagent shortages and restricted access to high throughput testing solutions have limited the effectiveness of conventional assays such as quantitative RT-PCR (RT-qPCR), particularly throughout the first months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We investigated the use of LamPORE, where loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) is coupled to nanopore sequencing technology, for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic and asymptomatic populations. METHODS: In an asymptomatic prospective cohort, for 3 weeks in September 2020, health-care workers across four sites (Birmingham, Southampton, Basingstoke and Manchester) self-swabbed with nasopharyngeal swabs weekly and supplied a saliva specimen daily. These samples were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using the Oxford Nanopore LamPORE system and a reference RT-qPCR assay on extracted sample RNA. A second retrospective cohort of 848 patients with influenza-like illness from March 2020 to June 2020 were similarly tested from nasopharyngeal swabs. RESULTS: In the asymptomatic cohort a total of 1200 participants supplied 23 427 samples (3966 swab, 19 461 saliva) over a 3-week period. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 detection using LamPORE was 0.95%. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of LamPORE was >99.5% (decreasing to approximately 98% when clustered estimation was used) in both swab and saliva asymptomatic samples when compared with the reference RT-qPCR test. In the retrospective symptomatic cohort, the incidence was 13.4% and the sensitivity and specificity were 100%. CONCLUSIONS: LamPORE is a highly accurate methodology for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in both symptomatic and asymptomatic population settings and can be used as an alternative to RT-qPCR.

Mental health symptoms in a cohort of hospital healthcare workers following the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is likely to lead to a significant increase in mental health disorders among healthcare workers (HCW). AIMS: We evaluated the rates of anxiety, depressive and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in a population of HCW in the UK. METHOD: An electronic survey was conducted between the 5 June 2020 and 31 July 2020 of all hospital HCW in the West Midlands, UK using clinically validated questionnaires: the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire(PHQ-4) and the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). Univariate analyses and adjusted logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the strengths in associations between 24 independent variables and anxiety, depressive or PTSD symptoms. RESULTS: There were 2638 eligible participants who completed the survey (female: 79.5%, median age: 42 years, interquartile range: 32-51). The rates of clinically significant symptoms of anxiety, depression and PTSD were 34.3%, 31.2% and 24.5%, respectively. In adjusted analysis a history of mental health conditions was associated with clinically significant symptoms of anxiety (odds ratio (OR) = 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.7, P < 0.001), depression (OR = 2.5, 95% CI 2.1-3.0, P < 0.001) and PTSD (OR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.5, P < 0.001). The availability of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE), well-being support and lower exposure to moral dilemmas at work demonstrated significant negative associations with these symptoms (P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We report higher rates of clinically significant mental health symptoms among hospital HCW following the initial COVID-19 pandemic peak in the UK. Those with a history of mental health conditions were most at risk. Adequate PPE availability, access to well-being support and reduced exposure to moral dilemmas may protect hospital HCW from mental health symptoms.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and asymptomatic viral carriage in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020. SETTING: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK. PARTICIPANTS: 545 asymptomatic healthcare workers were recruited while at work. Participants were invited to participate via the UHBFT social media. Exclusion criteria included current symptoms consistent with COVID-19. No potential participants were excluded. INTERVENTION: Participants volunteered a nasopharyngeal swab and a venous blood sample that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies, respectively. Results were interpreted in the context of prior illnesses and the hospital departments in which participants worked. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. RESULTS: The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral carriage was 2.4% (n=13/545). The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 24.4% (n=126/516). Participants who reported prior symptomatic illness had higher seroprevalence (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2=21.1034, p<0.0001) and quantitatively greater antibody responses than those who had remained asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was greatest among those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%), with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) ethnicity was associated with a significantly increased risk of seropositivity (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.23, p=0.01). Working on the intensive care unit was associated with a significantly lower risk of seropositivity compared with working in other areas of the hospital (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We identify differences in the occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 between hospital departments and confirm asymptomatic seroconversion occurs in healthcare workers. Further investigation of these observations is required to inform future infection control and occupational health practices.

Rapid implementation and validation of a cold-chain free SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing workflow to support surge capacity.

BACKGROUND: In January 2020 reports of unidentified severe respiratory illness were described in Wuhan, China. A rapid expansion in cases affecting most countries around the globe led to major changes in the way people live their daily lives. In the United Kingdom, the Department of Health and Social Care directed healthcare providers to establish additional resources to manage the anticipated surge in cases that could overwhelm the health services. A priority area was testing for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and its detection by qualitative RT-PCR. DESIGN: A laboratory workflow twinning research environment with clinical laboratory capabilities was implemented and validated in the University of Birmingham within 4 days of the project initiation. The diagnostic capability was centred on an IVD CE-marked RT-PCR kit and designed to provide surge capacity to the nearby Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The service was initially tasked with testing healthcare workers (HCW) using throat swabs, and subsequently the process investigated the utility of using saliva as an alternative sample type. RESULTS: Between the 8th April 2020 and the 30th April 2020, the laboratory tested a total of 1282 HCW for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in throat swabs. RNA was detected in 54 % of those who reported symptoms compatible with COVID-19, but in only 4% who were asymptomatic. CONCLUSION: This capability was established rapidly and utilised a cold-chain free methodology, applicable to a wide range of settings, and which can provide surge capacity and support to clinical laboratories facing increasing pressure during periods of national crisis.