Risk of air and surface contamination during application of different noninvasive respiratory support for patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the risk of environmental contamination among patients with COVID-19 who received high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), noninvasive ventilation (NIV), and conventional oxygen therapy (COT) via nasal cannula for respiratory failure. METHODS: Air was sampled from the hospital isolation rooms with 12 air changes/hr where 26 patients with COVID-19 received HFNC (up to 60 l/min, n = 6), NIV (n = 6), or COT (up to 5 l/min of oxygen, n = 14). Surface samples were collected from 16 patients during air sampling. RESULTS: Viral RNA was detected at comparable frequency in air samples collected from patients receiving HFNC (3/54, 5.6%), NIV (1/54, 1.9%), and COT (4/117, 3.4%) (P = 0.579). Similarly, the risk of surface contamination was comparable among patients receiving HFNC (3/46, 6.5%), NIV (14/72, 19.4%), and COT (8/59, 13.6%) (P = 0.143). An increment in the cyclic thresholds of the upper respiratory specimen prior to air sampling was associated with a reduced SARS-CoV-2 detection risk in air (odds ratio 0.83 [95% confidence interval 0.69-0.96], P = 0.027) by univariate logistic regression. CONCLUSION: No increased risk of environmental contamination in the isolation rooms was observed in the use of HFNC and NIV vs COT among patients with COVID-19 with respiratory failure. Higher viral load in the respiratory samples was associated with positive air samples.

Omicron BA.1-specific T-cell responses in adults vaccinated with CoronaVac or BNT162b2 in Hong Kong: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of using vaccines in public health responses to SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern is to reduce incidence of severe disease, for which T-cell responses are essential. There is a paucity of data on vaccine-induced T-cell immunity to omicron (B.1.1.529). We aimed to compare SARS-CoV-2 omicron BA.1-specific T-cell responses in adults vaccinated with CoronaVac or BNT162b2. METHODS: For this observational cohort, we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) from three vaccination centres in Hong Kong. We included participants from four cohorts (cohort 1: participants who received two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac, cohort 2: participants who received two doses and a booster, cohort 3: participants who received two doses and a booster and had a breakthrough omicron infection, and cohort 4: participants who had a previous non-omicron infection and subsequently received one dose of vaccine). People with confirmed history of COVID-19 at recruitment were excluded from cohort 1 and cohort 2. We collected blood samples before vaccination (for cohort 1 and 2), 1-month following vaccination (for all cohorts), and during convalescence for cohort 3 and 4) and determined the proportion of IFNγ+CD4+ and IFNγ+CD8+ T cells in peripheral blood against SARS-CoV-2 using flow cytometry with peptide pools of SARS-CoV-2 wild type or omicron BA.1. The primary outcome was proportion of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells against SARS-CoV-2 1 month after exposure (ie, vaccination or breakthrough infection). FINDINGS: Overall, between May 21, 2020, and Aug 31, 2021, we recruited 659 participants (231 [35%] men and 428 [65%] women). Of these participants, 428 were included in cohort 1 (214 [50%] received BNT162b2 and 214 [50%] received CoronaVac); 127 in cohort 2 (48 [38%] received all BNT162b2, 40 [31%] received all CoronaVac, and 39 [31%] received two CoronaVac and a booster with BNT162b2); 58 in cohort 3, and 46 in cohort 4 (16 [35%] received CoronaVac and 30 [65%] received BNT162b2). Vaccine-induced T-cell responses to the wild-type and omicron BA.1 variants were generally similar in adults receiving two doses of either CoronaVac (CD4+ cells p=0·33; CD8+ cells p=0·70) or BNT162b2 (CD4+ cells p=0·28; CD8+ cells p=1·0). Using a peptide pool of all structural proteins for stimulation, BNT162b2 induced a higher median frequency of omicron-specific CD4+ T cells in adults younger than 60 years (CD4+ cells 0·012% vs 0·010%, p=0·031; CD8+ cells 0·003% vs 0·000%, p=0·055) and omicron-specific CD8+ T cells in people aged 60 years or older (CD4+ cells 0·015% vs 0·006%, p=0·0070; CD8+ cells 0·007% vs 0·000%, p=0·035). A booster dose of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac after two doses of CoronaVac boosted waning T-cell responses, but T-cell responses did not exceed those at 1 month after the second dose (CoronaVac CD4+ p=0·41, CD8+ p=0·79; BNT162b2 CD4+ p=0·70 CD8+ p=0·80). INTERPRETATION: The evidence that mRNA and inactivated vaccines based on the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus elicited T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants might explain the high observed vaccine effectiveness against severe COVID-19 shown by both types of vaccine, despite great differences in neutralising antibody responses. The use of either vaccine can be considered if the primary aim is to reduce severity and death caused by the new omicron subvariants; however, BNT162b2 is preferable for adults older than 60 years. FUNDING: The Health and Medical Research Fund Commissioned Research on the Novel Coronavirus Disease and S H Ho Foundation.

Plaque-neutralizing antibody to BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 in individuals with three doses of BioNTech or CoronaVac vaccines, natural infection and breakthrough infection.

BACKGROUND: BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 variant-of-concern (VOC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) are spreading globally. They demonstrate higher transmissibility and immune escape. OBJECTIVES: Determine BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 virus plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) antibody titres in individuals recently vaccinated with BNT162b2 (n = 20) or CoronaVac (n = 20) vaccines or those convalescent from ancestral wild- type (WT) SARS-CoV-2 (n = 20) or BA.2 infections with (n = 17) or without (n = 7) prior vaccination. RESULTS: Relative to neutralization of the WT virus, those vaccinated with BNT162b2 had 4.8, 3.4, 4.6, 11.3 and 15.5-fold reductions of geometric mean antibody titres (GMT) to BA.1, BA.2, BA.2.12.1, BA.4 and BA.5 viruses, respectively. Similarly, those vaccinated with CoronaVac had 8.0, 7.0, 11.8, 12.0 and 12.0 fold GMT reductions and those with two doses of CoronaVac boosted by BNT162b2 had 6.1, 6.7, 6,3, 13.0 and 21.2 fold GMT reductions to these viruses, respectively. Vaccinated individuals with BA.2 breakthrough infections had higher GMT antibody levels vs. BA.4 (36.9) and BA.5 (36.9) than unvaccinated individuals with BA.2 infections (BA.4 GMT 8.2; BA.5 GMT 11.0). CONCLUSIONS: BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants were less susceptible to BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccine elicited antibody neutralization than subvariants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.2.12.1. Nevertheless, three doses BNT162b2 or booster of BNT162b2 following two doses of CoronaVac elicited detectable BA.4 and BA.5 neutralizing antibody responses while those vaccinated with three doses of CoronaVac largely fail to do so. BA.2 infections in vaccinated individuals led to higher levels of BA.4 or BA.5 neutralizing antibody compared to those who were vaccine-naive.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant BA.2 neutralisation in sera of people with Comirnaty or CoronaVac vaccination, infection or breakthrough infection, Hong Kong, 2020 to 2022.

BackgroundOmicron subvariant BA.2 circulation is rapidly increasing globally.AimWe evaluated the neutralising antibody response from vaccination or prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against symptomatic infection by BA.2 or other variants.MethodsUsing 50% plaque reduction neutralisation tests (PRNT50), we assessed neutralising antibody titres to BA.2, wild type (WT) SARS-CoV-2 and other variants in Comirnaty or CoronaVac vaccinees, with or without prior WT-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Titres were also measured for non-vaccinees convalescing from a WT-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Neutralising antibodies in BA.2 and BA.1 breakthrough infections and in BA.2 infections affecting non-vaccinees were additionally studied.ResultsIn vaccinees or prior WT-SARS-CoV-2-infected people, BA.2 and BA.1 PRNT50 titres were comparable but significantly (p < 10 - 5) lower than WT. In each group of 20 vaccinees with (i) three-doses of Comirnaty, (ii) two CoronaVac followed by one Comirnaty dose, or (iii) one dose of either vaccine after a WT-SARS-CoV-2 infection, ≥ 19 individuals developed detectable (PRNT50 titre ≥ 10) antibodies to BA.2, while only 15 of 20 vaccinated with three doses of CoronaVac did. Comirnaty vaccination elicited higher titres to BA.2 than CoronaVac. In people convalescing from a WT-SARS-CoV-2 infection, a single vaccine dose induced higher BA.2 titres than three Comirnaty (p = 0.02) or CoronaVac (p = 0.00001) doses in infection-naïve individuals. BA.2 infections in previously uninfected and unvaccinated individuals elicited low (PRNT50 titre ≤ 80) responses with little cross-neutralisation of other variants. However, vaccinees with BA.1 or BA.2 breakthrough infections had broad cross-neutralising antibodies to WT viruses, and BA.1, BA.2, Beta and Delta variants.ConclusionsExisting vaccines can be of help against the BA.2 subvariant.

Ocular surface disturbance in patients after acute COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the ocular surface disturbances in COVID-19 patients discharged from the hospital. METHODS: One hundred and seventy-nine eyes of 109 healthy participants and 456 eyes of 228 post-COVID-19 patients received comprehensive eye examinations; the latter were interviewed with questionnaires on ocular symptoms before and after COVID-19 diagnosis. Associations of ocular surface manifestations with virological and ophthalmic parameters were evaluated by multivariable mixed linear or logistic regression models. RESULTS: Mean interval between COVID-19 diagnosis and ophthalmic evaluation was 52.23 ± 16.12 days. The severity of meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) based on clinical staging was higher in post-COVID-19 than healthy eyes (1.14 ± 0.67 vs. 0.92 ± 0.68, p = 0.002) and so was ocular surface staining score (0.60 ± 0.69 vs. 0.49 ± 0.68, p = 0.044). Patients requiring supplementary oxygen during hospitalisation had shorter tear break-up time (ß -1.63, 95% CI -2.61 to -0.65). Cycle threshold (Ct) value from upper respiratory samples (inversely correlated with viral load) at diagnosis had an OR = 0.91 (95% CI 0.84-0.98) with new ocular surface symptoms 4 weeks after diagnosis. The presence of ocular surface symptoms 1 week prior to COVID-19 diagnosis showed an OR of 20.89 (95% CI 6.35-68.66) of persistent or new ocular symptoms 4 weeks afterward. CONCLUSIONS: MGD and ocular surface staining are more common and severe in post-COVID-19 patients. Patients with higher viral loads have greater risks of ocular surface symptoms. Patients requiring supplementary oxygen are more likely to show tear film instability. Ocular surface evaluation should be considered 1-3 months following hospital discharge for any COVID-19 patient.

Neutralizing antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant BA.1 following homologous and heterologous CoronaVac or BNT162b2 vaccination.

The Omicron variant is rapidly becoming the dominant SARS-CoV-2 virus circulating globally. It is important to define reductions in virus neutralizing activity in the serum of convalescent or vaccinated individuals to understand potential loss of protection against infection by Omicron. We previously established that a 50% plaque reduction neutralization antibody titer (PRNT50) ≥25.6 in our live virus assay corresponded to the threshold for 50% protection from infection against wild-type (WT) SARS-CoV-2. Here we show markedly reduced serum antibody titers against the Omicron variant (geometric mean titer (GMT) < 10) compared to WT virus 3-5 weeks after two doses of BNT162b2 (GMT = 218.8) or CoronaVac vaccine (GMT = 32.5). A BNT162b2 booster dose elicited Omicron PRNT50 titers ≥25.6 in 88% of individuals (22 of 25) who previously received 2 doses of BNT162b2 and 80% of individuals (24 of 30) who previously received CoronaVac. However, few (3%) previously infected individuals (1 of 30) or those vaccinated with three doses of CoronaVac (1 of 30) met this threshold. Our findings suggest that countries primarily using CoronaVac vaccines should consider messenger RNA vaccine boosters in response to the spread of Omicron. Studies evaluating the effectiveness of different vaccines against the Omicron variant are urgently needed.

Comparison of the immunogenicity of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Few head-to-head evaluations of immune responses to different vaccines have been reported. METHODS: Surrogate virus neutralization test (sVNT) antibody levels of adults receiving either two doses of BNT162b2 (n = 366) or CoronaVac (n = 360) vaccines in Hong Kong were determined. An age-matched subgroup (BNT162b2 [n = 49] vs. CoronaVac [n = 49]) was tested for plaque reduction neutralization (PRNT) and spike-binding antibody and T-cell reactivity in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. RESULTS: One month after the second dose of vaccine, BNT162b2 elicited significantly higher PRNT50 , PRNT90 , sVNT, spike receptor binding, spike N-terminal domain binding, spike S2 domain binding, spike FcR binding and antibody avidity levels than CoronaVac. The geometric mean PRNT50 titres in those vaccinated with BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines were 251.6 and 69.45, while PRNT90 titres were 98.91 and 16.57, respectively. All of those vaccinated with BNT162b2 and 45 (91.8%) of 49 vaccinated with CoronaVac achieved the 50% protection threshold for PRNT90. Allowing for an expected seven-fold waning of antibody titres over 6 months for those receiving CoronaVac, only 16.3% would meet the 50% protection threshold versus 79.6% of BNT162b2 vaccinees. Age was negatively correlated with PRNT90 antibody titres. Both vaccines induced SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses at 1 month post-vaccination but CoronaVac elicited significantly higher structural protein-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses. CONCLUSION: Vaccination with BNT162b2 induces stronger humoral responses than CoronaVac. CoronaVac induces higher CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to the structural protein than BNT162b2.

Collection of lower respiratory specimen by bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of COVID-19.

Bronchoscopy, as an aerosol-generating procedure, is not routinely performed in patients with high-risk of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) owing to potential transmission to healthcare workers. However, to obtain lower respiratory specimens from bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is necessary to confirm COVID-19 or other diagnosis that will change clinical management. We report a case of diagnostic difficulty with five negative SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR testing in four upper respiratory tract and one stool samples following presentation with fever during the quarantine period and a strong epidemiological linkage to an index patient with COVID-19. The final diagnosis was confirmed by BAL. Special precautions to be taken when performing bronchoscopy in high-risk non-intubated patients were discussed.