Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Vaccine ; 40(33): 4845-4855, 2022 Aug 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1915068

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination reduces SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission. However, evidence is emerging on the degree of protection across variants and in high-transmission settings. To better understand the protection afforded by vaccination specifically in a high-transmission setting, we examined household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during a period of high community incidence with predominant SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant, among vaccinated and unvaccinated contacts. METHODS: We conducted a household transmission investigation in San Diego County, California, and Denver, Colorado, during January-April 2021. Households were enrolled if they had at least one person with documented SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected nasopharyngeal swabs, blood, demographic information, and vaccination history from all consenting household members. We compared infection risks (IRs), RT-PCR cycle threshold values, SARS-CoV-2 culture results, and antibody statuses among vaccinated and unvaccinated household contacts. RESULTS: We enrolled 493 individuals from 138 households. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was identified from 121/138 households (88%). The most common variants were Alpha (75/121, 62%) and Epsilon (19/121, 16%). There were no households with discordant lineages among household members. One fully vaccinated secondary case was symptomatic (13%); the other 5 were asymptomatic (87%). Among unvaccinated secondary cases, 105/108 (97%) were symptomatic. Among 127 households with a single primary case, the IR for household contacts was 45% (146/322; 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 40-51%). The observed IR was higher in unvaccinated (130/257, 49%, 95% CI 45-57%) than fully vaccinated contacts (6/26, 23%, 95% CI 11-42%). A lower proportion of households with a fully vaccinated primary case had secondary cases (1/5, 20%) than households with an unvaccinated primary case (66/108, 62%). CONCLUSIONS: Although SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated household contacts were reported in this high transmission setting, full vaccination protected against SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings further support the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination and highlight the need for ongoing vaccination among eligible persons.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , California/epidemiology , Colorado/epidemiology , Humans
2.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2022 Feb 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1883003

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In Spring 2021, SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 (Alpha) became the predominant variant in the U.S. Research suggests that Alpha has increased transmissibility compared to non-Alpha lineages. We estimated household secondary infection risk (SIR), assessed characteristics associated with transmission, and compared symptoms of persons with Alpha and non-Alpha infections. METHODS: We followed households with SARS-CoV-2 infection for two weeks in San Diego County and metropolitan Denver, January to April 2021. We collected epidemiologic information and biospecimens for serology, RT-PCR, and whole genome sequencing. We stratified SIR and symptoms by lineage, and identified characteristics associated with transmission using Generalized Estimating Equations. RESULTS: We investigated 127 households with 322 household contacts; 72 households (56.7%) had member(s) with secondary infections. SIRs were not significantly higher for Alpha (61.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52.4-69.0%]) than non-Alpha (55.6% [CI 44.7-65.9%], P = 0.49). In households with Alpha, persons who identified as Asian or Hispanic/Latino had significantly higher SIRs than those who identified as White (P = 0.01 and 0.03, respectively). Close contact (e.g., kissing, hugging) with primary cases was associated with increased transmission for all lineages. Persons with Alpha infection were more likely to report constitutional symptoms than persons with non-Alpha (86.9% vs. 76.8%, P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Household SIRs were similar for Alpha and non-Alpha. Comparable SIRs may be due to saturation of transmission risk in households owing to extensive close contact, or true lack of difference in transmission rates. Avoiding close contact within households may reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission for all lineages among household members.

3.
J Pediatr ; 2022 Apr 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1873172

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To assess the household secondary infection risk (SIR) of B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and non-Alpha lineages of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among children. STUDY DESIGN: During January to April 2021, we prospectively followed households with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. We collected questionnaires, serial nasopharyngeal swabs for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing and whole genome sequencing, and serial blood samples for serology testing. We calculated SIRs by primary case age (pediatric vs adult), household contact age, and viral lineage. We evaluated risk factors associated with transmission and described symptom profiles among children. RESULTS: Among 36 households with pediatric primary cases, 21 (58%) had secondary infections. Among 91 households with adult primary cases, 51 (56%) had secondary infections. SIRs among pediatric and adult primary cases were 45% and 54%, respectively (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.41-1.54). SIRs among pediatric primary cases with Alpha and non-Alpha lineage were 55% and 46%, respectively (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.51-4.53). SIRs among pediatric and adult household contacts were 55% and 49%, respectively (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68-1.50). Among pediatric contacts, no significant differences in the odds of acquiring infection by demographic or household characteristics were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from children and adult primary cases to household members was frequent. The risk of secondary infection was similar among child and adult household contacts. Among children, household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and the risk of secondary infection was not influenced by lineage. Continued mitigation strategies (eg, masking, physical distancing, vaccination) are needed to protect at-risk groups regardless of virus lineage circulating in communities.

4.
J Clin Microbiol ; 60(1): e0174221, 2022 01 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1629698

ABSTRACT

Point-of-care antigen tests are an important tool for SARS-CoV-2 detection. Antigen tests are less sensitive than real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). Data on the performance of the BinaxNOW antigen test compared to rRT-PCR and viral culture by symptom and known exposure status, timing during disease, or exposure period and demographic variables are limited. During 3 to 17 November 2020, we collected paired upper respiratory swab specimens to test for SARS-CoV-2 by rRT-PCR and Abbott BinaxNOW antigen test at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona. We administered a questionnaire to capture symptoms, known exposure status, and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Specimens positive by either test were analyzed by viral culture. Previously we showed overall BinaxNOW sensitivity was 52.5%. Here, we showed BinaxNOW sensitivity increased to 65.7% among currently symptomatic individuals reporting a known exposure. BinaxNOW sensitivity was lower among participants with a known exposure and previously symptomatic (32.4%) or never symptomatic (47.1%) within 14 days of testing. Sensitivity was 71.1% in participants within a week of symptom onset. In participants with a known exposure, sensitivity was highest 8 to 10 days postexposure (75%). The positive predictive value for recovery of virus in cell culture was 56.7% for BinaxNOW-positive and 35.4% for rRT-PCR-positive specimens. Result reporting time was 2.5 h for BinaxNOW and 26 h for rRT-PCR. Point-of-care antigen tests have a shorter turnaround time than laboratory-based nucleic acid amplification tests, which allows for more rapid identification of infected individuals. Antigen test sensitivity limitations are important to consider when developing a testing program.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antigens, Viral , Humans , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity
5.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(10): 2662-2665, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1486732

ABSTRACT

We used the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card to screen 1,540 asymptomatic college students for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in a low-prevalence setting. Compared with reverse transcription PCR, BinaxNOW showed 20% overall sensitivity; among participants with culturable virus, sensitivity was 60%. BinaxNOW provides point-of-care screening but misses many infections.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Point-of-Care Systems , Sensitivity and Specificity , Students
6.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 12330, 2021 06 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1265968

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 emerged in late 2019 and has since spread around the world, causing a pandemic of the respiratory disease COVID-19. Detecting antibodies against the virus is an essential tool for tracking infections and developing vaccines. Such tests, primarily utilizing the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) principle, can be either qualitative (reporting positive/negative results) or quantitative (reporting a value representing the quantity of specific antibodies). Quantitation is vital for determining stability or decline of antibody titers in convalescence, efficacy of different vaccination regimens, and detection of asymptomatic infections. Quantitation typically requires two-step ELISA testing, in which samples are first screened in a qualitative assay and positive samples are subsequently analyzed as a dilution series. To overcome the throughput limitations of this approach, we developed a simpler and faster system that is highly automatable and achieves quantitation in a single-dilution screening format with sensitivity and specificity comparable to those of ELISA.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Animals , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/economics , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/economics , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Immunoglobulin M/blood , Immunoglobulin M/immunology , Mice , SARS-CoV-2/immunology
7.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 70(3): 100-105, 2021 Jan 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1040195

ABSTRACT

Rapid antigen tests, such as the Abbott BinaxNOW COVID-19 Ag Card (BinaxNOW), offer results more rapidly (approximately 15-30 minutes) and at a lower cost than do highly sensitive nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) (1). Rapid antigen tests have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for use in symptomatic persons (2), but data are lacking on test performance in asymptomatic persons to inform expanded screening testing to rapidly identify and isolate infected persons (3). To evaluate the performance of the BinaxNOW rapid antigen test, it was used along with real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing to analyze 3,419 paired specimens collected from persons aged ≥10 years at two community testing sites in Pima County, Arizona, during November 3-17, 2020. Viral culture was performed on 274 of 303 residual real-time RT-PCR specimens with positive results by either test (29 were not available for culture). Compared with real-time RT-PCR testing, the BinaxNOW antigen test had a sensitivity of 64.2% for specimens from symptomatic persons and 35.8% for specimens from asymptomatic persons, with near 100% specificity in specimens from both groups. Virus was cultured from 96 of 274 (35.0%) specimens, including 85 (57.8%) of 147 with concordant antigen and real-time RT-PCR positive results, 11 (8.9%) of 124 with false-negative antigen test results, and none of three with false-positive antigen test results. Among specimens positive for viral culture, sensitivity was 92.6% for symptomatic and 78.6% for asymptomatic individuals. When the pretest probability for receiving positive test results for SARS-CoV-2 is elevated (e.g., in symptomatic persons or in persons with a known COVID-19 exposure), a negative antigen test result should be confirmed by NAAT (1). Despite a lower sensitivity to detect infection, rapid antigen tests can be an important tool for screening because of their quick turnaround time, lower costs and resource needs, high specificity, and high positive predictive value (PPV) in settings of high pretest probability. The faster turnaround time of the antigen test can help limit transmission by more rapidly identifying infectious persons for isolation, particularly when used as a component of serial testing strategies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , Community Health Services , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Arizona/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL