Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Hong Kong and in residents evacuated from Hubei province, China: a multicohort study.

BACKGROUND: The role of subclinical severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in perpetuating the COVID-19 pandemic is unknown because population seroprevalence data are absent. We aimed to establish the sensitivity and specificity of our enzyme immunoassay and microneutralisation assay, and the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Hong Kong before and after the pandemic, as well as in Hong Kong residents evacuated from Hubei province, China. METHODS: We did a multicohort study in a hospital and university in Hong Kong. We evaluated the sensitivity of our enzyme immunoassay and microneutralisation assay with RT-PCR data from patients positive for SARS-CoV-2 and the specificity of our enzyme immunoassay and microneutralisation assay with archived serum samples collected before 2019. We compared the seropositivity of the general population of Hong Kong before and after the pandemic had begun, and determined the seropositivity of Hong Kong residents evacuated from Hubei province, China, in March, 2020. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26 and March 18, 2020, we assessed RT-PCR samples from 45 patients who had recovered from COVID-19 to establish the sensitivity of our enzyme immunoassay and microneutralisation assay. To establish the specificity of these assays, we retrieved archived serum. The sensitivity was 91·1% (41 of 45 [95% CI 78·8-97·5]) for the microneutralisation assay, 57·8% (26 of 45 [42·2-72·3]) for anti-nucleoprotein IgG, 66·7% (30 of 45 [51·1-80·0]) for anti-spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG, and 73·3% (33 of 45 [58·1-85·4]) for enzyme immunoassay (either positive for anti-nucleoprotein or anti-RBD IgG). The specificity was 100% (152 of 152 [95% CI 97·6-100·0]) for both the enzyme immunoassay and microneutralisation assay. Among the Hong Kong general population, 53 (2·7%) of 1938 were enzyme immunoassay positive, but of those who were positive, all 53 were microneutralisation negative, and no significant increase was seen in the seroprevalence between April 12, 2018, and Feb 13, 2020. Among asymptomatic Hubei returnees, 17 (4%) of 452 were seropositive with the enzyme immunoassay or the microneutralisation assay, with 15 (88%) of 17 seropositive with the microneutralisation assay, and two familial clusters were identified. INTERPRETATION: Our serological data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 is a new emerging virus. The seropositivity rate in Hubei returnees indicates that RT-PCR-confirmed patients only represent a small proportion of the total number of cases. The low seroprevalence suggests that most of the Hong Kong and Hubei population remain susceptible to COVID-19. Future waves of the outbreak are inevitable without a vaccine or antiviral prophylaxis. The role of age-related cross reactive non-neutralising antibodies in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Richard and Carol Yu, May Tam Mak Mei Yin, Shaw Foundation (Hong Kong), Michael Tong, Marina Lee, and the Government Consultancy Service (see acknowledgments for full list).

SARS-CoV-2 Virus Culture and Subgenomic RNA for Respiratory Specimens from Patients with Mild Coronavirus Disease.

We investigated 68 respiratory specimens from 35 coronavirus disease patients in Hong Kong, of whom 32 had mild disease. We found that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and subgenomic RNA were rarely detectable beyond 8 days after onset of illness. However, virus RNA was detectable for many weeks by reverse transcription PCR.

Absence of nosocomial transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 in the prepandemic phase in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: To describe the infection control strategy to achieve zero nosocomial transmission of symptomatic coronavirus disease (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 during the prepandemic phase (the first 72 days after announcement of pneumonia cases in Wuhan) in Hong Kong. METHODS: Administrative support with the aim of zero nosocomial transmission by reducing elective clinical services, decanting wards, mobilizing isolation facilities, providing adequate personal protective equipment, coordinating laboratory network for rapid molecular diagnosis under 4-tier active surveillance for hospitalized patients and outpatients, and organizing staff forum and training was implemented under the framework of preparedness plan in Hospital Authority. The trend of SARS-CoV-2 in the first 72 days was compared with that of SARS-CoV 2003. RESULTS: Up to day 72 of the epidemic, 130 (0.40%) of 32,443 patients being screened confirmed to have SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Compared with SARS outbreak in 2003, the SARS-CoV-2 case load constituted 8.9% (130 SARS-CoV-2/1458 SARS-CoV) of SARS-CoV infected cases at day 72 of the outbreak. The incidences of nosocomial acquisition of SARS-CoV per 1,000 SARS-patient-day and per 100 SARS-patient-admission were 7.9 and 16.9, respectively, which were significantly higher than the corresponding incidences of SARS-CoV-2 (zero infection, P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administrative support to infection control could minimize the risk of nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Escalating infection control response to the rapidly evolving epidemiology of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 in Hong Kong.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the infection control preparedness measures undertaken for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) due to SARS-CoV-2 (previously known as 2019 novel coronavirus) in the first 42 days after announcement of a cluster of pneumonia in China, on December 31, 2019 (day 1) in Hong Kong. METHODS: A bundled approach of active and enhanced laboratory surveillance, early airborne infection isolation, rapid molecular diagnostic testing, and contact tracing for healthcare workers (HCWs) with unprotected exposure in the hospitals was implemented. Epidemiological characteristics of confirmed cases, environmental samples, and air samples were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: From day 1 to day 42, 42 of 1,275 patients (3.3%) fulfilling active (n = 29) and enhanced laboratory surveillance (n = 13) were confirmed to have the SARS-CoV-2 infection. The number of locally acquired case significantly increased from 1 of 13 confirmed cases (7.7%, day 22 to day 32) to 27 of 29 confirmed cases (93.1%, day 33 to day 42; P < .001). Among them, 28 patients (66.6%) came from 8 family clusters. Of 413 HCWs caring for these confirmed cases, 11 (2.7%) had unprotected exposure requiring quarantine for 14 days. None of these was infected, and nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was not observed. Environmental surveillance was performed in the room of a patient with viral load of 3.3 × 106 copies/mL (pooled nasopharyngeal and throat swabs) and 5.9 × 106 copies/mL (saliva), respectively. SARS-CoV-2 was identified in 1 of 13 environmental samples (7.7%) but not in 8 air samples collected at a distance of 10 cm from the patient's chin with or without wearing a surgical mask. CONCLUSION: Appropriate hospital infection control measures was able to prevent nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2.