Limitations introduced by a low participation rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data.

BACKGROUND: There has been a large influx of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies, but comparability between the seroprevalence estimates has been an issue because of heterogeneities in testing platforms and study methodology. One potential source of heterogeneity is the response or participation rate. METHODS: We conducted a review of participation rates (PR) in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies collected by SeroTracker and examined their effect on the validity of study conclusions. PR was calculated as the count of participants for whom the investigators had collected a valid sample, divided by the number of people invited to participate in the study. A multivariable beta generalized linear model with logit link was fitted to determine if the PR of international household and community-based seroprevalence studies was associated with the factors of interest, from 1 December 2019 to 10 March 2021. RESULTS: We identified 90 papers based on screening and were able to calculate the PR for 35 out of 90 papers (39%), with a median PR of 70% and an interquartile range of 40.92; 61% of the studies did not report PR. CONCLUSIONS: Many SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies do not report PR. It is unclear what the median PR rate would be had a larger portion not had limitations in reporting. Low participation rates indicate limited representativeness of results. Non-probabilistic sampling frames were associated with higher participation rates but may be less representative. Standardized definitions of participation rate and data reporting necessary for the PR calculations are essential for understanding the representativeness of seroprevalence estimates in the population of interest.

Clinical and Economic Impact of COVID-19 on Agricultural Workers, Guatemala1.

We evaluated clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in banana farm workers in Guatemala. We offered all eligible workers enrollment during June 15-December 30, 2020, and annually, then tracked them for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through self-reporting to study nurses, sentinel surveillance at health posts, and absenteeism. Workers who had ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swab specimens for testing for influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, a total of 1,833 workers reported 169 ILIs (12.0 cases/100 person-years), and 43 (25.4%) were laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 (3.1 cases/100 person-years). Workers who had SARS-CoV-2‒positive ILIs reported more frequent anosmia, dysgeusia, difficulty concentrating, and irritability and worse clinical and well-being severity scores than workers who had test result‒negative ILIs. Workers who had positive results also had greater absenteeism and lost income. These results support prioritization of farm workers in Guatemala for COVID-19 vaccination.

Investigating transmission of SARS-CoV-2 using novel face mask sampling: a protocol for an observational prospective study of index cases and their contacts in a congregate setting.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to measure how transmission of SARS-CoV-2 occurs in communities and to identify conditions that lend to increased transmission focusing on congregate situations. We will measure SARS-CoV-2 in exhaled breath of asymptomatic and symptomatic persons using face mask sampling-a non-invasive method for SARS-CoV-2 detection in exhaled air. We aim to detect transmission clusters and identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in presymptomatic, asymptomatic and symptomatic individuals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this observational prospective study with daily follow-up, index cases and their respective contacts are identified at each participating institution. Contact definitions are based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and local health department guidelines. Participants will wear masks with polyvinyl alcohol test strips adhered to the inside for 2 hours daily. The strips are applied to all masks used over at least 7 days. In addition, self-administered nasal swabs and (optional) finger prick blood samples are performed by participants. Samples are tested by standard PCR protocols and by novel antigen tests. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and the WHO Ethics Review Committee. From the data generated, we will analyse transmission clusters and risk factors for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in congregate settings. The kinetics of asymptomatic transmission and the evaluation of non-invasive tools for detection of transmissibility are of crucial importance for the development of more targeted control interventions-and ultimately to assist with keeping congregate settings open that are essential for our social fabric. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT05145803).

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in exhaled air using non-invasive embedded strips in masks.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 emerged in 2019 and resulted in a pandemic causing millions of infections worldwide. Gold-standard for SARS-CoV-2 detection uses quantitative RT-qPCR on respiratory secretions to detect viral RNA (vRNA). Acquiring these samples is invasive, can be painful for those with xerostomia and other health conditions, and sample quality can vary greatly. Frequently only symptomatic individuals are tested even though asymptomatic individuals can have comparable viral loads and efficiently transmit virus. METHODS: We utilized a non-invasive approach to detect SARS-CoV-2 in individuals, using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) strips embedded in KN95 masks. PVA strips were tested for SARS-CoV-2 vRNA via qRT-PCR and infectious virus. RESULTS: We show efficient recovery of vRNA and infectious virus from virus-spiked PVA with detection limits comparable to nasal swab samples. In infected individuals, we detect both human and SARS-CoV-2 RNA on PVA strips, however, these levels are not correlated with length of time mask was worn, number of times coughed or sneezed, or level of virus in nasal swab samples. We successfully cultured and deep-sequenced PVA-associated virus. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate the feasibility of using PVA-embedded masks as a non-invasive platform for detecting SARS-CoV-2 in exhaled air in COVID-positive individuals regardless of symptom status.

High SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Rapid Neutralizing Antibody Decline among Agricultural Workers in Rural Guatemala, June 2020-March 2021.

Essential agricultural workers work under occupational conditions that may increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and transmission. Data from an agricultural worker cohort in Guatemala, and anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG (anti-N IgG) testing were used to estimate past infections and analyze risk factors associated with seropositivity at enrollment and association with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The stability of neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses were assessed in a subset of participants. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) for seroprevalence at enrollment was estimated accounting for correlations within worksites. At enrollment, 616 (46.2%) of 1334 (93.2%) participants had anti-N IgG results indicating prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. A cough ≤ 10 days prior to enrollment (aRR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.13-1.46) and working as a packer (aRR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.67-2.38) or packing manager within the plants (aRR = 1.82, 95% CI: 1.36-2.43) were associated with increased risk of seropositivity. COVID-19 incidence density among seronegative workers was 2.3/100 Person-Years (P-Y), higher than seropositive workers (0.4/100 P-Y). Most workers with follow-up NAb testing (65/77, 84%) exhibited a 95% average decrease in NAb titers in <6 months. While participants seropositive at baseline were less likely to experience a symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up, NAb titers rapidly waned, underscoring the need for multipronged COVID-19 prevention strategies in the workplace, including vaccination.

Harmonization of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Reference Materials Using the WHO IS (NIBSC 20/136): Results and Implications.

Background: There is an urgent need for harmonization between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology platforms and assays prior to defining appropriate correlates of protection and as well inform the development of new rapid diagnostic tests that can be used for serosurveillance as new variants of concern (VOC) emerge. We compared multiple SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials to the WHO International Standard (WHO IS) to determine their utility as secondary standards, using an international network of laboratories with high-throughput quantitative serology assays. This enabled the comparison of quantitative results between multiple serology platforms. Methods: Between April and December 2020, 13 well-characterized and validated SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials were recruited from six different providers to qualify as secondary standards to the WHO IS. All the samples were tested in parallel with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) 20/136 and parallel-line assays were used to calculate the relevant potency and binding antibody units. Results: All the samples saw varying levels of concordance between diagnostic methods at specific antigen-antibody combinations. Seven of the 12 candidate materials had high concordance for the spike-immunoglobulin G (IgG) analyte [percent coefficient of variation (%CV) between 5 and 44%]. Conclusion: Despite some concordance between laboratories, qualification of secondary materials to the WHO IS using arbitrary international units or binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/ml) does not provide any benefit to the reference materials overall, due to the lack of consistent agreeable international unit (IU) or BAU/ml conversions between laboratories. Secondary standards should be qualified to well-characterized reference materials, such as the WHO IS, using serology assays that are similar to the ones used for the original characterization of the WHO IS.

COVID-19 Serology Control Panel Using the Dried-Tube Specimen Method.

The dried-tube specimen (DTS) procedure was used to develop the COVID-19 serology control panel (CSCP). The DTS offers the benefit of shipping materials without a cold chain, allowing for greater access without deterioration of material integrity. Samples in the panel were sourced from COVID-19 convalescent persons from March to May 2020. The immunoglobulin subtypes (total Ig, IgM, and IgG) and their respective reactivity to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 nucleocapsid, spike, and receptor-binding domain antigens of the samples were delineated and compared with the WHO International Standard to elucidate the exact binding antibody units of each CSCP sample and ensure the CSCP provides adequate reactivity for different types of serological test platforms. We distribute the CSCP as a kit with five coded tubes to laboratories around the world to be used to compare test kits for external quality assurance, for harmonizing laboratory testing, and for use as training materials for laboratory workers.

Risk Factors of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in Arapahoe County First Responders-The COVID-19 Arapahoe SErosurveillance Study (CASES) Project.

OBJECTIVES: Define the seroprevalence and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Arapahoe County, Colorado first responders (eg, law enforcement, human services, fire departments). METHODS: Two hundred sixty four first responders were enrolled June to July 2020. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was defined as detection of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to both spike receptor binding domain and nucleocapsid in venous blood by validated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. We compared risk factors for being seropositive versus seronegative. RESULTS: 4% (11/264) were SARS-CoV-2 seropositive. Seropositive participants were significantly more likely to have lung disease (% seropositive, % seronegative; P-value) (36%, 8%; P = 0.01), prior SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 testing (36%, 8%; P ≤ 0.01), a prior positive result (18%, less than 1%), and to believe they previously had COVID-19 (64%, 15%; P < 0.01). Only 15% of those believing they had COVID-19 had anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Human services employees and individuals with lung disease are at SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk. Few individuals believed they had COVID-19 had prior exposure.

Addressing personal protective equipment (PPE) decontamination: Methylene blue and light inactivates severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on N95 respirators and medical masks with maintenance of integrity and fit.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), underscoring the urgent need for simple, efficient, and inexpensive methods to decontaminate masks and respirators exposed to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We hypothesized that methylene blue (MB) photochemical treatment, which has various clinical applications, could decontaminate PPE contaminated with coronavirus. DESIGN: The 2 arms of the study included (1) PPE inoculation with coronaviruses followed by MB with light (MBL) decontamination treatment and (2) PPE treatment with MBL for 5 cycles of decontamination to determine maintenance of PPE performance. METHODS: MBL treatment was used to inactivate coronaviruses on 3 N95 filtering facepiece respirator (FFR) and 2 medical mask models. We inoculated FFR and medical mask materials with 3 coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2, and we treated them with 10 µM MB and exposed them to 50,000 lux of white light or 12,500 lux of red light for 30 minutes. In parallel, integrity was assessed after 5 cycles of decontamination using multiple US and international test methods, and the process was compared with the FDA-authorized vaporized hydrogen peroxide plus ozone (VHP+O3) decontamination method. RESULTS: Overall, MBL robustly and consistently inactivated all 3 coronaviruses with 99.8% to >99.9% virus inactivation across all FFRs and medical masks tested. FFR and medical mask integrity was maintained after 5 cycles of MBL treatment, whereas 1 FFR model failed after 5 cycles of VHP+O3. CONCLUSIONS: MBL treatment decontaminated respirators and masks by inactivating 3 tested coronaviruses without compromising integrity through 5 cycles of decontamination. MBL decontamination is effective, is low cost, and does not require specialized equipment, making it applicable in low- to high-resource settings.