Share all SARS-CoV-2 data immediately.

When the first cases of human infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) were reported from Wuhan, China, in December 2019, there was quick agreement across scientific and health communities that understanding the facts about its emergence would help prevent future outbreaks. Never could I have imagined the degree of politicization that would cloud this quest. Over the past 39 months, while reported deaths from COVID-19 increased to nearly 7 million worldwide, science on the virus's origins has gotten smaller while the politics surrounding this question has grown ever bigger. Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) learned that scientists in China possessed data on viral samples from Wuhan that had been gathered in January 2020, which should have been shared immediately-not 3 years later-with the global research community. The lack of data disclosure is simply inexcusable. The longer it takes to understand the origins of the pandemic, the harder it becomes to answer the question, and the more unsafe the world becomes.

COVID-19 Mortality and Progress Toward Vaccinating Older Adults - World Health Organization, Worldwide, 2020-2022.

After the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2019, transmission expanded globally, and on January 30, 2020, COVID-19 was declared a public health emergency of international concern.* Analysis of the early Wuhan, China outbreak (1), subsequently confirmed by multiple other studies (2,3), found that 80% of deaths occurred among persons aged ≥60 years. In anticipation of the time needed for the global vaccine supply to meet all needs, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) Values Framework and a roadmap for prioritizing use of COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020 (4,5), followed by a strategy brief to outline urgent actions in October 2021.† WHO described the general principles, objectives, and priorities needed to support country planning of vaccine rollout to minimize severe disease and death. A July 2022 update to the strategy brief§ prioritized vaccination of populations at increased risk, including older adults,¶ with the goal of 100% coverage with a complete COVID-19 vaccination series** for at-risk populations. Using available public data on COVID-19 mortality (reported deaths and model estimates) for 2020 and 2021 and the most recent reported COVID-19 vaccination coverage data from WHO, investigators performed descriptive analyses to examine age-specific mortality and global vaccination rollout among older adults (as defined by each country), stratified by country World Bank income status. Data quality and COVID-19 death reporting frequency varied by data source; however, persons aged ≥60 years accounted for >80% of the overall COVID-19 mortality across all income groups, with upper- and lower-middle-income countries accounting for 80% of the overall estimated excess mortality. Effective COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for use in December 2020, with global supply scaled up sufficiently to meet country needs by late 2021 (6). COVID-19 vaccines are safe and highly effective in reducing severe COVID-19, hospitalizations, and mortality (7,8); nevertheless, country-reported median completed primary series coverage among adults aged ≥60 years only reached 76% by the end of 2022, substantially below the WHO goal, especially in middle- and low-income countries. Increased efforts are needed to increase primary series and booster dose coverage among all older adults as recommended by WHO and national health authorities.

SARS-CoV-2 diagnostic testing rates determine the sensitivity of genomic surveillance programs.

The first step in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance is testing to identify people who are infected. However, global testing rates are falling as we emerge from the acute health emergency and remain low in many low- and middle-income countries (mean = 27 tests per 100,000 people per day). We simulated COVID-19 epidemics in a prototypical low- and middle-income country to investigate how testing rates, sampling strategies and sequencing proportions jointly impact surveillance outcomes, and showed that low testing rates and spatiotemporal biases delay time to detection of new variants by weeks to months and can lead to unreliable estimates of variant prevalence, even when the proportion of samples sequenced is increased. Accordingly, investments in wider access to diagnostics to support testing rates of approximately 100 tests per 100,000 people per day could enable more timely detection of new variants and reliable estimates of variant prevalence. The performance of global SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance programs is fundamentally limited by access to diagnostic testing.

Protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against the omicron variant and severe disease: a systematic review and meta-regression.

BACKGROUND: The global surge in the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has resulted in many individuals with hybrid immunity (immunity developed through a combination of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination). We aimed to systematically review the magnitude and duration of the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against infection and severe disease caused by the omicron variant. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-regression, we searched for cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO COVID-19 database, and Europe PubMed Central from Jan 1, 2020, to June 1, 2022, using keywords related to SARS-CoV-2, reinfection, protective effectiveness, previous infection, presence of antibodies, and hybrid immunity. The main outcomes were the protective effectiveness against reinfection and against hospital admission or severe disease of hybrid immunity, hybrid immunity relative to previous infection alone, hybrid immunity relative to previous vaccination alone, and hybrid immunity relative to hybrid immunity with fewer vaccine doses. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions Tool. We used log-odds random-effects meta-regression to estimate the magnitude of protection at 1-month intervals. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022318605). FINDINGS: 11 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and 15 studies reporting the protective effectiveness of hybrid immunity were included. For previous infection, there were 97 estimates (27 with a moderate risk of bias and 70 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of previous infection against hospital admission or severe disease was 74·6% (95% CI 63·1-83·5) at 12 months. The effectiveness of previous infection against reinfection waned to 24·7% (95% CI 16·4-35·5) at 12 months. For hybrid immunity, there were 153 estimates (78 with a moderate risk of bias and 75 with a serious risk of bias). The effectiveness of hybrid immunity against hospital admission or severe disease was 97·4% (95% CI 91·4-99·2) at 12 months with primary series vaccination and 95·3% (81·9-98·9) at 6 months with the first booster vaccination after the most recent infection or vaccination. Against reinfection, the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following primary series vaccination waned to 41·8% (95% CI 31·5-52·8) at 12 months, while the effectiveness of hybrid immunity following first booster vaccination waned to 46·5% (36·0-57·3) at 6 months. INTERPRETATION: All estimates of protection waned within months against reinfection but remained high and sustained for hospital admission or severe disease. Individuals with hybrid immunity had the highest magnitude and durability of protection, and as a result might be able to extend the period before booster vaccinations are needed compared to individuals who have never been infected. FUNDING: WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

Global disparities in SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance.

Genomic sequencing is essential to track the evolution and spread of SARS-CoV-2, optimize molecular tests, treatments, vaccines, and guide public health responses. To investigate the global SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance, we used sequences shared via GISAID to estimate the impact of sequencing intensity and turnaround times on variant detection in 189 countries. In the first two years of the pandemic, 78% of high-income countries sequenced >0.5% of their COVID-19 cases, while 42% of low- and middle-income countries reached that mark. Around 25% of the genomes from high income countries were submitted within 21 days, a pattern observed in 5% of the genomes from low- and middle-income countries. We found that sequencing around 0.5% of the cases, with a turnaround time <21 days, could provide a benchmark for SARS-CoV-2 genomic surveillance. Socioeconomic inequalities undermine the global pandemic preparedness, and efforts must be made to support low- and middle-income countries improve their local sequencing capacity.

Global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from January 2020 to April 2022: A systematic review and meta-analysis of standardized population-based studies.

BACKGROUND: Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.

Lessons from the pandemic: Responding to emerging zoonotic viral diseases-a Keystone Symposia report.

The COVID-19 pandemic caught the world largely unprepared, including scientific and policy communities. On April 10-13, 2022, researchers across academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations met at the Keystone symposium "Lessons from the Pandemic: Responding to Emerging Zoonotic Viral Diseases" to discuss the successes and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and what lessons can be applied moving forward. Speakers focused on experiences not only from the COVID-19 pandemic but also from outbreaks of other pathogens, including the Ebola virus, Lassa virus, and Nipah virus. A general consensus was that investments made during the COVID-19 pandemic in infrastructure, collaborations, laboratory and manufacturing capacity, diagnostics, clinical trial networks, and regulatory enhancements-notably, in low-to-middle income countries-must be maintained and strengthened to enable quick, concerted responses to future threats, especially to zoonotic pathogens.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of standardised seroprevalence studies, from January 2020 to December 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Estimating COVID-19 cumulative incidence in Africa remains problematic due to challenges in contact tracing, routine surveillance systems and laboratory testing capacities and strategies. We undertook a meta-analysis of population-based seroprevalence studies to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Africa to inform evidence-based decision making on public health and social measures (PHSM) and vaccine strategy. METHODS: We searched for seroprevalence studies conducted in Africa published 1 January 2020-30 December 2021 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Europe PMC (preprints), grey literature, media releases and early results from WHO Unity studies. All studies were screened, extracted, assessed for risk of bias and evaluated for alignment with the WHO Unity seroprevalence protocol. We conducted descriptive analyses of seroprevalence and meta-analysed seroprevalence differences by demographic groups, place and time. We estimated the extent of undetected infections by comparing seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of confirmed cases reported to WHO. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. RESULTS: We identified 56 full texts or early results, reporting 153 distinct seroprevalence studies in Africa. Of these, 97 (63%) were low/moderate risk of bias studies. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 9.2%) in April-June 2020 to 65.1% (95% CI 56.3% to 73.0%) in July-September 2021. The ratios of seroprevalence from infection to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases was large (overall: 100:1, ranging from 18:1 to 954:1) and steady over time. Seroprevalence was highly heterogeneous both within countries-urban versus rural (lower seroprevalence for rural geographic areas), children versus adults (children aged 0-9 years had the lowest seroprevalence)-and between countries and African subregions. CONCLUSION: We report high seroprevalence in Africa suggesting greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and potential protection against COVID-19 severe disease than indicated by surveillance data. As seroprevalence was heterogeneous, targeted PHSM and vaccination strategies need to be tailored to local epidemiological situations.

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.

Surface‒Aerosol Stability and Pathogenicity of Diverse Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Strains, 2012‒2018.

Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infects humans and dromedary camels and is responsible for an ongoing outbreak of severe respiratory illness in humans in the Middle East. Although some mutations found in camel-derived MERS-CoV strains have been characterized, most natural variation found across MERS-CoV isolates remains unstudied. We report on the environmental stability, replication kinetics, and pathogenicity of several diverse isolates of MERS-CoV, as well as isolates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, to serve as a basis of comparison with other stability studies. Although most MERS-CoV isolates had similar stability and pathogenicity in our experiments, the camel-derived isolate C/KSA/13 had reduced surface stability, and another camel isolate, C/BF/15, had reduced pathogenicity in a small animal model. These results suggest that although betacoronaviruses might have similar environmental stability profiles, individual variation can influence this phenotype, underscoring the need for continual global viral surveillance.

Preparing for "Disease X".

The past 30 years have exposed the global public health and economic threats posed by the emergence of infectious pathogens with epidemic and pandemic potential. Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), middle east respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola, Marburg, Lassa, Nipah, Zika, and now SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) each have been the "Disease X" of their time. The risk of future emergence is driven by multiple forces, including climate change, ecosystem changes, and increasing urbanization. The next Disease X could appear at any time, and the world needs to be better prepared.

Early epidemiological investigations: World Health Organization UNITY protocols provide a standardized and timely international investigation framework during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The declaration of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 30 January 2020 required rapid implementation of early investigations to inform appropriate national and global public health actions. METHODS: The suite of existing pandemic preparedness generic epidemiological early investigation protocols was rapidly adapted for COVID-19, branded the 'UNITY studies' and promoted globally for the implementation of standardized and quality studies. Ten protocols were developed investigating household (HH) transmission, the first few cases (FFX), population seroprevalence (SEROPREV), health facilities transmission (n = 2), vaccine effectiveness (n = 2), pregnancy outcomes and transmission, school transmission, and surface contamination. Implementation was supported by WHO and its partners globally, with emphasis to support building surveillance and research capacities in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). RESULTS: WHO generic protocols were rapidly developed and published on the WHO website, 5/10 protocols within the first 3 months of the response. As of 30 June 2021, 172 investigations were implemented by 97 countries, of which 62 (64%) were LMIC. The majority of countries implemented population seroprevalence (71 countries) and first few cases/household transmission (37 countries) studies. CONCLUSION: The widespread adoption of UNITY protocols across all WHO regions indicates that they addressed subnational and national needs to support local public health decision-making to prevent and control the pandemic.

Potential Cross-Reactive Immunity to COVID-19 Infection in Individuals With Laboratory-Confirmed MERS-CoV Infection: A National Retrospective Cohort Study From Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: A growing number of experiments have suggested potential cross-reactive immunity between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and previous human coronaviruses. We conducted the present retrospective cohort study to investigate the relationship between previous Middle East respiratory syndrome-coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection and the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the relationship between previous MERS-CoV and COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality. METHODS: Starting in March 2020, we prospectively followed two groups of individuals who tested negative for COVID-19 infection. The first group had a previously confirmed MERS-CoV infection, which was compared to a control group of MERS-negative individuals. The studied cohort was then followed until November 2020 to track evidence of contracting COVID-19 infection. FINDINGS: A total of 82 (24%) MERS-positive and 260 (31%) MERS-negative individuals had COVID-19 infection. Patients in the MERS-positive group had a lower risk of COVID-19 infection than those in the MERS-negative group (Risk ratio [RR] 0.696, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.522-0.929; p =0.014). The risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization in the MERS-positive group was significantly higher (RR 4.036, 95% CI 1.705-9.555; p =0.002). The case fatality rate (CFR) from COVID-19 was 4.9% in the MERS-positive group and 1.2% in the MERS-negative group (p =0.038). The MERS-positive group had a higher risk of death than the MERS-negative group (RR 6.222, 95% CI 1.342-28.839; p =0.019). However, the risk of mortality was similar between the two groups when death was adjusted for age (p =0.068) and age and sex (p =0.057). After controlling for all the independent variables, only healthcare worker occupation and >1 comorbidity were independent predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERPRETATION: Individuals with previous MERS-CoV infection can exhibit a cross-reactive immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study demonstrated that patients with MERS-CoV infection had higher risks of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death than MERS-negative individuals.

Mask use in community settings in the context of COVID-19: A systematic review of ecological data.

BACKGROUND: The wearing of medical and non-medical masks by the general public in community settings is one intervention that is important for the reduction of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and has been the subject of considerable research, policy, advocacy and debate. Several observational studies have used ecological (population-level) data to assess the effect of masks on transmission, hospitalization, and mortality at the region or community level. METHODS: We undertook this systematic review to summarize the study designs, outcomes, and key quality indicators of using ecological data to evaluate the association between mask wearing and COVID-19 outcomes. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 global literature database up to 5 March 2021 for studies reporting the impact of mask use in community settings on outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2 transmission using ecological data. FINDINGS: Twenty one articles were identified that analysed ecological data to assess the protective effect of policies mandating community mask wearing. All studies reported SARS-CoV-2 benefits in terms of reductions in either the incidence, hospitalization, or mortality, or a combination of these outcomes. Few studies assessed compliance to mask wearing policies or controlled for the possible influence of other preventive measures such as hand hygiene and physical distancing, and information about compliance to these policies was lacking. INTERPRETATION: Ecological studies have been cited as evidence to advocate for the adoption of universal masking policies. The studies summarized by this review suggest that community mask policies may reduce the population-level burden of SARS-CoV-2. Methodological limitations, in particular controlling for the actual practice of mask wearing and other preventive policies make it difficult to determine causality. There are several important limitations to consider for improving the validity of ecological data.

SARS-CoV-2 Variants and Vaccines.

Viral variants of concern may emerge with dangerous resistance to the immunity generated by the current vaccines to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Moreover, if some variants of concern have increased transmissibility or virulence, the importance of efficient public health measures and vaccination programs will increase. The global response must be both timely and science based.

Increased transmissibility and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern as at June 2021.

We present a global analysis of the spread of recently emerged SARS-CoV-2 variants and estimate changes in effective reproduction numbers at country-specific level using sequence data from GISAID. Nearly all investigated countries demonstrated rapid replacement of previously circulating lineages by the World Health Organization-designated variants of concern, with estimated transmissibility increases of 29% (95% CI: 24-33), 25% (95% CI: 20-30), 38% (95% CI: 29-48) and 97% (95% CI: 76-117), respectively, for B.1.1.7, B.1.351, P.1 and B.1.617.2.