Estimated vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron infections among health care workers and the general adult population in Norway, August 2021 - January 2022.

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCW) have a higher exposure to SARS-CoV-2 virus than other professionals and to protect both HCW and patients, HCW have been prioritized for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in many countries. Estimating the COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among HCW is important to provide recommendations to protect risk groups. METHODS: We estimated vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infections using Cox proportional hazard models among HCW with comparisons in the general population, from 1 August 2021 to 28 January 2022. Vaccine status is specified as a time-varying covariate and all models incorporated explicit time and were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, county of residence, country of birth, and living conditions. Data from the adult Norwegian population (aged 18-67 years) and HCW workplace data (as registered 1 January 2021) were collated from the National Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19). RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness was higher for Delta than for the Omicron variant in HCW (71 % compared to 19 %) as well as in non-HCW (69 % compared to -32 %). For the Omicron variant a 3rd dose provides significantly better protection against infection than 2 doses in both HCW (33 %) and non-HCW (10 %). Further, HCW seem to have better vaccine effectiveness than non-HCW for the Omicron, but not for the Delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine effectiveness were comparable between HCW and non-HCW for the delta variant, but significantly higher in HCW than non-HCW for the omicron variant. Both HCW and non-HCW got increased protection from a third dose.

Transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) between hospital workers and members of their household: Nationwide, registry-based, cohort study from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Understanding and limiting infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) and subsequent transmission to their families is always important and has been underscored during the COVID-19 pandemic. Except in specific and local settings, little is known about the extent of such transmissions at the national level. OBJECTIVE: To describe SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs and to estimate the risk of HCWs transmitting COVID-19 to their household members, including calculating the secondary attack rate to household members and estimating the risk for hospital workers to contract COVID-19 at home. METHODS: Using individual-level data on all HCWs employed in Norwegian hospitals and their household members, we identified (1) the number of HCWs who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between August 2020 and September 2021 and the proportion of those who were index cases in their own household and (2) the number of HCWs who were secondary cases in their own households. RESULTS: During this period, ∼3,005 (2,6%) hospital workers acquired COVID-19. Almost half of all hospital workers with confirmed COVID-19 were likely index cases in their own households. When the index case in a family was an HCW, the secondary attack rate was 24.8%. At least 17.8% of all confirmed COVID-19 cases among hospital workers were acquired in the household. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest not only that many HCWs are infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their households but also that infected HCWs constitute a serious infection risk to members of the HCW's household.

Effect of Wearing Glasses on Risk of Infection With SARS-CoV-2 in the Community: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Observational studies have reported an association between the use of eye protection and reduced risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses, but, as with most infection control measures, no randomized clinical trials have been conducted. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of wearing glasses in public as protection against being infected with SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in Norway from February 2 to April 24, 2022; all adult members of the public who did not regularly wear glasses, had no symptoms of COVID-19, and did not have COVID-19 in the last 6 weeks were eligible. Intervention: Wearing glasses (eg, sunglasses) when close to others in public spaces for 2 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test result reported to the Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases. Secondary outcomes included a positive COVID-19 test result and respiratory infection based on self-report. All analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle. Results: A total of 3717 adults (2439 women [65.6%]; mean [SD] age, 46.9 [15.1] years) were randomized. All were identified and followed up in the registries, and 3231 (86.9%) responded to the end of study questionnaire. The proportions with a reported positive COVID-19 test result in the national registry were 3.7% (68 of 1852) in the intervention group and 3.5% (65 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, 0.2%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 1.4%; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75-1.50). The proportions with a positive COVID-19 test result based on self-report were 9.6% (177 of 1852) in the intervention group and 11.5% (214 of 1865) in the control group (absolute risk difference, -1.9%; 95% CI, -3.9% to 0.1%; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00). The risk of respiratory infections based on self-reported symptoms was lower in the intervention group (30.8% [571 of 1852]) than in the control group (34.1% [636 of 1865]; absolute risk difference, -3.3%; 95% CI, -6.3% to -0.3%; relative risk, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82-0.99). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, wearing glasses in the community was not protective regarding the primary outcome of a reported positive COVID-19 test. However, results were limited by a small sample size and other issues. Glasses may be worth considering as one component in infection control, pending further studies. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05217797.

COVID-19 vaccination rates among healthcare workers by immigrant background: A nation-wide registry study from Norway.

AIMS: Studies have suggested that some minority groups tend to have lower vaccination rates than the overall population. This study aims to examine COVID-19 vaccination rates among healthcare workers in Norway, according to immigrant background. METHODS: We used individual-level, nation-wide registry data from Norway to identify all healthcare workers employed full time at 1 December 2020. We examined the relationship between country of birth and COVID-19 vaccination from December 2020 to August 2021, both crude and adjusted for, for example, age, sex, municipality of residence and detailed occupation codes in logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among all healthcare workers in Norway, immigrants had a 9 percentage point lower vaccination rate (85%) than healthcare workers without an immigrant background (94%) at 31 August 2021. The overall vaccination rate varied by country of birth, with immigrants born in Russia (71%), Serbia (72%), Lithuania (72%), Romania (75%), Poland (76%), Eritrea (77%) and Somalia (78%) having the lowest crude vaccination rates. When we adjusted for demographics and detailed occupational codes, immigrant groups that more often worked as healthcare assistants, such as immigrants from Eritrea and Somalia, increased their vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial differences in vaccination rates among immigrant groups employed in the healthcare sector in Norway indicate that measures to improve vaccine uptake should focus on specific immigrant groups rather than all immigrants together. Lower vaccination rates in some immigrant groups appear to be largely driven by the occupational composition, suggesting that some of the differences in vaccine rates can be attributed to variation in vaccine access.

Experience with open schools and preschools in periods of high community transmission of COVID-19 in Norway during the academic year of 2020/2021.

BACKGROUND: Schools and preschools have largely remained open in Norway throughout the pandemic, with flexible mitigation measures in place. This contrasts with many other high-income countries that closed schools for long periods of time. Here we describe cases and outbreaks of COVID-19 in schools and preschools during the academic year 2020/2021, to evaluate the strategy of keeping these open with infection prevention control measures in place. METHODS: In this descriptive study, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health initiated systematic surveillance for COVID-19 cases and outbreaks in schools and preschools in October 2020. Data was compiled from the national outbreak alert system VESUV, municipality websites, and media scanning combined with the national emergency preparedness register Beredt C-19. An outbreak was defined as ≥ 2 cases among pupils or staff within 14 days at the same educational setting. Settings were categorized as preschool (1-5-years), primary school (6-12-years), lower secondary school (13-15-years) and upper secondary school (16-18- years). We reported the incidence rate among preschool and school-aged pupils and gave a descriptive overview of outbreaks and included cases per educational setting. RESULTS: During the whole academic year, a total of 1203 outbreaks in preschools and school settings were identified, out of a total of 8311 preschools and schools nationwide. The incidence of COVID-19 in preschool- and school-aged children and the rates of outbreaks in these settings largely followed the community trend. Most of the outbreaks occurred in primary schools (40%) and preschools (25%). Outbreaks across all settings were mostly small (median 3 cases, range 2 to 72), however, 40 outbreaks (3% of total) included 20 or more cases. The larger outbreaks were predominantly seen in primary schools (43%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed few large outbreaks in open schools and preschools in Norway during the academic year of 2020/2021, also when the Alpha variant was predominant. This illustrates that it is possible to keep schools and preschools open even during periods of high community transmission of COVID-19. Adherence to targeted IPC measures adaptable to the local situation has been essential to keep educational settings open, and thus reduce the total burden on children and adolescents.

School Closure Versus Targeted Control Measures for SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

OBJECTIVES: To compare effects of school closures with effects of targeted infection prevention and control (IPC) measures in open schools on SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in students. METHODS: We conducted interrupted time-series analyses to compare trends in infection rates in grades 1-10 in 7 boroughs in Oslo, Norway, between February 15 and April 18, 2021. All schools at all levels had implemented strict IPC measures. While grades 1-4 attended school throughout the study period, school closures were implemented for grades 5-10 from March 17. We obtained individual level data from nationwide registries. RESULTS: A total of 616, 452, and 446 students in grades 1-4, 5-7 and 8-10, respectively, were registered with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test during the study period, when the α-variant dominated. A statistically significant reduction in postintervention trends was observed for grades 1-4 (coefficient -1.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.44 to -0.09). We did not observe any statistically significant between-group differences in postintervention trends between grades 1-4 and 5-7 (coefficient 0.66; 95% CI, -1.25 to 2.58) nor between grades 1-4 and 8-10 (coefficient -0.63; 95% CI, -2.30 to 1.04). Findings indicate that keeping schools open with strict IPC measures was equally effective as school closures on reducing student infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: School closure was not more effective than targeted IPC measures in open schools in reducing student infection rates. Our findings suggest that keeping schools open with appropriate IPC measures should be preferred over school closures, considering the negative consequences closures have on students.

Risk factors, immune response and whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in a cruise ship outbreak in Norway.

OBJECTIVE: To improve understanding of SARS-CoV-2-transmission and prevention measures on cruise ships, we investigated a Norwegian cruise ship outbreak from July to August 2020 using a multidisciplinary approach after a rapid outbreak response launched by local and national health authorities. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among crew members using epidemiologic data and results from SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of nasopharynx-oropharynx samples, antibody analyses of blood samples, and whole-genome sequencing. RESULTS: We included 114 multinational crew members (71% participation), median age 36 years, and 69% male. The attack rate was 33%; 32 of 37 outbreak cases were seropositive 5-10 days after PCR. One PCR-negative participant was seropositive, suggesting a previous infection. Network-analysis showed clusters based on common exposures, including embarkation date, nationality, sharing a cabin with an infected cabin-mate (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-11.07, p = 0.057), and specific workplaces (mechanical operations: 9.17 [1.82-45.78], catering: 6.11 [1.83-20.38]). Breaches in testing, quarantine, and isolation practices before/during expeditions were reported. Whole-genome sequencing revealed lineage B.1.36, previously identified in Asia. Despite extensive sequencing, the continued transmission of B.1.36 in Norway was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings confirm the high risk of SARS-CoV-2-transmission on cruise ships related to workplace and cabin type and show that continued community transmission after the outbreak could be stopped by implementing immediate infection control measures at the final destination.

Reporting of notifiable infectious diseases during the COVID-19 response. / Registrerte meldingspliktige smittsomme sykdommer under covid-19-responsen.

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Surveillance System for Communicable Diseases (MSIS) is based on reporting of cases of 72 mandatory notifiable diseases by clinical microbiological laboratories and diagnosing physicians. The aim of our study was to investigate a potential temporal association between measures against COVID-19 in February-April 2020 and incidence of other infectious diseases reported to MSIS. MATERIAL AND METHOD: We compared the number of disease cases reported to MSIS during weeks 6-14 in 2020 with the median of cases reported in corresponding weeks during three previous years (2017-2019). RESULTS: Compared to the median of cases reported during corresponding weeks in three previous years, physicians and laboratories reported 47 % fewer cases (159 vs. 301) in week 12, 50 % fewer cases (131 vs. 261) in week 13, and 69 % fewer cases (77 vs. 252) in week 14. There was a reduction in the number of notifications of all included disease groups. INTERPRETATION: The observed decline in reporting of diseases other than COVID-19 may indicate a reduced risk of communicable diseases due to comprehensive advice and the requirement for social distancing. However, it is also possible that the sensitivity of the surveillance system was affected by increased resource use on COVID-19 cases management.