Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
J Infect Dis ; 2023 Jun 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20233547

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Serological data on endemic human coronaviruses (HCoVs) and SARS-CoV-2 in southern Africa are scarce. Here, we report on i) endemic HCoV seasonality, ii) SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, and iii) predictive factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and strength of SARS-CoV-2 and HCoV serological response during a 17-month period at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic among adults living with HIV. METHODS: Plasma samples were collected from February 2020 to July 2021 within an outpatient HIV cohort in Lesotho. We used the ABCORA multiplex immunoassay to measure antibody responses to endemic HCoV (OC43, HKU1, NL63, and 229E) and SARS-CoV-2 antigens. RESULTS: Results of 3'173 samples from 1'403 adults were included. Serological responses against endemic HCoVs increased over time and peaked in winter/spring. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity reached >35% among samples collected in early 2021 and was associated with female sex (p = 0.004), obesity (p < 0.001), working outside the home (p = 0.02), and recent tiredness (p = 0.005) or fever (p = 0.007). Positive correlations were observed between the strength of response to endemic HCoVs and to SARS-CoV-2, and between older age or obesity and the IgG response to SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSIONS: These results add to our understanding of the impact of biological, clinical, and social/behavioural factors on serological responses to coronaviruses in southern Africa.

2.
Nat Commun ; 14(1): 90, 2023 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2185839

ABSTRACT

The direct and indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population-level mortality is of concern to public health but challenging to quantify. Using data for 2011-2019, we applied Bayesian models to predict the expected number of deaths in Switzerland and compared them with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths from February 2020 to April 2022 (study period). We estimated that COVID-19-related mortality was underestimated by a factor of 0.72 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.46-0.78). After accounting for COVID-19 deaths, the observed mortality was -4% (95% CrI: -8 to 0) lower than expected. The deficit in mortality was concentrated in age groups 40-59 (-12%, 95%CrI: -19 to -5) and 60-69 (-8%, 95%CrI: -15 to -2). Although COVID-19 control measures may have negative effects, after subtracting COVID-19 deaths, there were fewer deaths in Switzerland during the pandemic than expected, suggesting that any negative effects of control measures were offset by the positive effects. These results have important implications for the ongoing debate about the appropriateness of COVID-19 control measures.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology , Bayes Theorem , Mortality
3.
J Clin Invest ; 132(12)2022 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2053515

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUNDNeutralizing antibodies are considered a key correlate of protection by current SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The manner in which human infections respond to therapeutic SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, including convalescent plasma therapy, remains to be fully elucidated.METHODSWe conducted a proof-of-principle study of convalescent plasma therapy based on a phase I trial in 30 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with a median interval between onset of symptoms and first transfusion of 9 days (IQR, 7-11.8 days). Comprehensive longitudinal monitoring of the virological, serological, and disease status of recipients allowed deciphering of parameters on which plasma therapy efficacy depends.RESULTSIn this trial, convalescent plasma therapy was safe as evidenced by the absence of transfusion-related adverse events and low mortality (3.3%). Treatment with highly neutralizing plasma was significantly associated with faster virus clearance, as demonstrated by Kaplan-Meier analysis (P = 0.034) and confirmed in a parametric survival model including viral load and comorbidity (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1-8.1; P = 0.026). The onset of endogenous neutralization affected viral clearance, but even after adjustment for their pretransfusion endogenous neutralization status, recipients benefitted from plasma therapy with high neutralizing antibodies (hazard ratio, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-11; P = 0.034).CONCLUSIONOur data demonstrate a clear impact of exogenous antibody therapy on the rapid clearance of viremia before and after onset of the endogenous neutralizing response, and point beyond antibody-based interventions to critical laboratory parameters for improved evaluation of current and future SARS-CoV-2 therapies.TRIAL REGISTRATIONClinicalTrials.gov NCT04869072.FUNDINGThis study was funded via an Innovation Pool project by the University Hospital Zurich; the Swiss Red Cross Glückskette Corona Funding; Pandemiefonds of the UZH Foundation; and the Clinical Research Priority Program "Comprehensive Genomic Pathogen Detection" of the University of Zurich.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Antibody Formation , COVID-19/therapy , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Immunization, Passive/adverse effects , Proof of Concept Study , COVID-19 Serotherapy
4.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 152: w30163, 2022 04 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911921

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination campaigns started in early 2021. Vaccine coverage reached 65% of the population in December 2021, mostly with mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNtech. Simultaneously, the proportion of vaccinated among COVID-19-related hospitalisations and deaths rose, creating some confusion in the general population. We aimed to assess vaccine effectiveness against severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection using routine surveillance data on the vaccination status of COVID-19-related hospitalisations and deaths, and data on vaccine coverage in Switzerland. METHODS: We considered all routine surveillance data on COVID-19-related hospitalisations and deaths received at the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health from 1 July to 1 December 2021. We estimated the relative risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death for not fully vaccinated compared with fully vaccinated individuals, adjusted for the dynamics of vaccine coverage over time, by age and location. We stratified the analysis by age group and by calendar month. We assessed variations in the relative risk of hospitalisation associated with the time since vaccination. RESULTS: We included a total of 5948 COVID-19-related hospitalisations of which 1245 (21%) were fully vaccinated patients, and a total of 739 deaths of which 259 (35%) were fully vaccinated. We found that the relative risk of COVID-19 related hospitalisation was 12.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.7-13.4) times higher for not fully vaccinated than for fully vaccinated individuals. This translates into a vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation of 92.0% (95% CI 91.4-92.5%). Vaccine effectiveness against death was estimated to be 90.3% (95% CI 88.6-91.8%). Effectiveness appeared to be comparatively lower in age groups over 70 and during the months of October and November 2021. We also found evidence of a decrease in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation for individuals vaccinated for 25 weeks or more, but this decrease appeared only in age groups below 70. CONCLUSIONS: The observed proportions of vaccinated among COVD-19-related hospitalisations and deaths in Switzerland were compatible with a high effectiveness of mRNA vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNtech against hospitalisation and death in all age groups. Effectiveness appears comparatively lower in older age groups, suggesting the importance of booster vaccinations. We found inconclusive evidence that vaccine effectiveness wanes over time. Repeated analyses will be able to better assess waning and the effect of boosters.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Child, Preschool , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology , Vaccine Efficacy
5.
PLoS Med ; 19(5): e1003987, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1865331

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS: The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2. REVIEW PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Mass Screening , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
6.
PLoS Comput Biol ; 17(1): e1008609, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1110076

ABSTRACT

A key parameter in epidemiological modeling which characterizes the spread of an infectious disease is the generation time, or more generally the distribution of infectiousness as a function of time since infection. There is increasing evidence supporting a prolonged viral shedding window for COVID-19, but the transmissibility in this phase is unclear. Based on this, we develop a generalized Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Resistant (SEIR) model including an additional compartment of chronically infected individuals who can stay infectious for a longer duration than the reported generation time, but with infectivity reduced to varying degrees. Using the incidence and fatality data from different countries, we first show that such an assumption also yields a plausible model in explaining the data observed prior to the easing of the lockdown measures (relaxation). We then test the predictive power of this model for different durations and levels of prolonged infectiousness using the incidence data after the introduction of relaxation in Switzerland, and compare it with a model without the chronically infected population to represent the models conventionally used. We show that in case of a gradual easing on the lockdown measures, the predictions of the model including the chronically infected population vary considerably from those obtained under a model in which prolonged infectiousness is not taken into account. Although the existence of a chronically infected population still remains largely hypothetical, we believe that our results provide tentative evidence to consider a chronically infected population as an alternative modeling approach to better interpret the transmission dynamics of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communicable Disease Control , Models, Statistical , Virus Shedding/physiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Computational Biology , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland
7.
PLoS Med ; 17(7): e1003189, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-690567

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As of 16 May 2020, more than 4.5 million cases and more than 300,000 deaths from disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been reported. Reliable estimates of mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection are essential for understanding clinical prognosis, planning healthcare capacity, and epidemic forecasting. The case-fatality ratio (CFR), calculated from total numbers of reported cases and reported deaths, is the most commonly reported metric, but it can be a misleading measure of overall mortality. The objectives of this study were to (1) simulate the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 using publicly available surveillance data and (2) infer estimates of SARS-CoV-2 mortality adjusted for biases and examine the CFR, the symptomatic case-fatality ratio (sCFR), and the infection-fatality ratio (IFR) in different geographic locations. METHOD AND FINDINGS: We developed an age-stratified susceptible-exposed-infected-removed (SEIR) compartmental model describing the dynamics of transmission and mortality during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic. Our model accounts for two biases: preferential ascertainment of severe cases and right-censoring of mortality. We fitted the transmission model to surveillance data from Hubei Province, China, and applied the same model to six regions in Europe: Austria, Bavaria (Germany), Baden-Württemberg (Germany), Lombardy (Italy), Spain, and Switzerland. In Hubei, the baseline estimates were as follows: CFR 2.4% (95% credible interval [CrI] 2.1%-2.8%), sCFR 3.7% (3.2%-4.2%), and IFR 2.9% (2.4%-3.5%). Estimated measures of mortality changed over time. Across the six locations in Europe, estimates of CFR varied widely. Estimates of sCFR and IFR, adjusted for bias, were more similar to each other but still showed some degree of heterogeneity. Estimates of IFR ranged from 0.5% (95% CrI 0.4%-0.6%) in Switzerland to 1.4% (1.1%-1.6%) in Lombardy, Italy. In all locations, mortality increased with age. Among individuals 80 years or older, estimates of the IFR suggest that the proportion of all those infected with SARS-CoV-2 who will die ranges from 20% (95% CrI 16%-26%) in Switzerland to 34% (95% CrI 28%-40%) in Spain. A limitation of the model is that count data by date of onset are required, and these are not available in all countries. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a comprehensive solution to the estimation of SARS-Cov-2 mortality from surveillance data during outbreaks. The CFR is not a good predictor of overall mortality from SARS-CoV-2 and should not be used for evaluation of policy or comparison across settings. Geographic differences in IFR suggest that a single IFR should not be applied to all settings to estimate the total size of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in different countries. The sCFR and IFR, adjusted for right-censoring and preferential ascertainment of severe cases, are measures that can be used to improve and monitor clinical and public health strategies to reduce the deaths from SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Age Factors , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , COVID-19 , China/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Models, Statistical , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL