Immunogenicity and reactogenicity following MMR vaccination in 5-7-month-old infants: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial in 6540 Danish infants.

Background: Measles is a highly contagious viral disease. Vaccinated mothers transfer fewer antibodies during pregnancy, resulting in shortened infant immunity. Earlier primary vaccination might avert the gap in protection. Methods: Healthy 5-7-month-old Danish infants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to M-M-RVaxPro or placebo (solvent) in a double-blind, randomized trial between April 15, 2019 and November 1, 2021 (ClinicalTrials.govNCT03780179, EudraCT 2016-001901-18). Eligibility criteria were birth weight >1000 g and gestational age ≥32 weeks.Immunogenicity was measured by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and IgG ELISA before intervention, four weeks after intervention and routine MMR. Reactogenicity data were collected for six weeks and measured by hazard ratios (HR). Findings: 647 and 6540 infants participated in the immunogenicity and reactogenicity study, respectively; 87% and 99% completed follow-up. After early MMR, seroprotection rates (SPRs) were 47% (13%) in measles PRNT; 28% (2%), 57% (8%) in mumps and rubella IgG (placebo). For measles PRNT, geometric mean ratio was 4.3 (95% CI: 3.4-5.3) between randomization groups after intervention and 1.5 (95% CI: 1.3-1.9) after routine MMR.Reactogenicity was independent of randomization (HR, 1.0; 95% CI: 0.9-1.1). Severe adverse events occurred in 25 infants (HR, 1.8; 95% CI: 0.8-4.0); none deemed vaccine related. Interpretation: Early MMR elicited low SPRs but did not negatively impact short-term responses to a subsequent MMR. MMR at 5-7 months was safe and not associated with higher rates of reactogenicity than placebo. Funding: Innovation Fund Denmark.

Prospective screening for monkeypox infection among users of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis in Denmark.

INTRODUCTION: During the 2022 outbreak of mpox (previously called monkeypox), which primarily affected Gay, Bisexual, and other Men who have Sex with Men (GBMSM), testing was mainly limited to individuals with symptoms of infection. Although sporadic cases of mpox continue to be diagnosed in Denmark, the feasibility of screening asymptomatic high-risk populations, such as those using HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), is still unknown. METHODS: During the autumn of 2022, a rectal swab test for mpox PCR was included in the routine sexually transmitted infections (STI) screening for PrEP users. RESULTS: The screening included 224 asymptomatic men with a median age of 36.5 years. One patient (0.4%) tested positive for mpox. Ten (4.5%) and nine (4.0%) had chlamydia and gonorrhea, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates that screening for mpox is feasible in two Danish PrEP clinics.

Evaluation of four laboratory-based high-throughput SARS-CoV-2 automated antigen tests compared to RT-PCR on nasal and oropharyngeal samples.

BACKGROUND: The demand for RT-PCR testing has been unprecedented during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Fully automated antigen tests (AAT) are less cumbersome than RT-PCR, but data on performance compared to RT-PCR are scarce. METHODS: The study consists of two parts. A retrospective analytical part, comparing the performance of four different AAT on 100 negative and 204 RT-PCR positive deep oropharyngeal samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR cycle of quantification levels. In the prospective clinical part, 206 individuals positive for and 199 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 were sampled from either the anterior nasal cavity (mid-turbinate) or by deep oropharyngeal swabs or both. The performance of AATs was compared to RT-PCR. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 42% (95% CI 35-49) to 60% (95% CI 53-67) with 100% analytical specificity. Clinical sensitivity of the AATs differed significantly from 26% (95% CI 20-32) to 88% (95% CI 84-93) with significant higher sensitivity for mid-turbinate nasal swabs compared to deep oropharyngeal swabs. Clinical specificity varied from 97% to 100%. CONCLUSION: All AATs were highly specific for detection of SARS-CoV-2. Three of the four AATs were significantly more sensitive than the fourth AAT both in terms of analytical and clinical sensitivity. Anatomical test location significantly influenced the clinical sensitivity of AATs.

Emergence of circulating influenza A H3N2 viruses with genetic drift in the matrix gene: be alert of false-negative test results.

In March 2022, we observed samples with a negative fluorescent signal (60.5%, n = 43) for the influenza A matrix gene and a stronger positive signal for subtype A(H3N2). Forty-three samples were positive in InfA (H3N2) (mean Cq 30.9, range 23.9-35.1), and 26 of the 43 samples were negative in InfA matrix (mean Cq 28.0, range 23.2-30.6). Our multiplex test is a laboratory-developed four-target, four-color influenza A reverse-transcription PCR assay targeting the matrix gene, subtypes A(H3N2) and A(H1N1)pdm09. Several samples were negative when retested on commercial influenza Point-of-Care assays. As the matrix gene is a stand-alone target in most commercial diagnostic assays, we caution against false-negative subtype A test results.

Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium: should we screen on admission?

Denmark has experienced an increase in the proportion of invasive vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium (VRE) since 2002 (e.g. <4% in 2015, 7.1% in 2017 and 12% in 2018). At Rigshospitalet, we employ active screening at departments with high prevalence or in case of outbreaks. This includes the collection of rectal swabs specifically for VRE screening. Our purpose was to describe the carrier prevalence of vancomycin-resistant enterococci among acute patients admitted to the Neurointensive Care Unit, Department of Neuroanaesthesiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark (NICU). Between April 2018 and January 2019, we investigated 99 consecutive rectal swabs from patients admitted to NICU. The primary outcome was prevalence of VRE carriage. The median age was 64 years (range 23-87) and gender was equally distributed (Female = 47, Male = 46). 26 (28%) had previously been admitted within 179 days and 67 patients (72%) had no hospital admissions within 180 days prior to the admission to NICU. Of the 93 rectal swabs, 2 (2%, 95% CI 0.26-7.55%) were positive for vanA and none were positive for vanB. Routine screening of all patients at admission may be effective in hospital settings with high VRE prevalence, whereas the benefit of screening for VRE in hospitals with a low prevalence may be restricted to specific patient populations.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Risk of hospitalisation associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant versus delta variant in Denmark: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of the severity of the SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant (B.1.1.529) are crucial to assess the public health impact associated with its rapid global dissemination. We estimated the risk of SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalisations after infection with omicron compared with the delta variant (B.1.617.2) in Denmark, a country with high mRNA vaccination coverage and extensive free-of-charge PCR testing capacity. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, we included all RT-PCR-confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Denmark, with samples taken between Nov 21 (date of first omicron-positive sample) and Dec 19, 2021. Individuals were identified in the national COVID-19 surveillance system database, which included results of a variant-specific RT-PCR that detected omicron cases, and data on SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalisations (primary outcome of the study). We calculated the risk ratio (RR) of hospitalisation after infection with omicron compared with delta, overall and stratified by vaccination status, in a Poisson regression model with robust SEs, adjusted a priori for reinfection status, sex, age, region, comorbidities, and time period. FINDINGS: Between Nov 21 and Dec 19, 2021, among the 188 980 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection, 38 669 (20·5%) had the omicron variant. SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalisations and omicron cases increased during the study period. Overall, 124 313 (65·8%) of 188 980 individuals were vaccinated, and vaccination was associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation (adjusted RR 0·24, 95% CI 0·22-0·26) compared with cases with no doses or only one dose of vaccine. Compared with delta infection, omicron infection was associated with an adjusted RR of hospitalisation of 0·64 (95% CI 0·56-0·75; 222 [0·6%] of 38 669 omicron cases admitted to hospital vs 2213 [1·5%] of 150 311 delta cases). For a similar comparison by vaccination status, the RR of hospitalisation was 0·57 (0·44-0·75) among cases with no or only one dose of vaccine, 0·71 (0·60-0·86) among those who received two doses, and 0·50 (0·32-0·76) among those who received three doses. INTERPRETATION: We found a significantly lower risk of hospitalisation with omicron infection compared with delta infection among both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, suggesting an inherent reduced severity of omicron. Our results could guide modelling of the effect of the ongoing global omicron wave and thus health-care system preparedness. FUNDING: None.

An Agreement of Antigen Tests on Oral Pharyngeal Swabs or Less Invasive Testing With Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 in Adults: Protocol for a Prospective Nationwide Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented level of worldwide testing for epidemiologic and diagnostic purposes, and due to the extreme need for tests, the gold-standard Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) testing capacity has been unable to meet the overall worldwide testing demand. Consequently, although the current literature has shown the sensitivity of rapid antigen tests (RATs) to be inferior to RT-PCR, RATs have been implemented on a large scale without solid data on performance. OBJECTIVE: This study will compare analytical and clinical sensitivities and specificities of 50 lateral flow- or laboratory-based RATs and 3 strand invasion-based amplification (SIBA)-RT-PCR tests from 30 manufacturers to RT-PCR testing of samples obtained from the deep oropharynx. In addition, the study will compare sensitivities and specificities of the included RATs as well as RT-PCR on clinical samples obtained from the deep oropharynx, the anterior nasal cavity, saliva, the deep nasopharynx, and expired air to RT-PCR on deep oropharyngeal samples. METHODS: In the prospective part of the study, 200 individuals found SARS-CoV-2 positive and 200 individuals found SARS-CoV-2 negative by routine RT-PCR testing will be retested with each RAT, applying RT-PCR as the reference method. In the retrospective part of the study, 304 deep oropharyngeal cavity swabs divided into 4 groups based on RT-PCR quantification cycle (Cq) levels will be tested with each RAT. RESULTS: The results will be reported in several papers with different aims. The first paper will report retrospective (analytical sensitivity, overall and stratified into different Cq range groups) and prospective (clinical sensitivity) data for RATs, with RT-PCR as the reference method. The second paper will report results for RAT based on anatomical sampling location. The third paper will compare different anatomical sampling locations by RT-PCR testing. The fourth paper will focus on RATs that rely on central laboratory testing. Tests from 4 different manufacturers will be compared for analytical performance data on retrospective deep oropharyngeal swab samples. The fifth paper will report the results of 4 RATs applied both as professional use and as self-tests. The last paper will report the results from 2 breath tests in the study. A comparison of sensitivity and specificity between RATs will be conducted using the McNemar test for paired samples and the chi-squared test for unpaired samples. Comparison of the positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) between RATs will be performed by the bootstrap test, and 95% CIs for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV will be calculated as bootstrap CIs. CONCLUSIONS: The study will compare the sensitivities of a large number of RATs for SARS-CoV-2 to with those of RT-PCR and will address whether lateral flow-based RATs differ significantly from laboratory-based RATs. The anatomical test locations for both RATs and RT-PCR will also be compared. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04913116; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04913116. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35706.

The impact and prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in patients with head and neck cancer and acute upper airway infection in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology referral center in Denmark.

PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 at a Danish tertiary referral otorhinolaryngology clinic during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among patients with suspected acute upper airway infection (UAI) and patients operated for head and neck cancer (HNC), respectively. To monitor changes in the number of patient encounters for acute UAI and the number of referrals for the workup of HNC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT-04356560 (Clinicaltrials.gov). METHODS: Prospective enrolled case series of all patients with suspected acute UAI (n = 88) and of patients undergoing surgery for HNC (n = 96), respectively, from March 23rd to May 5th, 2020, at a public tertiary referral otorhinolaryngology clinic in Denmark. SARS-CoV-2 was diagnosed with nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabbing. Patients with suspected acute UAI had symptoms and definitive diagnoses registered in a database. Trends in the number of referrals and patient encounters were retrieved from an electronic patient journal system and analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients with acute UAI were enrolled including 55 men and 34 women, median age of 31 years (range: 10 months to 82 years). One patient (1.1%) tested positive. Among 96 patients operated for HNC, zero tested positive. The number of referrals for HNC workup, and patient encounters for peritonsillar abscesses, decreased markedly in the first 3 weeks. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 during the first 6 weeks of the first wave was minimal among patients with acute UAI and zero among patients operated for HNC. The decrease in referrals for the workup of HNC may increase time to treatment initiation and patient morbidity.