Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(8)2022 Aug 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36016210

ABSTRACT

Immune escape is observed with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (Pango lineage B.1.1.529), the predominant circulating strain worldwide. A booster dose was shown to restore immunity against Omicron infection; however, real-world data comparing mRNA (BNT162b2; Comirnaty) and inactivated vaccines' (CoronaVac; Sinovac) homologous and heterologous boosting are lacking. A retrospective study was performed to compare the rate and outcome of COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs) with various vaccination regimes during a territory-wide Omicron BA.2.2 outbreak in Hong Kong. During the study period from 1 February to 31 March 2022, 3167 HCWs were recruited, and 871 HCWs reported 746 and 183 episodes of significant household and non-household close contact. A total of 737 HCWs acquired COVID-19, all cases of which were all clinically mild. Time-dependent Cox regression showed that, compared with two-dose vaccination, three-dose vaccination reduced infection risk by 31.7% and 89.3% in household contact and non-household close contact, respectively. Using two-dose BNT162b2 as reference, two-dose CoronaVac recipient had significantly higher risk of being infected (HR 1.69 p < 0.0001). Three-dose BNT162b2 (HR 0.4778 p< 0.0001) and two-dose CoronaVac + BNT162b2 booster (HR 0.4862 p = 0.0157) were associated with a lower risk of infection. Three-dose CoronaVac and two-dose BNT162b2 + CoronaVac booster were not significantly different from two-dose BNT162b2. The mean time to achieve negative RT-PCR or E gene cycle threshold 31 or above was not affected by age, number of vaccine doses taken, vaccine type, and timing of the last dose. In summary, we have demonstrated a lower risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs given BNT162b2 as a booster after two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac.

2.
Microbiol Spectr ; 9(1): e0034221, 2021 09 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34346748

ABSTRACT

As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, there is an increasing need for rapid, accessible assays for SARS-CoV-2 detection. We present a clinical evaluation and real-world implementation of the INDICAID COVID-19 rapid antigen test (INDICAID rapid test). A multisite clinical evaluation of the INDICAID rapid test using prospectively collected nasal (bilateral anterior) swab samples from symptomatic subjects was performed. The INDICAID rapid test demonstrated a positive percent agreement (PPA) and negative percent agreement (NPA) of 85.3% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 75.6% to 91.6%) and 94.9% (95% CI, 91.6% to 96.9%), respectively, compared to laboratory-based reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) using nasal specimens. The INDICAID rapid test was then implemented at COVID-19 outbreak screening centers in Hong Kong as part of a testing algorithm (termed "dual-track") to screen asymptomatic individuals for prioritization for confirmatory RT-PCR testing. In one approach, preliminary positive INDICAID rapid test results triggered expedited processing for laboratory-based RT-PCR, reducing the average time to confirmatory result from 10.85 h to 7.0 h. In a second approach, preliminary positive results triggered subsequent testing with an onsite rapid RT-PCR, reducing the average time to confirmatory result to 0.84 h. In 22,994 asymptomatic patients, the INDICAID rapid test demonstrated a PPA of 84.2% (95% CI, 69.6% to 92.6%) and an NPA of 99.9% (95% CI, 99.9% to 100%) compared to laboratory-based RT-PCR using combined nasal/oropharyngeal specimens. The INDICAID rapid test has excellent performance compared to laboratory-based RT-PCR testing and, when used in tandem with RT-PCR, reduces the time to confirmatory positive result. IMPORTANCE Laboratory-based RT-PCR, the current gold standard for COVID-19 testing, can require a turnaround time of 24 to 48 h from sample collection to result. The delayed time to result limits the effectiveness of centralized RT-PCR testing to reduce transmission and stem potential outbreaks. To address this, we conducted a thorough evaluation of the INDICAID COVID-19 rapid antigen test, a 20-minute rapid antigen test, in both symptomatic and asymptomatic populations. The INDICAID rapid test demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity with RT-PCR as the comparator method. A dual-track testing algorithm was also evaluated utilizing the INDICAID rapid test to screen for preliminary positive patients, whose samples were then prioritized for RT-PCR testing. The dual-track method demonstrated significant improvements in expediting the reporting of positive RT-PCR test results compared to standard RT-PCR testing without prioritization, offering an improved strategy for community testing and controlling SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks.


Subject(s)
Antigens, Viral/analysis , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19 Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adult , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/methods , False Negative Reactions , False Positive Reactions , Female , Hong Kong , Humans , Male , Mass Screening/methods , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Polymerase Chain Reaction , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Sensitivity and Specificity , Specimen Handling , Time Factors , Young Adult
3.
Science ; 300(5627): 1961-6, 2003 Jun 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12766206

ABSTRACT

We present an analysis of the first 10 weeks of the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in Hong Kong. The epidemic to date has been characterized by two large clusters-initiated by two separate "super-spread" events (SSEs)-and by ongoing community transmission. By fitting a stochastic model to data on 1512 cases, including these clusters, we show that the etiological agent of SARS is moderately transmissible. Excluding SSEs, we estimate that 2.7 secondary infections were generated per case on average at the start of the epidemic, with a substantial contribution from hospital transmission. Transmission rates fell during the epidemic, primarily as a result of reductions in population contact rates and improved hospital infection control, but also because of more rapid hospital attendance by symptomatic individuals. As a result, the epidemic is now in decline, although continued vigilance is necessary for this to be maintained. Restrictions on longer range population movement are shown to be a potentially useful additional control measure in some contexts. We estimate that most currently infected persons are now hospitalized, which highlights the importance of control of nosocomial transmission.


Subject(s)
Disease Outbreaks , Epidemiologic Methods , Models, Statistical , Public Health Practice , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/epidemiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/transmission , Cluster Analysis , Contact Tracing , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Cross Infection/transmission , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/statistics & numerical data , Global Health , Hong Kong/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Infection Control , Mathematics , Patient Isolation , Probability , Quarantine , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus/physiology , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/prevention & control , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome/virology , Stochastic Processes
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...