Concordance in RT-PCR detection of SARS-CoV-2 between samples preserved in viral and bacterial transport medium.

BACKGROUND: While the detection of SARS-CoV-2 in samples preserved in viral transport medium (VTM) by RT-PCR is a standard diagnostic method, this may preclude the study of bacterial respiratory pathogens from the same specimen. It is unclear if the use of skim milk, tryptone, glucose, and glycerin (STGG) transport media, used for study of respiratory bacteria, allows an efficient and concurrent study of SARS-CoV-2 infections. OBJECTIVES: To determine the concordance in SARS-CoV-2 detection by real time RT-PCR between paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs preserved in STGG and nasal (NS) swabs preserved in VTM. STUDY DESIGN: Paired samples of NP and NS swabs were collected between December 2020 and March 2021 from a prospective longitudinal cohort study of 44 households and 132 participants from a peri-urban community (Lima, Peru). NP and NS swabs were taken from all participants once and twice per week, respectively, independent of respiratory symptoms. STGG medium was used for NP samples and VTM for NS samples. Samples were analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR for N, S and ORF1ab targets. We calculated the concordance in detections between sample types and compared the RT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct). RESULTS: Among the 148 paired samples, we observed a high concordance in detections between NP and NS samples (agreement = 94.59%; Kappa = 0.79). Median Ct values were statistically similar between sample types for each RT-PCR target: N, S and ORF1ab (p = 0.11, p = 0.71 and p = 0.11, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: NP swabs collected in STGG medium are reliable alternatives to nasal swabs collected in VTM for the study of SARS-CoV-2.

SARS-CoV-2 infections in households in a peri-urban community of Lima, Peru: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the prevalence and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a prospective study of households in Lima, Peru. METHODS: Households with a child, a young adult 18-50 years, and an adult age >50 years in peri-urban Lima were followed with twice-a-week household visits during a 2-month period. Nasal swabs and saliva specimens were collected twice weekly, and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected weekly from each participant, regardless of symptoms. Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined by two RT-PCR tests from any of the collected specimens within a week. Blood samples collected at enrollment and end of follow-up were tested with rapid serological tests. We calculated the prevalence and incidence of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. RESULTS: We enrolled 132 participants from 44 households: 44 children, 44 young adults, and 44 older adults. A total of 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected in eight households, for an overall period prevalence of 9.85% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.35-16.25). Most (61.54%) infections were symptomatic. Eight of 11 (72.73%) SARS-CoV-2 detections corresponded to the Lambda variant. During 218.79 person-months at risk of follow-up, there were six new SARS-CoV-2 infections detected (2.74 per 100 person-month, 95% CI: 1.25-6.04). At enrollment, 59 of 128 participants tested had positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG serology (46.09%, 95% CI: 37.25-55.12). Five of six new infections occurred among participants with negative baseline serology. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated high incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in households, especially among subjects without evidence of prior infection, most of them not detected by the Ministry of Health system.

Social contact patterns and implications for infectious disease transmission - a systematic review and meta-analysis of contact surveys.

Background: Transmission of respiratory pathogens such as SARS-CoV-2 depends on patterns of contact and mixing across populations. Understanding this is crucial to predict pathogen spread and the effectiveness of control efforts. Most analyses of contact patterns to date have focused on high-income settings. Methods: Here, we conduct a systematic review and individual-participant meta-analysis of surveys carried out in low- and middle-income countries and compare patterns of contact in these settings to surveys previously carried out in high-income countries. Using individual-level data from 28,503 participants and 413,069 contacts across 27 surveys, we explored how contact characteristics (number, location, duration, and whether physical) vary across income settings. Results: Contact rates declined with age in high- and upper-middle-income settings, but not in low-income settings, where adults aged 65+ made similar numbers of contacts as younger individuals and mixed with all age groups. Across all settings, increasing household size was a key determinant of contact frequency and characteristics, with low-income settings characterised by the largest, most intergenerational households. A higher proportion of contacts were made at home in low-income settings, and work/school contacts were more frequent in high-income strata. We also observed contrasting effects of gender across income strata on the frequency, duration, and type of contacts individuals made. Conclusions: These differences in contact patterns between settings have material consequences for both spread of respiratory pathogens and the effectiveness of different non-pharmaceutical interventions. Funding: This work is primarily being funded by joint Centre funding from the UK Medical Research Council and DFID (MR/R015600/1).

Infectious diseases, particularly those caused by airborne pathogens like SARS-CoV-2, spread by social contact, and understanding how people mix is critical in controlling outbreaks. To explore these patterns, researchers typically carry out large contact surveys. Participants are asked for personal information (such as gender, age and occupation), as well as details of recent social contacts, usually those that happened in the last 24 hours. This information includes, the age and gender of the contact, where the interaction happened, how long it lasted, and whether it involved physical touch. These kinds of surveys help scientists to predict how infectious diseases might spread. But there is a problem: most of the data come from high-income countries, and there is evidence to suggest that social contact patterns differ between places. Therefore, data from these countries might not be useful for predicting how infections spread in lower-income regions. Here, Mousa et al. have collected and combined data from 27 contact surveys carried out before the COVID-19 pandemic to see how baseline social interactions vary between high- and lower-income settings. The comparison revealed that, in higher-income countries, the number of daily contacts people made decreased with age. But, in lower-income countries, younger and older individuals made similar numbers of contacts and mixed with all age groups. In higher-income countries, more contacts happened at work or school, while in low-income settings, more interactions happened at home and people were also more likely to live in larger, intergenerational households. Mousa et al. also found that gender affected how long contacts lasted and whether they involved physical contact, both of which are key risk factors for transmitting airborne pathogens. These findings can help researchers to predict how infectious diseases might spread in different settings. They can also be used to assess how effective non-medical restrictions, like shielding of the elderly and workplace closures, will be at reducing transmissions in different parts of the world.

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. METHODS: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18-60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 µg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020-003998-22, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0-61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5-86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18-60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2-64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac.

Evaluation of post-introduction COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness: Summary of interim guidance of the World Health Organization.

Phase 3 randomized-controlled trials have provided promising results of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, ranging from 50 to 95% against symptomatic disease as the primary endpoints, resulting in emergency use authorization/listing for several vaccines. However, given the short duration of follow-up during the clinical trials, strict eligibility criteria, emerging variants of concern, and the changing epidemiology of the pandemic, many questions still remain unanswered regarding vaccine performance. Post-introduction vaccine effectiveness evaluations can help us to understand the vaccine's effect on reducing infection and disease when used in real-world conditions. They can also address important questions that were either not studied or were incompletely studied in the trials and that will inform evolving vaccine policy, including assessment of the duration of effectiveness; effectiveness in key subpopulations, such as the very old or immunocompromised; against severe disease and death due to COVID-19; against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern; and with different vaccination schedules, such as number of doses and varying dosing intervals. WHO convened an expert panel to develop interim best practice guidance for COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness evaluations. We present a summary of the interim guidance, including discussion of different study designs, priority outcomes to evaluate, potential biases, existing surveillance platforms that can be used, and recommendations for reporting results.