Antibody response of heterologous vs homologous mRNA vaccine boosters against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant: interim results from the PRIBIVAC study, A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Waning antibody levels post-vaccination and the emergence of variants of concern (VOCs) capable of evading protective immunity has raised the need for booster vaccinations. However, which combination of COVID-19 vaccines offers the strongest immune response against Omicron variant is unknown. METHODS: This randomized, subject-blinded, controlled trial assessed the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccine booster combinations. 100 BNT162b2-vaccinated individuals were enrolled and randomized 1: 1 to either homologous (BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + BNT162b2; 'BBB') or heterologous mRNA booster vaccine (BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + mRNA-1273; 'BBM'). Primary endpoint was the level of neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and VOCs at Day 28. RESULTS: 51 participants were allocated to BBB and 49 to BBM; 50 and 48 respectively were analyzed for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. At Day 28 post-boost, mean SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titers were lower with BBB (22,382  IU/mL 95% CI, 18,210 to 27,517) vs BBM (29,751  IU/mL 95% CI, 25,281 to 35,011, p = 0.034) as was the median level of neutralizing antibodies: BBB 99.0% (IQR 97.9 to 99.3%) vs BBM 99.3% (IQR 98.8 to 99.5%, p = 0.021). On sub-group analysis, significant differences in mean spike antibody titer and live Omicron neutralization titer was only observed in older adults. Median surrogate neutralizing antibody level against all VOCs was also significantly higher with BBM in older adults, and against Omicron was BBB 72.8% (IQR 54.0 to 84.7%) vs BBM 84.3% (IQR 78.1 to 88.7%, p = 0.0073). Both vaccines were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Heterologous mRNA-1273 booster vaccination induced a stronger neutralizing response against the Omicron variant in older individuals compared with homologous BNT123b2.

Efficient recall of SARS-CoV-2 variant-reactive B cells and T responses in the elderly upon heterologous mRNA vaccines as boosters.

Waning antibody levels against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the emergence of variants of concern highlight the need for booster vaccinations. This is particularly important for the elderly population, who are at a higher risk of developing severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease. While studies have shown increased antibody responses following booster vaccination, understanding the changes in T and B cell compartments induced by a third vaccine dose remains limited. We analyzed the humoral and cellular responses in subjects who received either a homologous messenger RNA(mRNA) booster vaccine (BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + BNT162b2; ''BBB") or a heterologous mRNA booster vaccine (BNT162b2 + BNT162b2 + mRNA-1273; ''BBM") at Day 0 (prebooster), Day 7, and Day 28 (postbooster). Compared with BBB, elderly individuals (≥60 years old) who received the BBM vaccination regimen display higher levels of neutralizing antibodies against the Wuhan and Delta strains along with a higher boost in immunoglobulin G memory B cells, particularly against the Omicron variant. Circulating T helper type 1(Th1), Th2, Th17, and T follicular helper responses were also increased in elderly individuals given the BBM regimen. While mRNA vaccines increase antibody, T cell, and B cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 1 month after receiving the third dose booster, the efficacy of the booster vaccine strategies may vary depending on age group and regimen combination.

Evaluation of the safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccine combinations in healthy individuals: study protocol for a randomized, subject-blinded, controlled phase 3 trial [PRIBIVAC].

BACKGROUND: Over 2021, COVID-19 vaccination programs worldwide focused on raising population immunity through the primary COVID-19 vaccine series. In Singapore, two mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) and the inactivated vaccine CoronaVac are currently authorized under the National Vaccination Programme for use as the primary vaccination series. More than 90% of the Singapore population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine as of December 2021. With the demonstration that vaccine effectiveness wanes in the months after vaccination, and the emergence of Omicron which evades host immunity from prior infection and/or vaccination, attention in many countries has shifted to how best to maintain immunity through booster vaccinations. METHODS: The objectives of this phase 3, randomized, subject-blinded, controlled clinical trial are to assess the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous boost COVID-19 vaccine regimens (intervention groups 1-4) compared with a homologous boost regimen (control arm) in up to 600 adult volunteers. As non-mRNA vaccine candidates may enter the study at different time points depending on vaccine availability and local regulatory approval, participants will be randomized at equal probability to the available intervention arms at the time of randomization. Eligible participants will have received two doses of a homologous mRNA vaccine series with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 at least 6 months prior to enrolment. Participants will be excluded if they have a history of confirmed SARS or SARS-CoV-2 infection, are immunocompromised, or are pregnant. Participants will be monitored for adverse events and serious adverse events by physical examinations, laboratory tests and self-reporting. Blood samples will be collected at serial time points [pre-vaccination/screening (day - 14 to day 0), day 7, day 28, day 180, day 360 post-vaccination] for assessment of antibody and cellular immune parameters. Primary endpoint is the level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike immunoglobulins at day 28 post-booster and will be measured against wildtype SARS-CoV-2 and variants of concern. Comprehensive immune profiling of the humoral and cellular immune response to vaccination will be performed. DISCUSSION: This study will provide necessary data to understand the quantity, quality, and persistence of the immune response to a homologous and heterologous third booster dose of COVID-19 vaccines. This is an important step in developing COVID-19 vaccination programs beyond the primary series. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05142319 . Registered on 2 Dec 2021.

Clinical and Virological Features of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Variants of Concern: A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), and B.1.617.2 (Delta).

BACKGROUND: The impact of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) on disease severity is unclear. In this retrospective study, we compared the outcomes of patients infected with B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and B.1.617.2 with wild-type strains from early 2020. METHODS: National surveillance data from January to May 2021 were obtained and outcomes in relation to VOCs were explored. Detailed patient-level data from all patients with VOC infection admitted to our center between December 2020 and May 2021 were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were compared with a cohort of 846 patients admitted from January to April 2020. RESULTS: A total of 829 patients in Singapore in the study period were infected with these 3 VOCs. After adjusting for age and sex, B.1.617.2 was associated with higher odds of oxygen requirement, intensive care unit admission, or death (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.90; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-30.78). Of these patients, 157 were admitted to our center. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities, and vaccination, the aOR for pneumonia with B.1.617.2 was 1.88 (95% CI: .95-3.76) compared with wild-type. These differences were not seen with B.1.1.7 and B.1.351. Vaccination status was associated with decreased severity. B.1.617.2 was associated with significantly lower polymerase chain reaction cycle threshold (Ct) values and longer duration of Ct value ≤30 (median duration 18 days for B.1.617.2, 13 days for wild-type). CONCLUSIONS: B.1.617.2 was associated with increased severity of illness, and with lower Ct values and longer viral shedding. These findings provide impetus for the rapid implementation of vaccination programs.

Antibiotic Therapy in the Treatment of COVID-19 Pneumonia: Who and When?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 imposes challenges in antibiotic decision-making due to similarities between bacterial pneumonia and moderate to severe COVID-19. We evaluated the effects of antibiotic therapy on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 pneumonia patients and diagnostic accuracy of key inflammatory markers to inform antibiotic decision-making. METHODS: An observational cohort study was conducted in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 at the National Centre for Infectious Diseases and Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, from January to April 2020. Patients were defined as receiving empiric antibiotic treatment for COVID-19 if started within 3 days of diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 717 patients included, 86 (12.0%) were treated with antibiotics and 26 (3.6%) had documented bacterial infections. Among 278 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, those treated with antibiotics had more diarrhoea (26, 34.7% vs. 24, 11.8%, p < 0.01), while subsequent admissions to the intensive care unit were not lower (6, 8.0% vs. 10, 4.9% p = 0.384). Antibiotic treatment was not independently associated with lower 30-day (adjusted odds ratio, aOR 19.528, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.039-367.021) or in-hospital mortality (aOR 3.870, 95% CI 0.433-34.625) rates after adjusting for age, co-morbidities and severity of COVID-19 illness. Compared to white cell count and procalcitonin level, the C-reactive protein level had the best diagnostic accuracy for documented bacterial infections (area under the curve, AUC of 0.822). However, the sensitivity and specificity were less than 90%. CONCLUSION: Empiric antibiotic use in those presenting with COVID-19 pneumonia did not prevent deterioration or mortality. More studies are needed to evaluate strategies to diagnose bacterial co-infections in these patients.

Recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in people with rheumatic disease: Developed by the Singapore Chapter of Rheumatologists.

AIM: People with rheumatic diseases (PRD) remain vulnerable in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. We formulated recommendations to meet the urgent need for a consensus for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in PRD. METHODS: Systematic literature reviews were performed to evaluate: (a) outcomes in PRD with COVID-19; (b) efficacy, immunogenicity and safety of COVID-19 vaccination; and (c) published guidelines/recommendations for non-live, non-COVID-19 vaccinations in PRD. Recommendations were formulated based on the evidence and expert opinion according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RESULTS: The consensus comprises 2 overarching principles and 7 recommendations. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in PRD should be aligned with prevailing national policy and should be individualized through shared decision between the healthcare provider and patient. We strongly recommend that eligible PRD and household contacts be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. We conditionally recommended that the COVID-19 vaccine be administered during quiescent disease if possible. Immunomodulatory drugs, other than rituximab, can be continued alongside vaccination. We conditionally recommend that the COVID-19 vaccine be administered prior to commencing rituximab if possible. For patients on rituximab, the vaccine should be administered a minimum of 6 months after the last dose and/or 4 weeks prior to the next dose of rituximab. Post-vaccination antibody titers against SARS-CoV-2 need not be measured. Any of the approved COVID-19 vaccines may be used, with no particular preference. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide guidance for COVID-19 vaccination in PRD. Most recommendations in this consensus are conditional, reflecting a lack of evidence or low-level evidence.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and transmission risk factors among high-risk close contacts: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of asymptomatic carriers and transmission risk factors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among household and non-household contacts remains unclear. In Singapore, extensive contact tracing by the Ministry of Health for every diagnosed COVID-19 case, and legally enforced quarantine and intensive health surveillance of close contacts provided a rare opportunity to determine asymptomatic attack rates and SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors among community close contacts of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved all close contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Singapore, identified between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020. Household contacts were defined as individuals who shared a residence with the index COVID-19 case. Non-household close contacts were defined as those who had contact for at least 30 min within 2 m of the index case. All patients with COVID-19 in Singapore received inpatient treatment, with access restricted to health-care staff. All close contacts were quarantined for 14 days with thrice-daily symptom monitoring via telephone. Symptomatic contacts underwent PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2. Secondary clinical attack rates were derived from the prevalence of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 among close contacts. Consenting contacts underwent serology testing and detailed exposure risk assessment. Bayesian modelling was used to estimate the prevalence of missed diagnoses and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive cases. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine SARS-CoV-2 transmission risk factors. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23 and April 3, 2020, 7770 close contacts (1863 household contacts, 2319 work contacts, and 3588 social contacts) linked to 1114 PCR-confirmed index cases were identified. Symptom-based PCR testing detected 188 COVID-19 cases, and 7582 close contacts completed quarantine without a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Among 7518 (96·8%) of the 7770 close contacts with complete data, the secondary clinical attack rate was 5·9% (95% CI 4·9-7·1) for 1779 household contacts, 1·3% (0·9-1·9) for 2231 work contacts, and 1·3% (1·0-1·7) for 3508 social contacts. Bayesian analysis of serology and symptom data obtained from 1150 close contacts (524 household contacts, 207 work contacts, and 419 social contacts) estimated that a symptom-based PCR-testing strategy missed 62% (95% credible interval 55-69) of COVID-19 diagnoses, and 36% (27-45) of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection were asymptomatic. Sharing a bedroom (multivariable odds ratio [OR] 5·38 [95% CI 1·82-15·84]; p=0·0023) and being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (7·86 [3·86-16·02]; p<0·0001) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission among household contacts. Among non-household contacts, exposure to more than one case (multivariable OR 3·92 [95% CI 2·07-7·40], p<0·0001), being spoken to by an index case for 30 min or longer (2·67 [1·21-5·88]; p=0·015), and sharing a vehicle with an index case (3·07 [1·55-6·08]; p=0·0013) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Among both household and non-household contacts, indirect contact, meal sharing, and lavatory co-usage were not independently associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission. INTERPRETATION: Targeted community measures should include physical distancing and minimising verbal interactions. Testing of all household contacts, including asymptomatic individuals, is warranted. FUNDING: Ministry of Health of Singapore, National Research Foundation of Singapore, and National Natural Science Foundation of China.

Testing for SARS-CoV-2: Can We Stop at 2?

The COVID-19 epidemic requires accurate identification and isolation of confirmed cases for effective control. This report describes the effectiveness of our testing strategy and highlights the importance of repeat testing in suspected cases in our cohort.

Effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on antimicrobial prevalence and prescribing in a tertiary hospital in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: The deployment of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) teams to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic can lead to a loss of developed frameworks, best practices and leadership resulting in adverse impact on antimicrobial prescribing and resistance. We aim to investigate effects of reduction in AMS resources during the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial prescribing. METHODS: One of 5 full-time equivalent AMS pharmacists was deployed to support pandemic work and AMS rounds with infectious disease physicians were reduced from 5 to 2 times a week. A survey in acute inpatients was conducted using the Global Point Prevalence Survey methodology in July 2020 and compared with those in 2015 and 2017-2019. RESULTS: The prevalence of antimicrobial prescribing (55% in 2015 to 49% in 2019 and 47% in 2020, p = 0.02) and antibacterials (54% in 2015 to 45% in 2019 and 42% in 2020, p < 0.01) have been reducing despite the pandemic. Antimicrobial prescribing in infectious disease wards with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases was 29% in 2020. Overall, antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators continued to improve (e.g. reasons in notes, 91% in 2015 to 94% in 2019 and 97% in 2020, p < 0.01) or remained stable (compliance to guideline, 71% in 2015 to 62% in 2019 and 73% in 2020, p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no increase in antimicrobial prescribing and no significant differences in antimicrobial prescribing quality indicators.

A point prevalence survey to assess antibiotic prescribing in patients hospitalized with confirmed and suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies have reported high antibiotic use in patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), resulting in concerns of increasing antimicrobial resistance with increase antibiotic use in this pandemic. Point prevalence survey (PPS) can be a quick tool to provide antibiotic prescribing information to aid antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) activities. OBJECTIVES: To describe antibiotic utilization and evaluate antibiotic appropriateness in COVID-19 patients using PPS. METHODS: Adapting Global-PPS on antimicrobial use, the survey was conducted in COVID-19 wards at 2 centres in Singapore on 22 April 2020 at 0800h. Patients on systemic antibiotics were included and evaluated for antibiotic appropriateness. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-seven patients were screened. Thirty-six (6.2%) patients were on antibiotics and which were started at median of 7 days (inter-quartile rate (IQR), 4, 11) from symptom onset. Fifty-one antibiotics were prescribed in these patients. Overall, co-amoxiclav (26/51, 51.0%) was the most often prescribed antibiotic. Thirty-one out of 51 (60.8%) antibiotic prescriptions were appropriate. Among 20 inappropriate prescriptions, 18 (90.0%) were initiated in patients with low likelihood of bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescriptions were more appropriate when reviewed by infectious diseases physicians (13/31 [41.9%] versus 2/20 [10.0%], p=0.015), and if reasons for use were stated in notes (31/31 [100.0%] versus 16/20 [80.0%], p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite low prevalence of antibiotic use among confirmed and suspected COVID-19 patients at 2 centres in Singapore, there was significant proportion of inappropriate antibiotics use where bacterial infections were unlikely. AMS teams can tailor stewardship strategies using PPS results.

Associations of viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) shedding patterns with clinical illness and immune responses in Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

OBJECTIVES: A wide range of duration of viral RNA shedding in patients infected with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been observed. We aimed to investigate factors associated with prolonged and intermittent viral RNA shedding in a retrospective cohort of symptomatic COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Demographic, clinical and laboratory data from hospitalised COVID-19 patients from a single centre with two consecutive negative respiratory reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) results were extracted from electronic medical records. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis was used to assess the effect of clinical characteristics on the duration and pattern of shedding. Plasma levels of immune mediators were measured using Luminex multiplex microbead-based immunoassay. RESULTS: There were 201 symptomatic patients included. Median age was 49 years (interquartile range 16-61), and 52.2% were male. Median RNA shedding was 14 days (IQR 9-18). Intermittent shedding was observed in 77 (38.3%). We did not identify any factor associated with prolonged or intermittent viral RNA shedding. Duration of shedding was inversely correlated with plasma levels of T-cell cytokines IL-1ß and IL-17A at the initial phase of infection, and patients had lower levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines during intermittent shedding. CONCLUSIONS: Less active T-cell responses at the initial phase of infection were associated with prolonged viral RNA shedding, suggesting that early immune responses are beneficial to control viral load and prevent viral RNA shedding. Intermittent shedding is common and may explain re-detection of viral RNA in recovered patients.