Evolution of long-term vaccine induced and hybrid immunity in healthcare workers after different COVID19 vaccine regimens: a longitudinal cohort study

Background Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2. However, the maintenance of such responses – and hence protection from disease – requires careful characterisation. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (Protective immunity from T cells in Healthcare workers (PITCH), within the larger SARS-CoV-2 immunity & reinfection evaluation (SIREN) study) we previously observed that prior infection impacted strongly on subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. Methods Here, we report longer follow up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and up to 6 months following a subsequent mRNA booster vaccination. Findings We make three observations: Firstly, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ;binding and neutralising antibodies declined whereas T and memory B cell responses were maintained after the second vaccine dose. Secondly, vaccine boosting restored IgG levels, broadened neutralising activity against variants of concern including omicron BA.1, BA.2 and BA.5, and boosted T cell responses above the 6-month level post dose 2. Thirdly, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger and broader T cell responses compared with never-infected people – a feature maintained until 6 months after the third dose. Conclusions Broadly cross-reactive T cell responses are well maintained over time – especially in those with combined vaccine and infection-induced immunity ("hybrid” immunity) – and may contribute to continued protection against severe disease. Funding Department for Health and Social Care, Medical Research Council Graphical abstract Moore et al. studied antibody and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccines before and after dose 3. Antibody responses waned, but T cell responses were well maintained. T cells recognised Omicron variants better and for longer than antibodies. Differences due to vaccine regimen and previous infection evened out over time.

Evaluation of QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 interferon-γ release assay following SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

T cells are important in preventing severe disease from SARS-CoV-2, but scalable and field-adaptable alternatives to expert T-cell assays are needed. The interferon-gamma release assay QuantiFERON platform was developed to detect T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 from whole blood with relatively basic equipment and flexibility of processing timelines. Forty-eight participants with different infection and vaccination backgrounds were recruited. Whole blood samples were analysed using the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in parallel with the well-established 'Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare workers' (PITCH) ELISpot, which can evaluate spike-specific T-cell responses. The primary aims of this cross-sectional observational cohort study were to establish if the QuantiFERON SARS-Co-V-2 assay could discern differences between specified groups and to assess the sensitivity of the assay compared with the PITCH ELISpot. The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 distinguished acutely infected individuals (12-21 days post positive PCR) from naïve individuals (P < 0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 T cells, whilst the PITCH ELISpot had reduced sensitivity (62.5%) for the acute infection group. Sensitivity with QuantiFERON for previous infection was 12.5% (172-444 days post positive test) and was inferior to the PITCH ELISpot (75%). Although the QuantiFERON assay could discern differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals (55-166 days since second vaccination), the latter also had reduced sensitivity (44.4%) compared to the PITCH ELISpot (66.6%). The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay showed potential as a T- cell evaluation tool soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection but has lower sensitivity for use in reliable evaluation of vaccination or more distant infection.

CO-CONNECT: A hybrid architecture to facilitate rapid discovery and access to UK wide data in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 data have been generated across the UK as a by-product of clinical care and public health provision, and numerous bespoke and repurposed research endeavours. Analysis of these data has underpinned the UK's response to the pandemic and informed public health policies and clinical guidelines. However, these data are held by different organisations and this fragmented landscape has presented challenges for public health agencies and researchers as they struggle to find, navigate permissions to access and interrogate the data they need to inform the pandemic response at pace. OBJECTIVE: To transform UK COVID-19 diagnostic datasets to be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). METHODS: A federated infrastructure model was rapidly built to enable the automated and reproducible mapping of health Data Partners' pseudonymised data to the OMOP common data model without the need for any data to leave the data controllers' secure environments and to support federated cohort discovery queries and meta-analysis. RESULTS: 56 datasets from 19 organisations are being connected to the federated network. The data includes research cohorts and COVID-19 data collected through routine health care provision linked to longitudinal healthcare records and demographics. The infrastructure is live, supporting aggregate level querying of data across the UK. CONCLUSIONS: CO-CONNECT was developed by a multidisciplinary team enabling rapid COVID-19 data discovery, instantaneous meta-analysis across data sources, and is researching streamlined data extraction for egress into a Trusted Research Environment (TRE) for research and public health analysis. CO-CONNECT has the potential to make UK health data more interconnected and better able to answer national-level research questions whilst maintaining patient confidentiality and local governance procedures.

Evolution of long-term vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity in healthcare workers after different COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

BACKGROUND: Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the maintenance of such responses-and hence protection from disease-requires careful characterization. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (HCWs) (Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare Workers [PITCH], within the larger SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation [SIREN] study), we previously observed that prior infection strongly affected subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. METHODS: Here, we report longer follow-up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and up to 6 months following a subsequent mRNA booster vaccination. FINDINGS: We make three observations: first, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ; binding and neutralizing antibodies declined, whereas T and memory B cell responses were maintained after the second vaccine dose. Second, vaccine boosting restored immunoglobulin (Ig) G levels; broadened neutralizing activity against variants of concern, including Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5; and boosted T cell responses above the 6-month level after dose 2. Third, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger and broader T cell responses compared with never-infected people, a feature maintained until 6 months after the third dose. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly cross-reactive T cell responses are well maintained over time-especially in those with combined vaccine and infection-induced immunity ("hybrid" immunity)-and may contribute to continued protection against severe disease. FUNDING: Department for Health and Social Care, Medical Research Council.

Differential occupational risks to healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 observed during a prospective observational study.

We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using naso-/oro-pharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. 1128/10,034 (11.2%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time. Using questionnaire data provided on potential risk-factors, staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.82 [95%CI 3.45-6.72]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (22.6% vs. 8.6% elsewhere) (aOR 2.47 [1.99-3.08]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.52 [1.07-2.16]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit staff were relatively protected (0.44 [0.28-0.69]), likely by a bundle of PPE-related measures. Positive results were more likely in Black (1.66 [1.25-2.21]) and Asian (1.51 [1.28-1.77]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (2.06 [1.34-3.15]).

Where now for infection services in the NHS? How lessons from the pandemic should drive long-overdue integration of microbiology and infectious diseases.

In its first 2 decades, the NHS witnessed the near eradication of life-threatening community-acquired infections. However, medical advances have created different challenges (such as antimicrobial resistance and healthcare-associated infections) against a background of an increasingly ageing population. The recent COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a lack of parity with regards to provision of NHS 'infection services' (infectious diseases, microbiology and virology) across the UK, which urgently needs to be addressed. We recommend a fundamental review of NHS infection service provision: divided into four key areas. Firstly, there should be a consideration of a single multidisciplinary specialty of infection medicine removing barriers to training and service delivery. Secondly, streamline infection training via a single pathway through to certificate of completion of training, encompassing all aspects of infection service provision, for example, infection diagnostics, clinical care (including inpatient, outpatient and community based care), and infection prevention and control. There should be flexibility within the training curriculum to facilitate combined training with general internal medicine (GIM) as well as out of programme activities. Innovative ways of providing clinical experience should be considered, acknowledging the roles that medical microbiologists working closely with GIM colleagues in district general hospitals can play in managing patients with infections. Thirdly, formally commission a national network of specialised infectious diseases units with the creation of service standards. This can facilitate future pandemic resilience using a hub-and-spoke model utilising local infection expertise. Lastly, standardise the NHS framework to lead and coordinate development of integrated infection services at the local level.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses post-vaccination in UK healthcare workers with pre-existing medical conditions: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine antibody responses after the second vaccination in healthcare workers (HCWs) with underlying health conditions. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare workers who had SARS-CoV-2 serological data available and received two SARS-CoV- 2 vaccinations. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Peak SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG responses after the second vaccination and associations with underlying health conditions and the estimated risk of severe COVID-19 using an occupational health risk assessment tool. METHODS: We used univariable and multivariable linear regression models to investigate associations between antibody levels and demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), healthcare role, body mass index, underlying health conditions, vaccination status, prior infection and the Association of Local Authority Medical Advisors COVID-age risk score. RESULTS: 1635 HCWs had anti-spike IgG measurements 14-84 days after second vaccination and data on any underlying health conditions. Only five HCWs (0.3%), all on immunosuppressive treatment, (including four organ transplant recipients), did not seroconvert after second vaccination. Antibody levels were independently lower with older age, diabetes, immunosuppression, respiratory disorders other than asthma and markedly so in organ transplant recipients. Levels were independently lower in ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 recipients and higher following previous infection. HCWs with 'very high' COVID-age risk scores had lower median antibody levels than those with 'low', 'medium' or 'high' risk scores; 4379 AU/mL, compared with 12 337 AU/mL, 9430 AU/mL and 10 524 AU/mL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Two vaccine doses are effective in generating antibody responses among HCWs, including those with a high occupational risk. However, HCWs with underlying health conditions, especially diabetes, immunosuppression and organ transplant, had lower antibody levels, and vaccine response monitoring may be needed.

T-cell and antibody responses to first BNT162b2 vaccine dose in previously infected and SARS-CoV-2-naive UK health-care workers: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 affects the immune response to the first dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to compare SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell and antibody responses in health-care workers with and without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection following a single dose of the BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine. METHODS: We sampled health-care workers enrolled in the PITCH study across four hospital sites in the UK (Oxford, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Sheffield). All health-care workers aged 18 years or older consenting to participate in this prospective cohort study were included, with no exclusion criteria applied. Blood samples were collected where possible before vaccination and 28 (±7) days following one or two doses (given 3-4 weeks apart) of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Previous infection was determined by a documented SARS-CoV-2-positive RT-PCR result or the presence of positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies. We measured spike-specific IgG antibodies and quantified T-cell responses by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay in all participants where samples were available at the time of analysis, comparing SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals to those with previous infection. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2020, and Feb 9, 2021, 119 SARS-CoV-2-naive and 145 previously infected health-care workers received one dose, and 25 SARS-CoV-2-naive health-care workers received two doses, of the BNT162b2 vaccine. In previously infected health-care workers, the median time from previous infection to vaccination was 268 days (IQR 232-285). At 28 days (IQR 27-33) after a single dose, the spike-specific T-cell response measured in fresh peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was higher in previously infected (n=76) than in infection-naive (n=45) health-care workers (median 284 [IQR 150-461] vs 55 [IQR 24-132] spot-forming units [SFUs] per 106 PBMCs; p<0·0001). With cryopreserved PBMCs, the T-cell response in previously infected individuals (n=52) after one vaccine dose was equivalent to that of infection-naive individuals (n=19) after receiving two vaccine doses (median 152 [IQR 119-275] vs 162 [104-258] SFUs/106 PBMCs; p=1·00). Anti-spike IgG antibody responses following a single dose in 142 previously infected health-care workers (median 270 373 [IQR 203 461-535 188] antibody units [AU] per mL) were higher than in 111 infection-naive health-care workers following one dose (35 001 [17 099-55 341] AU/mL; p<0·0001) and higher than in 25 infection-naive individuals given two doses (180 904 [108 221-242 467] AU/mL; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: A single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine is likely to provide greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, than in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals, including against variants of concern. Future studies should determine the additional benefit of a second dose on the magnitude and durability of immune responses in individuals vaccinated following infection, alongside evaluation of the impact of extending the interval between vaccine doses. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care, and UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium.

Comparison of two T-cell assays to evaluate T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following vaccination in naïve and convalescent healthcare workers.

T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterized than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway. We measured T-cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) using the commercialized Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay service (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. Both assays detected T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane, and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels 1 + 2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot total spike. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T-cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot total spike was moderate. The standardization, relative scalability, and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T-cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T-cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T-cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T-cell durability after vaccination.

Assessing a novel, lab-free, point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 (CovidNudge): a diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Access to rapid diagnosis is key to the control and management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Laboratory RT-PCR testing is the current standard of care but usually requires a centralised laboratory and significant infrastructure. We describe our diagnostic accuracy assessment of a novel, rapid point-of-care real time RT-PCR CovidNudge test, which requires no laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. METHODS: Between April and May, 2020, we obtained two nasopharyngeal swab samples from individuals in three hospitals in London and Oxford (UK). Samples were collected from three groups: self-referred health-care workers with suspected COVID-19; patients attending emergency departments with suspected COVID-19; and hospital inpatient admissions with or without suspected COVID-19. For the CovidNudge test, nasopharyngeal swabs were inserted directly into a cartridge which contains all reagents and components required for RT-PCR reactions, including multiple technical replicates of seven SARS-CoV-2 gene targets (rdrp1, rdrp2, e-gene, n-gene, n1, n2 and n3) and human ribonuclease P (RNaseP) as sample adequacy control. Swab samples were tested in parallel using the CovidNudge platform, and with standard laboratory RT-PCR using swabs in viral transport medium for processing in a central laboratory. The primary analysis was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of the point-of-care CovidNudge test with laboratory-based testing. FINDINGS: We obtained 386 paired samples: 280 (73%) from self-referred health-care workers, 15 (4%) from patients in the emergency department, and 91 (23%) hospital inpatient admissions. Of the 386 paired samples, 67 tested positive on the CovidNudge point-of-care platform and 71 with standard laboratory RT-PCR. The overall sensitivity of the point-of-care test compared with laboratory-based testing was 94% (95% CI 86-98) with an overall specificity of 100% (99-100). The sensitivity of the test varied by group (self-referred healthcare workers 94% [95% CI 85-98]; patients in the emergency department 100% [48-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [29-100]). Specificity was consistent between groups (self-referred health-care workers 100% [95% CI 98-100]; patients in the emergency department 100% [69-100]; and hospital inpatient admissions 100% [96-100]). Point of care testing performance was similar during a period of high background prevalence of laboratory positive tests (25% [95% 20-31] in April, 2020) and low prevalence (3% [95% 1-9] in inpatient screening). Amplification of viral nucleocapsid (n1, n2, and n3) and envelope protein gene (e-gene) were most sensitive for detection of spiked SARS-CoV-2 RNA. INTERPRETATION: The CovidNudge platform was a sensitive, specific, and rapid point of care test for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 without laboratory handling or sample pre-processing. The device, which has been implemented in UK hospitals since May, 2020, could enable rapid decisions for clinical care and testing programmes. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University in partnership with Public Health England, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Oxford, and DnaNudge.

An Observational Cohort Study on the Incidence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection and B.1.1.7 Variant Infection in Healthcare Workers by Antibody and Vaccination Status.

BACKGROUND: Natural and vaccine-induced immunity will play a key role in controlling the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. SARS-CoV-2 variants have the potential to evade natural and vaccine-induced immunity. METHODS: In a longitudinal cohort study of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, we investigated the protection from symptomatic and asymptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2, Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 nCOV-19) and prior infection (determined using anti-spike antibody status), using Poisson regression adjusted for age, sex, temporal changes in incidence and role. We estimated protection conferred after 1 versus 2 vaccinations and from infections with the B.1.1.7 variant identified using whole genome sequencing. RESULTS: In total, 13 109 HCWs participated; 8285 received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (1407 two doses), and 2738 the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine (49 two doses). Compared to unvaccinated seronegative HCWs, natural immunity and 2 vaccination doses provided similar protection against symptomatic infection: no HCW vaccinated twice had symptomatic infection, and incidence was 98% lower in seropositive HCWs (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.02 [95% confidence interval {CI} < .01-.18]). Two vaccine doses or seropositivity reduced the incidence of any PCR-positive result with or without symptoms by 90% (0.10 [95% CI .02-.38]) and 85% (0.15 [95% CI .08-.26]), respectively. Single-dose vaccination reduced the incidence of symptomatic infection by 67% (0.33 [95% CI .21-.52]) and any PCR-positive result by 64% (0.36 [95% CI .26-.50]). There was no evidence of differences in immunity induced by natural infection and vaccination for infections with S-gene target failure and B.1.1.7. CONCLUSIONS: Natural infection resulting in detectable anti-spike antibodies and 2 vaccine doses both provide robust protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, including against the B.1.1.7 variant.

Nanopore metagenomic sequencing of influenza virus directly from respiratory samples: diagnosis, drug resistance and nosocomial transmission, United Kingdom, 2018/19 influenza season.

BackgroundInfluenza virus presents a considerable challenge to public health by causing seasonal epidemics and occasional pandemics. Nanopore metagenomic sequencing has the potential to be deployed for near-patient testing, providing rapid infection diagnosis, rationalising antimicrobial therapy, and supporting infection-control interventions.AimTo evaluate the applicability of this sequencing approach as a routine laboratory test for influenza in clinical settings.MethodsWe conducted Oxford Nanopore Technologies (Oxford, United Kingdom (UK)) metagenomic sequencing for 180 respiratory samples from a UK hospital during the 2018/19 influenza season, and compared results to routine molecular diagnostic standards (Xpert Xpress Flu/RSV assay; BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel 2 assay). We investigated drug resistance, genetic diversity, and nosocomial transmission using influenza sequence data.ResultsCompared to standard testing, Nanopore metagenomic sequencing was 83% (75/90) sensitive and 93% (84/90) specific for detecting influenza A viruses. Of 59 samples with haemagglutinin subtype determined, 40 were H1 and 19 H3. We identified an influenza A(H3N2) genome encoding the oseltamivir resistance S331R mutation in neuraminidase, potentially associated with an emerging distinct intra-subtype reassortant. Whole genome phylogeny refuted suspicions of a transmission cluster in a ward, but identified two other clusters that likely reflected nosocomial transmission, associated with a predominant community-circulating strain. We also detected other potentially pathogenic viruses and bacteria from the metagenome.ConclusionNanopore metagenomic sequencing can detect the emergence of novel variants and drug resistance, providing timely insights into antimicrobial stewardship and vaccine design. Full genome generation can help investigate and manage nosocomial outbreaks.

Time of Day of Vaccination Affects SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Responses in an Observational Study of Health Care Workers.

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, participant age, sex, and days post-vaccination on anti-Spike antibody responses in health care workers. The magnitude of the anti-Spike antibody response is associated with the time of day of vaccination, vaccine type, participant age, sex, and days post-vaccination. These results may be relevant for optimising SARS-CoV-2 vaccine efficacy.

Immunogenicity of standard and extended dosing intervals of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine.

Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. At this time, trial data were lacking, and we addressed this in a study of United Kingdom healthcare workers. The first vaccine dose induced protection from infection from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant over several weeks. In a substudy of 589 individuals, we show that this single dose induces severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses and a sustained B and T cell response to the spike protein. NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6-14 weeks) compared with the conventional 3- to 4-week regimen, accompanied by enrichment of CD4+ T cells expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection amplified and accelerated the response. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective immunogenic protocol.

Transmission of community- and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 in hospital settings in the UK: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nosocomial spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been widely reported, but the transmission pathways among patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) are unclear. Identifying the risk factors and drivers for these nosocomial transmissions is critical for infection prevention and control interventions. The main aim of our study was to quantify the relative importance of different transmission pathways of SARS-CoV-2 in the hospital setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This is an observational cohort study using data from 4 teaching hospitals in Oxfordshire, United Kingdom, from January to October 2020. Associations between infectious SARS-CoV-2 individuals and infection risk were quantified using logistic, generalised additive and linear mixed models. Cases were classified as community- or hospital-acquired using likely incubation periods of 3 to 7 days. Of 66,184 patients who were hospitalised during the study period, 920 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test within the same period (1.4%). The mean age was 67.9 (±20.7) years, 49.2% were females, and 68.5% were from the white ethnic group. Out of these, 571 patients had their first positive PCR tests while hospitalised (62.1%), and 97 of these occurred at least 7 days after admission (10.5%). Among the 5,596 HCWs, 615 (11.0%) tested positive during the study period using PCR or serological tests. The mean age was 39.5 (±11.1) years, 78.9% were females, and 49.8% were nurses. For susceptible patients, 1 day in the same ward with another patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with an additional 7.5 infections per 1,000 susceptible patients (95% credible interval (CrI) 5.5 to 9.5/1,000 susceptible patients/day) per day. Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) or to an infectious HCW was associated with substantially lower infection risks (2.0/1,000 susceptible patients/day, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.2). As for HCW infections, exposure to an infectious patient with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 or to an infectious HCW were both associated with an additional 0.8 infection per 1,000 susceptible HCWs per day (95% CrI 0.3 to 1.6 and 0.6 to 1.0, respectively). Exposure to an infectious patient with community-acquired SARS-CoV-2 was associated with less than half this risk (0.2/1,000 susceptible HCWs/day, 95% CrI 0.2 to 0.2). These assumptions were tested in sensitivity analysis, which showed broadly similar results. The main limitations were that the symptom onset dates and HCW absence days were not available. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that exposure to patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a substantial infection risk to both HCWs and other hospitalised patients. Infection control measures to limit nosocomial transmission must be optimised to protect both staff and patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The Duration, Dynamics, and Determinants of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Antibody Responses in Individual Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody measurements can be used to estimate the proportion of a population exposed or infected and may be informative about the risk of future infection. Previous estimates of the duration of antibody responses vary. METHODS: We present 6 months of data from a longitudinal seroprevalence study of 3276 UK healthcare workers (HCWs). Serial measurements of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike IgG were obtained. Interval censored survival analysis was used to investigate the duration of detectable responses. Additionally, Bayesian mixed linear models were used to investigate anti-nucleocapsid waning. RESULTS: Anti-spike IgG levels remained stably detected after a positive result, for example, in 94% (95% credibility interval [CrI] 91-96%) of HCWs at 180 days. Anti-nucleocapsid IgG levels rose to a peak at 24 (95% CrI 19-31) days post first polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive test, before beginning to fall. Considering 452 anti-nucleocapsid seropositive HCWs over a median of 121 days from their maximum positive IgG titer, the mean estimated antibody half-life was 85 (95% CrI 81-90) days. Higher maximum observed anti-nucleocapsid titers were associated with longer estimated antibody half-lives. Increasing age, Asian ethnicity, and prior self-reported symptoms were independently associated with higher maximum anti-nucleocapsid levels and increasing age and a positive PCR test undertaken for symptoms with longer anti-nucleocapsid half-lives. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies wane within months and fall faster in younger adults and those without symptoms. However, anti-spike IgG remains stably detected. Ongoing longitudinal studies are required to track the long-term duration of antibody levels and their association with immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.