Effect of Returning University Students on COVID-19 Infections in England, 2020.

Each September in England, ≈1 million students relocate to study at universities. To determine COVID-19 cases and outbreaks among university students after their return to university during the COVID pandemic in September 2020, we identified students with COVID-19 (student case-patients) by reviewing contact tracing records identifying attendance at university and residence in student accommodations identified by matching case-patients' residential addresses with national property databases. We determined COVID-19 rates in towns/cities with and without a university campus. We identified 53,430 student case-patients during September 1-December 31, 2020, which accounted for 2.7% of all cases during this period. Student case-patients increased rapidly after the start of the term, driven initially by cases and outbreaks in student accommodations. Case rates among students 18-23 years of age doubled at the start of term in towns with universities. Our findings highlight the need for face-to-face and control measures to reduce virus transmission.

Surge in SARS-CoV-2 transmission in school-aged children and household contacts, England, August to October 2021.

Easing of COVID-19 restrictions in England in the summer of 2021 was followed by a sharp rise in cases among school-aged children. Weekly rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in primary and secondary school children reached 733.3 and 1,664.7/100,000 population, respectively, by week 39 2021. A surge in household clusters with school-aged index cases was noted at the start of the school term, with secondary cases predominantly in children aged 5-15 years and adults aged 30-49 years.

Severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nosocomial transmission dynamics, a retrospective cohort study of two healthcare-associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clusters in a district hospital in England during March and April 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the transmission dynamics of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in a hospital outbreak to inform infection control actions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: General medical and elderly inpatient wards in a hospital in England. METHODS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients were classified as community or healthcare associated by time from admission to onset or positivity using European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control definitions. COVID-19 symptoms were classified as asymptomatic, nonrespiratory, or respiratory. Infectiousness was calculated from 2 days prior to 14 days after symptom onset or positive test. Cases were defined as healthcare-associated COVID-19 when infection was acquired from the wards under investigation. COVID-19 exposures were calculated based on symptoms and bed proximity to an infectious patient. Risk ratios and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated from univariable and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 153 patients, 65 were COVID-19 patients and 45 of these were healthcare-associated cases. Exposure to a COVID-19 patient with respiratory symptoms was associated with healthcare-associated infection irrespective of proximity (aOR, 3.81; 95% CI, 1.6.3-8.87). Nonrespiratory exposure was only significant within 2.5 m (aOR, 5.21; 95% CI, 1.15-23.48). A small increase in risk ratio was observed for exposure to a respiratory patient for >1 day compared to 1 day from 2.04 (95% CI, 0.99-4.22) to 2.36 (95% CI, 1.44-3.88). CONCLUSIONS: Respiratory exposure anywhere within a 4-bed bay was a risk, whereas nonrespiratory exposure required bed distance ≤2.5 m. Standard infection control measures required beds to be >2 m apart. Our findings suggest that this may be insufficient to stop SARS-CoV-2 transmission. We recommend improving cohorting and further studies into bed distance and transmission factors.

T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

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.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

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.