Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 18 de 18
Filter
1.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 3(1): e13-e21, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1586149

ABSTRACT

Background: Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and related mortality, but the proportion of infected people among those who have survived, and duration of the antibody response to natural infection, is unknown. We determined the prevalence and stability of nucleocapsid antibodies (the standard assay for detection of previous infection) in staff and residents in LTCFs in England. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of residents 65 years or older and of staff 65 years or younger in 201 LTCFs in England between March 1, 2020, and May 7, 2021. Participants were linked to a unique pseudo-identifier based on their UK National Health Service identification number. Serial blood samples were tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein using the Abbott ARCHITECT i-system (Abbott, Maidenhead, UK) immunoassay. Primary endpoints were prevalence and cumulative incidence of antibody positivity, which were weighted to the LTCF population. Incidence rate of loss of antibodies (seroreversion) was estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Findings: 9488 samples were included, 8636 (91·0%) of which could be individually linked to 1434 residents and 3288 staff members. The cumulative incidence of nucleocapsid seropositivity was 34·6% (29·6-40·0) in residents and 26·1% (23·0-29·5) in staff over 11 months. 239 (38·6%) residents and 503 women (81·3%) were included in the antibody-waning analysis, and median follow-up was 149 days (IQR 107-169). The incidence rate of seroreversion was 2·1 per 1000 person-days at risk, and median time to reversion was 242·5 days. Interpretation: At least a quarter of staff and a third of surviving residents were infected with SAR-CoV-2 during the first two waves of the pandemic in England. Nucleocapsid-specific antibodies often become undetectable within the first year following infection, which is likely to lead to marked underestimation of the true proportion of people with previous infection. Given that natural infection might act to boost vaccine responses, better assays to identify natural infection should be developed. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

2.
Preprint | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-297180

ABSTRACT

Background: Age and frailty are risk factors for poor clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, COVID-19 vaccination has been prioritised for this group but there is concern that immune responses may be impaired due to immune senescence and co-morbidity. Methods: We studied antibody and cellular immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in 202 staff and 286 residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF). Due to the high prevalence of previous infection within this environment 50% and 51% of these two groups respectively had serological evidence of prior natural SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: In both staff and residents with previous infection the antibody responses following dual vaccination were strong and equivalent across the age course. In contrast, within infection-naïve donors these responses were reduced by 2.4-fold and 8.1-fold respectively such that values within the resident population were 2.6-fold lower than in staff. Impaired neutralisation of delta variant spike binding was also apparent within donors without prior infection. Spike-specific T cell responses were also markedly enhanced by prior infection and within infection-naive donors were 52% lower within residents compared to staff. Post-vaccine spike-specific CD4+ T cell responses displayed single or dual production of IFN-γ+ and IL-2+ whilst previous infection primed for an extended functional profile with TNF-ɑ+ and CXCL10 production. Interpretation: These data reveal suboptimal post-vaccine immune responses within infection-naïve elderly residents of LTCF and indicate the need for further optimization of immune protection through the use of booster vaccination.

3.
Preprint | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-296511

ABSTRACT

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales. We calculated overcrowding using the measure of persons per room for each household. We considered two primary outcomes: PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: 26,367 participants were included in our analyses. The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (9.0%;99/1,100) and lowest in the under-occupied group (4.2%;980/23,196). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (odds ratio 2.45;95% CI:1.43–4.19;p-value=0.001) and increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (3.32;95% CI:1.54–7.15;p-value<0.001) compared with people living in under-occupied houses. Conclusion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission.

4.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-296012

ABSTRACT

Background Vaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Real-world immunogenicity data are sparse, particularly for ChAdOx1 and in populations with chronic conditions;and given the UK’s extended dosing interval, it is also important to understand antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals following a single dose. Methods Adults aged ≥18 years from households enrolled in Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided capillary blood samples and self-reported vaccination status. Primary outcome variables were quantitative Spike total antibody levels (U/ml) and seropositivity to Spike (≥0.8 U/ml), as per Roche’s Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay. Samples seropositive for Nucleocapsid, and samples taken prior to vaccination, were excluded. Outcomes were analysed by days since vaccination, vaccine type (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1), and a range of self-reported demographic and clinical factors. Results 8,837 vaccinated participants (median age 65 years [IQR: 58, 71]), contributed 17,160 samples (10,508 following ChAdOx1, 6,547 following BNT162b2). Seropositivity to Spike was 96.79% (95% CI 96.42, 97.12) from 28 days following a single dose, reaching 99.34% (98.91, 99.60) from 14 days after a second dose. Seropositivity rates, and Spike-antibody levels rose more quickly following the first dose of BNT162b2, however, were equivalent for both vaccines by 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. There was evidence for lower S-antibody levels with increasing age (p=0.0001). In partially vaccinated 65-79 year-olds, lower S-antibody levels were observed in men compared with women (26.50 vs 44.01 U/ml, p<0.0001), those with any chronic condition (33.8 vs 43.83 U/ml, p<0.0001), diabetes (22.46 vs 36.90 U/ml, p<0.0001), cardiovascular disease (32.9 vs 37.9 U/ml, p=0.0002), obesity (27.2 vs 37.42, p<0.0001), cancer diagnosis (31.39 vs 36.50 U/ml, p=0.0001), particularly those with haematological cancers (7.94 vs 32.50 U/ml, p<0.0001), and for those currently on statin therapy (30.03 vs 39.39, p<0.0001), or on any immunosuppressive therapy (28.7 vs 36.78 U/ml, p<0.0001), particularly those on oral steroids (16.8 vs 36.07, p<0.0001). Following a second dose, high S-antibody titres (≥250U/ml) were observed across all groups. Interpretation A single dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 leads to high Spike seropositivity rates in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals. Observed disparities in antibody levels by vaccine type, age, and comorbidities highlight the importance of ongoing non-pharmaceutical preventative measures for partially vaccinated adults, particularly those who are older and more clinically vulnerable;and high antibody levels across all groups following a second dose demonstrate the importance of complete vaccination. However, the relationship between Spike-antibody levels and protection against COVID-19, and thus the clinical significance of observed disparities, is not yet clear.

5.
Euro Surveill ; 26(46)2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526748

ABSTRACT

We describe the impact of changing epidemiology and vaccine introduction on characteristics of COVID-19 outbreaks in 330 long-term care facilities (LTCF) in England between November 2020 and June 2021. As vaccine coverage in LTCF increased and national incidence declined, the total number of outbreaks and outbreak severity decreased across the LTCF. The number of infected cases per outbreak decreased by 80.6%, while the proportion of outbreaks affecting staff only increased. Our study supports findings of vaccine effectiveness in LTCF.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Long-Term Care , SARS-CoV-2
6.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 2021 Oct 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1467721

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Differential exposure to public activities may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch-a large community cohort study based in England and Wales-reported differential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the autumn-winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: Participants (n=20 120-25 228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during 3 weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants' residential postcode using English or Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed-effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period. RESULTS: Relative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) range across time points: 1.73-8.52), public transport (aRR: 3.13-5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR: 1.09-1.21), essential shops (aRR: 1.09-1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR: 1.15-1.19) across multiple survey periods. CONCLUSION: Differential exposure to essential public activities-such as attending workplaces and visiting essential shops-is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities.

7.
Vaccine ; 39(48): 7108-7116, 2021 11 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1458555

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccination intention is key to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high in England and Wales compared to other countries, but vaccination rate disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern. METHODS: Online survey of prospective household community cohort study participants across England and Wales (Virus Watch). Vaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to 'Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?', collected in December 2020 and February 2021. Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected in January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences on vaccination intention. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14,880 adults reporting across both time points. In December 2020, 1,469 (10%) participants responded 'No' or 'Unsure'. Of these people, 1,266 (86%) changed their mind and responded 'Yes' or 'Already had a COVID-19 vaccine' by February 2021. Vaccination intention increased across all ethnic groups and levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16-24-year-olds more likely to respond "Unsure" or "No" versus "Yes" than 65-74-year-olds in December 2020 (OR: 4.63, 95 %CI: 3.42, 6.27 & OR 7.17 95 %CI: 4.26, 12.07 respectively) and February 2021 (OR: 27.92 95 %CI: 13.79, 56.51 & OR 17.16 95 %CI: 4.12, 71.55). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention weakened, but did not disappear, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Four in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned to accept, or had already accepted, a vaccine.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Adult , Cohort Studies , England , Humans , Intention , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Wales/epidemiology
8.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 2(9): e544-e553, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433991

ABSTRACT

Background: Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination because of the high COVID-19 mortality in this population. Several countries have implemented an extended interval of up to 12 weeks between the first and second vaccine doses to increase population coverage of single-dose vaccination. We aimed to assess the magnitude and quality of adaptive immune responses following a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents and staff. Methods: From the LTCFs participating in the ongoing VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421), staff and residents who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [tozinameran] or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), had pre-vaccination and post-vaccination blood samples (collected between Dec 11, 2020, and Feb 16, 2021), and could be linked to a pseudoidentifier in the COVID-19 Data Store were included in our cohort. Past infection with SARS-CoV-2 was defined on the basis of nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies being detected through a semiquantitative immunoassay, and participants who tested positive on this assay after but not before vaccination were excluded from the study. Processed blood samples were assessed for spike-specific immune responses, including spike-specific IgG antibody titres, T-cell responses to spike protein peptide mixes, and inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from four variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the original strain as well as the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants). Responses before and after vaccination were compared on the basis of age, previous infection status, role (staff or resident), and time since vaccination. Findings: Our cohort comprised 124 participants from 14 LTCFs: 89 (72%) staff (median age 48 years [IQR 35·5-56]) and 35 (28%) residents (87 years [77-90]). Blood samples were collected a median 40 days (IQR 25-47; range 6-52) after vaccination. 30 (24%) participants (18 [20%] staff and 12 [34%] residents) had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants with previous infection had high antibody titres following vaccination that were independent of age (r s=0·076, p=0·70). In participants without evidence of previous infection, titres were negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·434, p<0·0001) and were 8·2-times lower in residents than in staff. This effect appeared to result from a kinetic delay antibody generation in older infection-naive participants, with the negative age correlation disappearing only in samples taken more than 42 days post-vaccination (r s=-0·207, p=0·20; n=40), in contrast to samples taken after 0-21 days (r s=-0·774, p=0·0043; n=12) or 22-42 days (r s=-0·437, p=0·0034; n=43). Spike-specific cellular responses were similar between older and younger participants. In infection-naive participants, antibody inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·439, p<0·0001), and was significantly lower against spike protein from the B.1.351 variant (median inhibition 31% [14-100], p=0·010) and the P.1 variant (23% [14-97], p<0·0001) than against the original strain (58% [27-100]). By contrast, a single dose of vaccine resulted in around 100% inhibition of the spike-ACE2 interaction against all variants in people with a history of infection. Interpretation: History of SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts the magnitude and quality of antibody response after a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents. Residents who are infection-naive have delayed antibody responses to the first dose of vaccine and should be considered for an early second dose where possible. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

10.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e048042, 2021 06 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1285085

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant global mortality and impacted lives around the world. Virus Watch aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most likely to be effective in reducing transmission and impact of the virus, and will investigate community incidence, symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Virus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales and will run from June 2020 to August 2021. The study aims to recruit 50 000 people, including 12 500 from minority ethnic backgrounds, for an online survey cohort and monthly antibody testing using home fingerprick test kits. Nested within this larger study will be a subcohort of 10 000 individuals, including 3000 people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This cohort of 10 000 people will have full blood serology taken between October 2020 and January 2021 and repeat serology between May 2021 and August 2021. Participants will also post self-administered nasal swabs for PCR assays of SARS-CoV-2 and will follow one of three different PCR testing schedules based on symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hampstead National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (ethics approval number 20/HRA/2320). We are monitoring participant queries and using these to refine methodology where necessary, and are providing summaries and policy briefings of our preliminary findings to inform public health action by working through our partnerships with our study advisory group, Public Health England, NHS and government scientific advisory panels.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Public Health , COVID-19/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Humans , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , State Medicine , Wales/epidemiology
11.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(11): 1529-1538, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1281643

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination. METHODS: The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421. FINDINGS: 10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Nursing Homes/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Immunization Schedule , Incidence , Male , Mass Vaccination/methods , Mass Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Treatment Outcome
12.
Lancet ; 397(10283): 1459-1469, 2021 04 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174548

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. METHODS: A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. FINDINGS: From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13-0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. INTERPRETATION: A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care of the UK Government, Public Health England, The National Institute for Health Research, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Health Personnel , Adult , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , England , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Reinfection , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
13.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 27(4): 1155-1158, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1140631

ABSTRACT

Prospective serosurveillance of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in 1,069 healthcare workers in London, UK, demonstrated that nucleocapsid antibody titers were stable and sustained for <12 weeks in 312 seropositive participants. This finding was consistent across demographic and clinical variables and contrasts with reports of short-term antibody waning.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibody Formation/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins/immunology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19 Serological Testing/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , London/epidemiology , Male , Phosphoproteins/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Seroconversion , Seroepidemiologic Studies
14.
Lancet Glob Health ; 9(5): e590-e592, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1117252
15.
PLoS One ; 16(1): e0245532, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1045570

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding the T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical to vaccine development, epidemiological surveillance and disease control strategies. This systematic review critically evaluates and synthesises the relevant peer-reviewed and pre-print literature published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: For this systematic review, keyword-structured literature searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Papers were independently screened by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements by a third researcher. Data were independently extracted into a pre-designed Excel template and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the MetaQAT tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 61 articles were included. 55 (90%) studies used observational designs, 50 (82%) involved hospitalised patients with higher acuity illness, and the majority had important limitations. Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear. CONCLUSION: A complex pattern of T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection has been demonstrated, but inferences regarding population level immunity are hampered by significant methodological limitations and heterogeneity between studies, as well as a striking lack of research in asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic individuals. In contrast to antibody responses, population-level surveillance of the T cell response is unlikely to be feasible in the near term. Focused evaluation in specific sub-groups, including vaccine recipients, should be prioritised.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , Lymphopenia/pathology , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , T-Lymphocytes/pathology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/virology , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Immunity, Cellular , Lymphopenia/etiology , Lymphopenia/immunology , Lymphopenia/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/virology
16.
PLoS One ; 15(12): e0244126, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1004459

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing , Antibodies, Viral , Antibody Formation , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Neutralizing/immunology , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , Cross Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/metabolism
18.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 15(1): 3-6, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-695884

ABSTRACT

Point-of-care tests (POCTs) offer considerable potential for improving clinical and public health management of COVID-19 by providing timely information to guide decision-making, but data on real-world performance are in short supply. Besides SARS-CoV-2-specific tests, there is growing interest in the role of surrogate (non-specific) tests such as FebriDx, a biochemical POCT which can be used to distinguish viral from bacterial infection in patients with influenza-like illnesses. This short report assesses what is currently known about FebriDx performance across settings and populations by comparison with some of the more intensively evaluated SARS-CoV-2-specific POCTs. While FebriDx shows some potential in supporting triage for early-stage infection in acute care settings, this is dependent on SARS-CoV-2 being the most likely cause for influenza-like illnesses, with reduction in discriminatory power when COVID-19 case numbers are low, and when co-circulating viral respiratory infections become more prevalent during the autumn and winter. Too little is currently known about its performance in primary care and the community to support use in these contexts, and further evaluation is needed. Reliable SARS CoV2-specific POCTs-when they become available-are likely to rapidly overtake surrogates as the preferred option given the greater specificity they provide.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , Point-of-Care Testing , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...