Impaired immunity and high attack rates caused by SARS-CoV-2 variants among vaccinated long-term care facility residents.

INTRODUCTION: Long-term care facilities (LTCF) residents are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and therefore, COVID-19 vaccinations were prioritized for residents and personnel in Finland at the beginning of 2021. METHODS: We investigated COVID-19 outbreaks in two LTCFs, where residents were once or twice vaccinated. After the outbreaks we measured immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike glycoprotein, neutralizing antibody (NAb) titers, and cell-mediated immunity markers from residents and healthcare workers (HCWs). RESULTS: In LTFC-1, the outbreak was caused by an Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) and the attack rate (AR) among once vaccinated residents was 23%. In LTCF-2 the outbreak was caused by a Beta variant (B.1.351). Its AR was 47% although all residents had received their second dose 1 month before the outbreak. We observed that vaccination had induced lower IgG concentrations, NAb titers and cell-mediated immune responses in residents compared to HCWs. Only 1/8 residents had NAb to the Beta variant after two vaccine doses. CONCLUSIONS: The vaccinated elderly remain susceptible to breakthrough infections caused by Alpha and Beta variants. The weaker vaccine response in the elderly needs to be addressed in vaccination protocols, while new variants capable of evading vaccine-induced immunity continue to emerge.

Impaired immunity and high attack rates caused by SARS‐CoV‐2 variants among vaccinated long‐term care facility residents

Introduction Long‐term care facilities (LTCF) residents are at high risk for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), and therefore, COVID‐19 vaccinations were prioritized for residents and personnel in Finland at the beginning of 2021. Methods We investigated COVID‐19 outbreaks in two LTCFs, where residents were once or twice vaccinated. After the outbreaks we measured immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 spike glycoprotein, neutralizing antibody (NAb) titers, and cell‐mediated immunity markers from residents and healthcare workers (HCWs). Results In LTFC‐1, the outbreak was caused by an Alpha variant (B.1.1.7) and the attack rate (AR) among once vaccinated residents was 23%. In LTCF‐2 the outbreak was caused by a Beta variant (B.1.351). Its AR was 47% although all residents had received their second dose 1 month before the outbreak. We observed that vaccination had induced lower IgG concentrations, NAb titers and cell‐mediated immune responses in residents compared to HCWs. Only 1/8 residents had NAb to the Beta variant after two vaccine doses. Conclusions The vaccinated elderly remain susceptible to breakthrough infections caused by Alpha and Beta variants. The weaker vaccine response in the elderly needs to be addressed in vaccination protocols, while new variants capable of evading vaccine‐induced immunity continue to emerge. IgG levels to WT SARS‐CoV‐2 spike glycoprotein after vaccination with Comirnaty. (A) Receptor binding domain (RBD) and (B) full‐length spike glycoprotein (SFL) in binding antibody units (BAU)/ml. Dashed lines mark the threshold for positive result per antigen. Statistical significance measured with Wilcoxon rank‐sum test, significance level 0.05.

High secondary attack rate and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in household transmission study participants, Finland 2020-2021.

Background: Household transmission studies offer the opportunity to assess both secondary attack rate (SAR) and persistence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies over time. Methods: In Spring 2020, we invited confirmed COVID-19 cases and their household members to four visits, where we collected nasopharyngeal and serum samples over 28 days after index case onset. We calculated SAR based on the presence of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies (NAb) and assessed the persistence of NAb and IgG antibodies (Ab) against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and nucleoprotein. Results: SAR was 45% (39/87), including 35 symptomatic secondary cases. During the initial 28-day follow-up, 62% (80/129) of participants developed NAb. Of those that seroconverted, 90% (63/70), 85% (63/74), and 78% (45/58) still had NAb to early B-lineage SARS-CoV-2 3, 6, and 12 months after the onset of the index case. Anti-spike IgG Ab persisted in 100% (69/69), 97% (72/74), and 93% (55/59) of seroconverted participants after 3, 6, and 12 months, while anti-nucleoprotein IgG Ab levels waned faster, persisting in 99% (68/69), 78% (58/74), and 55% (39/71) of participants, respectively. Conclusion: Following detection of a COVID-19 case in a household, other members had a high risk of becoming infected. NAb to early B-lineage SARS-CoV-2 persisted for at least a year in most cases.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in standardised first few X cases and household transmission investigations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

We aimed to estimate the household secondary infection attack rate (hSAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in investigations aligned with the WHO Unity Studies Household Transmission Investigations (HHTI) protocol. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and medRxiv/bioRxiv for "Unity-aligned" First Few X cases (FFX) and HHTIs published 1 December 2019 to 26 July 2021. Standardised early results were shared by WHO Unity Studies collaborators (to 1 October 2021). We used a bespoke tool to assess investigation methodological quality. Values for hSAR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted or calculated from crude data. Heterogeneity was assessed by visually inspecting overlap of CIs on forest plots and quantified in meta-analyses. Of 9988 records retrieved, 80 articles (64 from databases; 16 provided by Unity Studies collaborators) were retained in the systematic review; 62 were included in the primary meta-analysis. hSAR point estimates ranged from 2% to 90% (95% prediction interval: 3%-71%; I 2 = 99.7%); I 2 values remained >99% in subgroup analyses, indicating high, unexplained heterogeneity and leading to a decision not to report pooled hSAR estimates. FFX and HHTI remain critical epidemiological tools for early and ongoing characterisation of novel infectious pathogens. The large, unexplained variance in hSAR estimates emphasises the need to further support standardisation in planning, conduct and analysis, and for clear and comprehensive reporting of FFX and HHTIs in time and place, to guide evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response efforts for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and future novel respiratory viruses.

A Highly Sensitive and Specific SARS-CoV-2 Spike- and Nucleoprotein-Based Fluorescent Multiplex Immunoassay (FMIA) to Measure IgG, IgA, and IgM Class Antibodies.

Validation and standardization of accurate serological assays are crucial for the surveillance of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and population immunity. We describe the analytical and clinical performance of an in-house fluorescent multiplex immunoassay (FMIA) for simultaneous quantification of antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleoprotein and spike glycoprotein. Furthermore, we calibrated IgG-FMIA against World Health Organization (WHO) International Standard and compared FMIA results to an in-house enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and a microneutralization test (MNT). We also compared the MNT results of two laboratories. IgG-FMIA displayed 100% specificity and sensitivity for samples collected 13 to 150 days post-onset of symptoms (DPO). For IgA- and IgM-FMIA, 100% specificity and sensitivity were obtained for a shorter time window (13 to 36 and 13 to 28 DPO for IgA- and IgM-FMIA, respectively). FMIA and EIA results displayed moderate to strong correlation, but FMIA was overall more specific and sensitive. IgG-FMIA identified 100% of samples with neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Anti-spike IgG concentrations correlated strongly (ρ = 0.77 to 0.84, P < 2.2 × 10-16) with NAb titers, and the two laboratories' NAb titers displayed a very strong correlation (ρ = 0.95, P < 2.2 × 10-16). Our results indicate good correlation and concordance of antibody concentrations measured with different types of in-house SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. Calibration against the WHO international standard did not, however, improve the comparability of FMIA and EIA results. IMPORTANCE SARS-CoV-2 serological assays with excellent clinical performance are essential for reliable estimation of the persistence of immunity after infection or vaccination. In this paper we present a thoroughly validated SARS-CoV-2 serological assay with excellent clinical performance and good comparability to neutralizing antibody titers. Neutralization tests are still considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 serological assays, but our assay can identify samples with neutralizing antibodies with 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity without the need for laborious and slow biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) facility-requiring analyses.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Gargle, Spit, and Sputum Specimens.

The gold standard for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection diagnosis is reverse transcription (RT)-PCR from a nasopharyngeal swab specimen (NPS). Its collection involves close contact between patients and health care workers, requiring a significant amount of workforce and putting them at risk of infection. We evaluated self-collection of alternative specimens and compared their sensitivity and cycle threshold (CT) values to those of NPS. We visited acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outpatients to collect concomitant NPS and gargle specimens and had patients self-collect gargle and either sputum or spit specimens the next morning. We included 40 patients and collected 40 concomitant NPS and gargle specimens, as well as 40 gargle, 22 spit, and 16 sputum specimens the next day (2 patients could not produce sputum). All specimens were as sensitive as NPS. Gargle specimens had a sensitivity of 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.00), whether collected concomitantly with NPS or the next morning. Next-morning spit and sputum specimens showed sensitivities of 1.00 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.00]), respectively. The gargle specimens had significantly higher mean CT values of 29.89 (standard deviation [SD], 4.63; P < 0.001) and 29.25 (SD, 3.99; P < 0.001) when collected concomitantly and the next morning, respectively, compared to NPS (22.07 [SD, 4.63]). CT values obtained with spit (23.51 [SD, 4.57]; P = 0.11) and sputum (25.82 [SD, 9.21]; P = 0.28) specimens were close to those of NPS. All alternative specimen collection methods were as sensitive as NPS, but spit collection appeared more promising, with a low CT value and ease of collection. Our findings warrant further investigation. IMPORTANCE Control of the COVID-19 pandemic relies heavily on a test-trace-isolate strategy. The most commonly used specimen for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is a nasopharyngeal swab. However, this method is quite uncomfortable for the patient, requires specific equipment (nose swabs and containers), and requires close proximity to health care workers, putting them at risk of infection. Developing alternative sampling strategies could decrease the burden for health care workers, help overcome potential shortages of equipment, and improve acceptability of testing by reducing patient discomfort.

Update on: high but slightly declining COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and reasons for vaccine acceptance, Finland April to December 2020.

We update our previous insights into COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and hesitancy in Finland. Vaccine acceptance increased from 64% (November/December 2020) to 74% (April 2021). However, there was a group of participants that were preferring to wait to get vaccinated ranging from 6% of over-64-years-olds to 29% of under-30-years-olds. The previously identified enablers convenience (below-50-years-olds), worry about severe disease and protection for oneself (above-50-years-olds) were no longer significantly associated with increased vaccine acceptance. Understanding barriers and enablers behind vaccine acceptance is decisive in ensuring a successful implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programs, which will be key to ending the pandemic.

High but slightly declining COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and reasons for vaccine acceptance, Finland April to December 2020.

We investigated likelihood to vaccinate and reasons for and against accepting a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine among adult residents of Finland. Vaccine acceptance declined from 70% in April to 64% in December 2020. Complacency and worry about side effects were main reasons against vaccination while concern about severe disease was a strong motive for vaccination. Convenience of vaccination and recommendations by healthcare workers were identified as enablers for vaccination among those aged under 50 years. Understanding barriers and enablers behind vaccine acceptance is decisive in ensuring a successful implementation of COVID-19 vaccination programmes, which will be key to ending the pandemic.

Learning about COVID-19-related stigma, quarantine and isolation experiences in Finland.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has intensely changed the everyday lives of people worldwide. This study explores the forms and outcomes of coronavirus and COVID-19-related social stigma and the experiences of people who were home quarantined or isolated in Finland during the spring 2020. The findings of this study can be used to improve support for those quarantined or isolated and to develop strategies to reduce the stigma associated with coronavirus and COVID-19. METHODS: The study is based on qualitative one-to-one interviews with households with at least two members and at least one PCR confirmed COVID-19 case. Recruitment took place via website or SMS messages sent to PCR confirmed cases in the capital area of Helsinki. Sampling was based on maximum variation to acquire different types of respondents. The framework of health stigma was used to develop question guides and analyze stigma. Quarantine and isolation experiences were explored through open-ended questions. The analysis was based on thematic analysis. RESULTS: The study included 64 participants from 24 households. Perceived stigma among respondents was driven by fear and blame for infection, and it manifested in various ways leading to a reluctance to disclose their coronavirus status to others. Self-stigma developed from conflicting information and advice about coronavirus and COVID-19 led to difficulties interacting with others outside of the house and reluctance to meet people after quarantine and isolation. Quarantine and isolation experiences included uncertainty, health concerns, and boredom. Communication with others in similar situations was perceived vital, whereas discussions with family members about worries and fears related to coronavirus and COVID-19 was not preferred. CONCLUSIONS: This study shed light on the lives of those quarantined or isolated at home and provided a set of operational recommendations to minimize coronavirus and COVID-19-associated stigma and to reduce challenges faced by those in quarantine or isolation.

SARS-CoV-2 population-based seroprevalence studies in Europe: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to review SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies conducted in Europe to understand how they may be used to inform ongoing control strategies for COVID-19. DESIGN: Scoping review of peer-reviewed publications and manuscripts on preprint servers from January 2020 to 15 September 2020. PRIMARY MEASURE: Seroprevalence estimate (and lower and upper CIs). For studies conducted across a country or territory, we used the seroprevalence estimate and the upper and lower CIs and compared them to the total number of reported infections to calculate the ratio of reported to expected infections. RESULTS: We identified 23 population-based seroprevalence studies conducted in Europe. Among 12 general population studies, seroprevalence ranged from 0.42% among residual clinical samples in Greece to 13.6% in an area of high transmission in Gangelt, Germany. Of the eight studies in blood donors, seroprevalence ranged from 0.91% in North-Western Germany to 23.3% in a high-transmission area in Lombardy region, Italy. In three studies which recruited individuals through employment, seroprevalence ranged from 0.5% among factory workers in Frankfurt, Germany, to 10.2% among university employees in Milan, Italy. In comparison to nationally reported cases, the extent of infection, as derived from these seroprevalence estimates, is manyfold higher and largely heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Exposure to the virus in Europe has not reached a level of infection that would prevent further circulation of the virus. Effective vaccine candidates are urgently required to deliver the level of immunity in the population.