Sources of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure among healthcare personnel (HCP) in a large tertiary-care medical center.

Objectives: To describe the burden and sources of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare personnel (HCP), such as occupational role, work setting, vaccination status, and patient contact between March 2020 through May 2022. Design: Active prospective surveillance. Setting: Large tertiary-care teaching institution with inpatient and ambulatory care services. Results: We identified 4,430 cases among HCPs between March 1, 2020, through May 31, 2022. The median age of this cohort was 37 years (range, 18-89); 2,840 (64.1%) were female; and 2,907 (65.6%) were white. Most of the infected HCP were in the general medicine department, followed by ancillary departments and support staff. Less than 10% of HCP SARS-CoV-2-positive cases worked on a COVID-19 unit. Of the reported SARS-CoV-2 exposures, 2,571 (58.0%) were from an unknown source, 1,185 (26.8%) were from a household source, 458 (10.3%) were from a community source, and 211 (4.8%) were healthcare exposures. A higher proportion of cases with reported healthcare exposures was vaccinated with only 1 or 2 doses, whereas a higher proportion of cases with reported household exposure was vaccinated and boosted, and a higher proportion of community cases with reported and unknown exposures were unvaccinated (P < .0001). HCP exposure to SARS-CoV-2 correlated with community-level transmission regardless of type of reported exposure. Conclusions: The healthcare setting was not an important source of perceived COVID-19 exposure among our HCPs. Most HCPs were not able to definitively identify the source of their COVID-19, followed by suspected household and community exposures. HCP with community or unknown exposure were more likely to be unvaccinated.

Bivalent Omicron BA.1-Adapted BNT162b2 Booster in Adults Older than 55 Years.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of immune-escape variants of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 warrants the use of sequence-adapted vaccines to provide protection against coronavirus disease 2019. METHODS: In an ongoing phase 3 trial, adults older than 55 years who had previously received three 30-µg doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine were randomly assigned to receive 30 µg or 60 µg of BNT162b2, 30 µg or 60 µg of monovalent B.1.1.529 (omicron) BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (monovalent BA.1), or 30 µg (15 µg of BNT162b2 + 15 µg of monovalent BA.1) or 60 µg (30 µg of BNT162b2 + 30 µg of monovalent BA.1) of BA.1-adapted BNT162b2 (bivalent BA.1). Primary objectives were to determine superiority (with respect to 50% neutralizing titer [NT50] against BA.1) and noninferiority (with respect to seroresponse) of the BA.1-adapted vaccines to BNT162b2 (30 µg). A secondary objective was to determine noninferiority of bivalent BA.1 to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain. Exploratory analyses assessed immune responses against omicron BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 subvariants. RESULTS: A total of 1846 participants underwent randomization. At 1 month after vaccination, bivalent BA.1 (30 µg and 60 µg) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) showed neutralizing activity against BA.1 superior to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), with NT50 geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 1.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17 to 2.08), 1.97 (95% CI, 1.45 to 2.68), and 3.15 (95% CI, 2.38 to 4.16), respectively. Bivalent BA.1 (both doses) and monovalent BA.1 (60 µg) were also noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to seroresponse against BA.1; between-group differences ranged from 10.9 to 29.1 percentage points. Bivalent BA.1 (either dose) was noninferior to BNT162b2 (30 µg) with respect to neutralizing activity against the ancestral strain, with NT50 GMRs of 0.99 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.20) and 1.30 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.58), respectively. BA.4-BA.5 and BA.2.75 neutralizing titers were numerically higher with 30-µg bivalent BA.1 than with 30-µg BNT162b2. The safety profile of either dose of monovalent or bivalent BA.1 was similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg). Adverse events were more common in the 30-µg monovalent-BA.1 (8.5%) and 60-µg bivalent-BA.1 (10.4%) groups than in the other groups (3.6 to 6.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The candidate monovalent or bivalent omicron BA.1-adapted vaccines had a safety profile similar to that of BNT162b2 (30 µg), induced substantial neutralizing responses against ancestral and omicron BA.1 strains, and, to a lesser extent, neutralized BA.4, BA.5, and BA.2.75 strains. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04955626.).

Systemic Cancer Therapy Does Not Significantly Impact Early Vaccine-Elicited SARS-CoV-2 Immunity in Patients with Solid Tumors.

mRNA vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in individuals with cancer. It is unclear, however, if systemic anti-cancer therapy impacts the coordinated cellular and humoral immune responses elicited by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines. To fill this knowledge gap, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-elicited immunity in a cohort of patients with advanced solid tumors either under observation or receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy. This analysis revealed that SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine-elicited cellular and humoral immunity was not significantly different in individuals with cancer receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy relative to individuals under observation. Furthermore, even though some patients exhibited suboptimal antibody titers after vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 specific cellular immune responses were still detected. These data suggest that antibody titers offer an incomplete picture of vaccine-elicited SARS-CoV-2 immunity in cancer patients undergoing active systemic anti-cancer therapy, and that vaccine-elicited cellular immunity exists even in the absence of significant quantities of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies.

Simultaneous analysis of antigen-specific B and T cells after SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination.

Conventional methods for quantifying and phenotyping antigen-specific lymphocytes can rapidly deplete irreplaceable specimens. This is due to the fact that antigen-specific T and B cells have historically been analyzed in independent assays each requiring millions of cells. A technique that facilitates the simultaneous detection of antigen-specific T and B cells would allow for more thorough immune profiling with significantly reduced sample requirements. To this end, we developed the B and T cell tandem lymphocyte evaluation (BATTLE) assay, which allows for the simultaneous identification of SARS-CoV-2 Spike reactive T and B cells using an activation induced marker (AIM) T cell assay and dual-color B cell antigen probes. Using this assay, we demonstrate that antigen-specific B and T cell subsets can be identified simultaneously using conventional flow cytometry platforms and provide insight into the differential effects of mRNA vaccination on B and T cell populations following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Healthcare Personnel (HCP) Attitudes About Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination After Emergency Use Authorization.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intent among healthcare personnel (HCP) before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees between 21 February and 19 March 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent, and acceptance. RESULTS: Overall, 3981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), whereas staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all > 80% vaccine acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.

Efficacy and safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in participants with a history of cancer: subgroup analysis of a global phase 3 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with an underlying malignancy have high risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes. In clinical trials, COVID-19 vaccines were safe and efficacious against infection, hospitalization, and death, but most trials excluded participants with cancer. We report results from participants with a history of past or active neoplasm (malignant or benign/unknown) and up to 6 months' follow-up post-dose 2 from the placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial of the 2-dose BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2020-January 2021, 46,429 participants aged ≥ 12 years were randomized at 152 sites in 6 countries. Healthy participants with pre-existing stable neoplasm could participate; those receiving immunosuppressive therapy were excluded. Data are reported for participants, aged ≥ 16 years for safety and ≥ 12 years for efficacy, who had any history of neoplasm at baseline (data cut-off: March 13, 2021). Adverse-event (AE) data are controlled for follow-up time before unblinding and reported as incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years follow-up. RESULTS: At baseline, 3813 participants had a history of neoplasm; most common malignancies were breast (n = 460), prostate (n = 362), and melanoma (n = 223). Four BNT162b2 and 71 placebo recipients developed COVID-19 from 7 days post-dose 2; vaccine efficacy was 94.4% (95% CI: 85.2, 98.5) after up to 6 months' follow-up post-dose 2. This compares favorably with vaccine efficacy of 91.1% in the overall trial population after the same follow-up. AEs were reported at IRs of 95.4(BNT162b2) and 48.3 (placebo) per 100 person-years. Most common AEs were reactogenicity events (injection-site pain, fatigue, pyrexia). Three BNT162b2 and 1 placebo recipients withdrew because of vaccine-related AEs. No vaccine-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: In participants with past or active neoplasms, BNT162b2 vaccine has a similar efficacy and safety profile as in the overall trial population. These results can inform BNT162b2 use during the COVID-19 pandemic and future trials in participants with cancer. Clinical trial number: NCT04368728.

Assessment of US Healthcare Personnel Attitudes Towards Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination in a Large University Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: As a priority group, healthcare personnel (HCP) will be key to the success of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programs. This study assessed HCP willingness to get vaccinated and identified specific concerns that would undermine vaccination efforts. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees, between 23 November and 5 December 2020. The survey evaluated attitudes, beliefs, and willingness to get vaccinated. RESULTS: There were 5287 respondents with a mean (SD) age of 42.5 (13.56) years; 72.8% were female (n = 3842). Overall, 57.5 % of individuals expressed intent to receive COVID-19 vaccine; 80.4% were physicians and scientists representing the largest group. 33.6% of registered nurses, 31.6% of allied health professionals, and 32% of master's level clinicians were unsure they would take the vaccine (P < .001). Respondents who were older, male, White, or Asian were more likely to get vaccinated than other groups. Vaccine safety, potential adverse events, efficacy, and speed of vaccine development dominated concerns listed by participants. Fewer (54.0%) providers of direct care versus non-care providers (62.4%) and 52.0% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients (vs 60.6% of those who had not) indicated they would take the vaccine if offered (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We observed that self-reported willingness to receive vaccination against COVID-19 differs by hospital roles, with physicians and research scientists showing the highest acceptance. These findings highlight important heterogeneity in personal attitudes among HCPs around COVID-19 vaccines and highlight a need for tailored communication strategies.

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine through 6 Months.

BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine encoding a prefusion-stabilized, membrane-anchored severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) full-length spike protein. BNT162b2 is highly efficacious against coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) and is currently approved, conditionally approved, or authorized for emergency use worldwide. At the time of initial authorization, data beyond 2 months after vaccination were unavailable. METHODS: In an ongoing, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, multinational, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned 44,165 participants 16 years of age or older and 2264 participants 12 to 15 years of age to receive two 30-µg doses, at 21 days apart, of BNT162b2 or placebo. The trial end points were vaccine efficacy against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety, which were both evaluated through 6 months after vaccination. RESULTS: BNT162b2 continued to be safe and have an acceptable adverse-event profile. Few participants had adverse events leading to withdrawal from the trial. Vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 91.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.0 to 93.2) through 6 months of follow-up among the participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection who could be evaluated. There was a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy. Vaccine efficacy of 86 to 100% was seen across countries and in populations with diverse ages, sexes, race or ethnic groups, and risk factors for Covid-19 among participants without evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vaccine efficacy against severe disease was 96.7% (95% CI, 80.3 to 99.9). In South Africa, where the SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.351 (or beta) was predominant, a vaccine efficacy of 100% (95% CI, 53.5 to 100) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Through 6 months of follow-up and despite a gradual decline in vaccine efficacy, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety profile and was highly efficacious in preventing Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Safety, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 Covid-19 Vaccine in Adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Until very recently, vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had not been authorized for emergency use in persons younger than 16 years of age. Safe, effective vaccines are needed to protect this population, facilitate in-person learning and socialization, and contribute to herd immunity. METHODS: In this ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded trial, we randomly assigned participants in a 1:1 ratio to receive two injections, 21 days apart, of 30 µg of BNT162b2 or placebo. Noninferiority of the immune response to BNT162b2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants as compared with that in 16-to-25-year-old participants was an immunogenicity objective. Safety (reactogenicity and adverse events) and efficacy against confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19; onset, ≥7 days after dose 2) in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 2260 adolescents 12 to 15 years of age received injections; 1131 received BNT162b2, and 1129 received placebo. As has been found in other age groups, BNT162b2 had a favorable safety and side-effect profile, with mainly transient mild-to-moderate reactogenicity (predominantly injection-site pain [in 79 to 86% of participants], fatigue [in 60 to 66%], and headache [in 55 to 65%]); there were no vaccine-related serious adverse events and few overall severe adverse events. The geometric mean ratio of SARS-CoV-2 50% neutralizing titers after dose 2 in 12-to-15-year-old participants relative to 16-to-25-year-old participants was 1.76 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47 to 2.10), which met the noninferiority criterion of a lower boundary of the two-sided 95% confidence interval greater than 0.67 and indicated a greater response in the 12-to-15-year-old cohort. Among participants without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, no Covid-19 cases with an onset of 7 or more days after dose 2 were noted among BNT162b2 recipients, and 16 cases occurred among placebo recipients. The observed vaccine efficacy was 100% (95% CI, 75.3 to 100). CONCLUSIONS: The BNT162b2 vaccine in 12-to-15-year-old recipients had a favorable safety profile, produced a greater immune response than in young adults, and was highly effective against Covid-19. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; C4591001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Persistent COVID-19 Symptoms Minimally Impact the Development of SARS-CoV-2-Specific T Cell Immunity.

SARS-CoV-2 represents an unprecedented public health challenge. While the majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 resolve their infection with few complications, some individuals experience prolonged symptoms lasting for weeks after initial diagnosis. Persistent viral infections are commonly accompanied by immunologic dysregulation, but it is unclear if persistent COVID-19 impacts the development of virus-specific cellular immunity. To this end, we analyzed SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular immunity in convalescent COVID-19 patients who experienced eight days or fewer of COVID-19 symptoms or symptoms persisting for 18 days or more. We observed that persistent COVID-19 symptoms were not associated with the development of an overtly dysregulated cellular immune response. Furthermore, we observed that reactivity against the N protein from SARS-CoV-2 correlates with the amount of reactivity against the seasonal human coronaviruses 229E and NL63. These results provide insight into the processes that regulate the development of cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 and related human coronaviruses.

Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the resulting coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) have afflicted tens of millions of people in a worldwide pandemic. Safe and effective vaccines are needed urgently. METHODS: In an ongoing multinational, placebo-controlled, observer-blinded, pivotal efficacy trial, we randomly assigned persons 16 years of age or older in a 1:1 ratio to receive two doses, 21 days apart, of either placebo or the BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (30 µg per dose). BNT162b2 is a lipid nanoparticle-formulated, nucleoside-modified RNA vaccine that encodes a prefusion stabilized, membrane-anchored SARS-CoV-2 full-length spike protein. The primary end points were efficacy of the vaccine against laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and safety. RESULTS: A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo. There were 8 cases of Covid-19 with onset at least 7 days after the second dose among participants assigned to receive BNT162b2 and 162 cases among those assigned to placebo; BNT162b2 was 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 (95% credible interval, 90.3 to 97.6). Similar vaccine efficacy (generally 90 to 100%) was observed across subgroups defined by age, sex, race, ethnicity, baseline body-mass index, and the presence of coexisting conditions. Among 10 cases of severe Covid-19 with onset after the first dose, 9 occurred in placebo recipients and 1 in a BNT162b2 recipient. The safety profile of BNT162b2 was characterized by short-term, mild-to-moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: A two-dose regimen of BNT162b2 conferred 95% protection against Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. Safety over a median of 2 months was similar to that of other viral vaccines. (Funded by BioNTech and Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04368728.).

Social Distancing Metrics and Estimates of SARS-CoV-2 Transmission Rates: Associations Between Mobile Telephone Data Tracking and R.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In the absence of robust preventive or curative strategies, the implementation of social distancing has been a key component of limiting the spread of the virus. METHODS: Daily estimates of R(t) were calculated and compared with measures of social distancing made publicly available by Unacast. Daily generated variables representing an overall grade for distancing, changes in distances traveled, encounters between individuals, and daily visitation, were modeled as predictors of average R value for the following week, using linear regression techniques for 8 counties surrounding the city of Syracuse, New York. Supplementary analysis examined differences between counties. RESULTS: A total of 225 observations were available across the 8 counties, with 166 meeting the mean R(t) < 3 outlier criterion for the regression models. Measurements for distance (ß = 1.002, P = .012), visitation (ß = .887, P = .017), and encounters (ß = 1.070, P = .001) were each predictors of R(t) for the following week. Mean R(t) drops when overall distancing grades move from D+ to C-. These trends were significant (P < .001 for each). CONCLUSIONS: Social distancing, when assessed by free and publicly available measures such as those shared by Unacast, has an impact on viral transmission rates. The scorecard may also be useful for public messaging about social distance, in hospital planning, and in the interpretation of epidemiological models.

Biosafety at Home: How to Translate Biomedical Laboratory Safety Precautions for Everyday Use in the Context of COVID-19.

Population adoption of social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic is at times deficient, increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Healthcare workers and those living in areas of intense transmission may benefit from implementing biosafety measures in their daily lives. A mixed-methods approach, combining components of single negotiation text and the Delphi method, was used to create a COVID-19 biosafety-at-home protocol. A consensus building coordinator liaised with 12 experts to develop the protocol over 11 iterations. Experts had more than 200 years of combined experience in epidemiology, virology, infectious disease prevention, and public health. A flyer, created from the final protocol, was professionally designed and initially distributed via social media and institutional websites/emails in Ecuador beginning on May 2, 2020. Since then, it has been distributed in other countries, reaching ∼7,000 people. Translating research laboratory biosafety measures for the home/street environment might be challenging. The biosafety-at-home flyer addresses this challenge in a user-friendly format.