COVID-19 Vaccination Program for Undocumented Migrants: Notes from the Field of a Regional Center of General Medicine and Public Health, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted health inequities for vulnerable populations and the need for more equitable care and access to vaccination. This article described the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccination program for undocumented migrants in a regional academic center of general medicine and public health (Unisanté). The vaccination program's specific components included: triple coordination between the health authorities, the regional center and community partners, a walk-in and free service, no health insurance required, qualified nursing and administrative staff with previous experience with vulnerable populations, translated information materials and interpreters, a guarantee of confidentiality and a widespread communication campaign within the communities. In total, 2'351 undocumented migrants from 97 nationalities received at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax) and 2242 were considered fully vaccinated. Although it was hard to assess its global effectiveness, the program vaccinated a significant number of undocumented adult migrants in the Canton of Vaud. The difficulties linked to the pandemic context, the heavy workload for healthcare staff and the limited resources were overcome by strong collaborations between the different actors involved throughout the program. Targeted public health policies, such as vaccination programs for undocumented migrants, are essential to guarantee equitable care, especially in pandemic times.

Intradermal Testing With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Predicts Tolerance.

Background: The newly developed mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can provoke anaphylaxis, possibly induced by polyethylene glycol (PEG) contained in the vaccine. The management of persons with a history of PEG allergy or with a suspected allergic reaction after the first dose remains to be defined. Methods: In this real-life study, we defined two cohorts of individuals: one pre-vaccination including 187 individuals with high-risk profiles for developing anaphylaxis and a second post-vaccination including 87 individuals with suspected allergic reactions after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Upon negative skin test with an mRNA vaccine, a two-step (10-90%) vaccination protocol was performed. Positive skin tests were confirmed with the basophil activation test (BAT). Results: Among 604,267 doses of vaccine, 87 suspected allergic reactions (5 after the booster) were reported to our division for further investigations: 18/87 (21%) were consistent with anaphylaxis, 78/87 (90%) were female, and 47/87 (54%) received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Vaccine skin tests were negative in 96% and 76% of the pre- and post-vaccination cohorts, respectively. A two-step vaccination was tolerated in 232/236 (98%) of individuals with negative tests. Four individuals experienced isolated asthmatic reactions during the two-step challenge. Vaccine-positive skin tests were consistently confirmed by BAT; CD63 and CD203c expression was selectively inhibited with ibrutinib, suggesting an IgE-dependent mechanism. Conclusion: Sensitization to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines can be detected with intradermal testing. Significantly more individuals were sensitized to mRNA vaccines in the post-vaccination cohort. A two-step 10-90%-vaccination protocol can be safely administered upon negative skin testing.

Antigen rapid tests, nasopharyngeal PCR and saliva PCR to detect SARS-CoV-2: A prospective comparative clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal antigen Rapid Diagnostic Tests (RDTs), saliva RT-PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR have shown different performance characteristics to detect patients infected by SARS-CoV-2, according to the viral load (VL)-and thus transmissibility. METHODS: In October 2020, we conducted a prospective trial involving patients presenting at testing centres with symptoms of COVID-19. We compared detection rates and performance of RDT, saliva PCR and nasopharyngeal (NP) PCR, according to VL and symptoms duration. RESULTS: Out of 949 patients enrolled, 928 patients had all three tests performed. Detection rates were 35.2% (95%CI 32.2-38.4%) by RDT, 39.8% (36.6-43.0%) by saliva PCR, 40.1% (36.9-43.3%) by NP PCR, and 41.5% (38.3-44.7%) by any test. For those with viral loads (VL) ≥106 copies/ml, detection rates were 30.3% (27.3-33.3), 31.4% (28.4-34.5), 31.5% (28.5-34.6), and 31.6% (28.6-34.7%) respectively. Sensitivity of RDT compared to NP PCR was 87.4% (83.6-90.6%) for all positive patients, 94.5% (91.5-96.7%) for those with VL≥105 and 96.5% (93.6-98.3%) for those with VL≥106. Sensitivity of STANDARD-Q®, Panbio™ and COVID-VIRO® Ag tests were 92.9% (86.4-96.9%), 86.1% (78.6-91.7%) and 84.1% (76.9-89.7%), respectively. For those with VL≥106, sensitivity was 96.6% (90.5-99.3%), 97.8% (92.1-99.7%) and 95.3% (89.4-98.5%) respectively. No patient with VL<104 was detected by RDT. Specificity of RDT was 100% (99.3-100%) compared to any PCR. RDT sensitivity was similar <4 days (87.8%, 83.5-91.3%) and ≥4 days (85.7%, 75.9-92.6%) after symptoms onset (p = 0.6). Sensitivity of saliva and NP PCR were 95.7% (93.1-97.5%) and 96.5% (94.1-98.1%), respectively, compared to the other PCR. CONCLUSIONS: RDT results allow rapid identification of COVID cases with immediate isolation of most contagious individuals. RDT can thus be a game changer both in ambulatory care and community testing aimed at stopping transmission chains, and even more so in resource-constrained settings thanks to its very low price. When PCR is performed, saliva could replace NP swabbing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT04613310 (03/11/2020).

Intradermal Testing With COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Predicts Tolerance

Background The newly developed mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines can provoke anaphylaxis, possibly induced by polyethylene glycol (PEG) contained in the vaccine. The management of persons with a history of PEG allergy or with a suspected allergic reaction after the first dose remains to be defined. Methods In this real-life study, we defined two cohorts of individuals: one pre-vaccination including 187 individuals with high-risk profiles for developing anaphylaxis and a second post-vaccination including 87 individuals with suspected allergic reactions after the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Upon negative skin test with an mRNA vaccine, a two-step (10–90%) vaccination protocol was performed. Positive skin tests were confirmed with the basophil activation test (BAT). Results Among 604,267 doses of vaccine, 87 suspected allergic reactions (5 after the booster) were reported to our division for further investigations: 18/87 (21%) were consistent with anaphylaxis, 78/87 (90%) were female, and 47/87 (54%) received the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Vaccine skin tests were negative in 96% and 76% of the pre- and post-vaccination cohorts, respectively. A two-step vaccination was tolerated in 232/236 (98%) of individuals with negative tests. Four individuals experienced isolated asthmatic reactions during the two-step challenge. Vaccine-positive skin tests were consistently confirmed by BAT;CD63 and CD203c expression was selectively inhibited with ibrutinib, suggesting an IgE-dependent mechanism. Conclusion Sensitization to SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines can be detected with intradermal testing. Significantly more individuals were sensitized to mRNA vaccines in the post-vaccination cohort. A two-step 10–90%-vaccination protocol can be safely administered upon negative skin testing.

Performance of RT-PCR on Saliva Specimens Compared With Nasopharyngeal Swabs for the Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Children: A Prospective Comparative Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Saliva reverse transcriptase-Polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is an attractive alternative for the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in adults with less known in children. METHODS: Children with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms were prospectively enrolled in a 1-month comparative clinical trial of saliva and nasopharyngeal (NP) RT-PCR. Detection rates and sensitivities of saliva and NP RT-PCR were compared as well as discordant NP and saliva RT-PCR findings including viral loads (VLs). RESULTS: Of 405 patients enrolled, 397 patients had 2 tests performed. Mean age was 12.7 years (range, 1.2-17.9). Sensitivity of saliva was 85.2% (95% confidence interval: 78.2%-92.1%) when using NP as the standard; sensitivity of NP was 94.5% (89.8%-99.2%) when saliva was considered as the standard. For a NP RT-PCR VL threshold of ≥103 and ≥104 copies/mL, sensitivity of saliva increases to 88.7% and 95.2%, respectively. Sensitivity of saliva and NP swabs was, respectively, 89.5% and 95.3% in patient with symptoms less than 4 days (P = 0.249) and 70.0% and 95.0% in those with symptoms ≥4-7 days (P = 0.096). The 15 patients who had an isolated positive NP RT-PCR were younger (P = 0.034), had lower NP VL (median 5.6 × 103 vs. 3.9 × 107, P < 0.001), and could not drool saliva at the end of the sampling (P = 0.002). VLs were lower with saliva than with NP RT-PCR (median 8.7 cp/mL × 104; interquartile range 1.2 × 104-5.2 × 105; vs. median 4.0 × 107 cp/mL; interquartile range, 8.6 × 105-1 × 108; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While RT-PCR testing on saliva performed more poorly in younger children and likely after longer duration of symptoms, saliva remains an attractive alternative to NP swabs in children.