Third dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine closes the gap in immune response between naïve nursing home residents and healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: Nursing home residents, a frail and old population group, respond poorly to primary mRNA COVID-19 vaccination. A third dose has been shown to boost protection against severe disease and death in this immunosenescent population, but limited data is available on the immune responses it induces. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, peak humoral and cellular immune responses were compared 28 days after the second and third doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in residents and staff members of two Belgian nursing homes. Only individuals without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection at third dose administration were included in the study. In addition, an extended cohort of residents and staff members was tested for immune responses to a third vaccine dose and was monitored for vaccine breakthrough infections in the following six months. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04527614). FINDINGS: All included residents (n = 85) and staff members (n = 88) were SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve at third dose administration. Historical blood samples from 28 days post second dose were available from 42 residents and 42 staff members. Magnitude and quality of humoral and cellular immune responses were strongly boosted in residents post third compared to post second dose. Increases were less pronounced in staff members than in residents. At 28 days post third dose, differences between residents and staff had become mostly insignificant. Humoral, but not cellular, responses induced by a third dose were predictive of subsequent incidence of vaccine breakthrough infection in the six months following vaccination. INTERPRETATION: These data show that a third dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine largely closes the gap in humoral and cellular immune response observed after primary vaccination between NH residents and staff members but suggest that further boosting might be needed to achieve optimal protection against variants of concern in this vulnerable population group.

Performance of five rapid serological tests in mild-diseased subjects using finger prick blood for exposure assessment to SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the performance of five SARS-CoV-2 rapid serological tests (RST) using finger prick (FP) blood on-site to evaluate their usability for exposure assessment in population-based seroprevalence studies. STUDY DESIGN: Since cross-reactivity with common cold human coronaviruses occurs, serological testing includes a risk of false-positive results. Therefore, the selected cohort for RST-validation was based on combined immunoassay (presence of specific antibodies) and RT-qPCR (presence of SARS-CoV-2) data. RST-performance for FP blood and serum was assessed by performing each RST in two groups, namely SARSCoV- 2 positive (n=108) and negative healthcare workers (n=89). Differences in accuracy and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) were calculated for a range (1-50%) of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence estimates. RESULTS: The OrientGene showed overall acceptable performance, with sensitivities of 94.4% and 100%, and specificities of 96.6% and 94.4%, using FP blood and serum, respectively. Although three RST reach optimal specificities (100%), the OrientGene clearly outperforms in sensitivity. At a SARS-CoV-2 prevalence rate of 40%, this RST outperforms the other tests in NPV (96.3%) and reaches comparable PPV (94.9%). Although the specificity of the Covid-Presto is excellent when using FP blood or serum (100% and 97.8%, respectively), its sensitivity decreases when using FP blood (76.9%) compared to serum (98.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Performances of the evaluated RST differ largely. Only one out of five RST (OrientGene) had acceptable sensitivity and specificity using FP blood. Therefore, the latter could be used for seroprevalence studies in a high-prevalence situation. The OrientGene, which measures anti-RBD antibodies, can be valuable after vaccination as well.

Diagnosis of COVID-19 Based on Symptomatic Analysis of Hospital Healthcare Workers in Belgium: Observational Study in a Large Belgian Tertiary Care Center During Early COVID-19 Outbreak.

OBJECTIVE: To identify early symptoms allowing rapid appraisal of infection with SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers of a large Belgian hospital. METHODS: Healthcare workers with mild symptoms of an acute respiratory tract infection were systematically screened on clinical characteristics of corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A nasopharyngeal swab was taken and analyzed by real-time Reverse-Transcription-Polymerase-Chain-Reaction (rRT-PCR). RESULTS: Fifty percent of 373 workers tested COVID-19 positive. The symptoms cough (82%), headache (78%), myalgia (70%), loss of smell or taste (40%), and fever more than or equal to 37.5 °C (76%) were significantly higher among those infected. CONCLUSION: Where each individual symptom contributes to the clinical evaluation of possible infection, it is the combination of COVID-19 symptoms that could allow for a rapid diagnostic appraisal of the disease in a high prevalence setting. Early transmission control is important at the onset of an epidemic.