Approaches for Optimal Use of Different COVID-19 Vaccines: Issues of Viral Variants and Vaccine Efficacy

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment. This is the first update of a Cochrane review published 6 May 2022, with one new study added.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces aimed at reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to other interventions or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collections, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv to 13 April 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by coworkers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls (i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias, and GRADE methods to evaluate the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 2 studies including a total of 16,014 participants. Elimination-of-exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards, which was an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) working at 86 schools were assigned to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (rate ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 working days) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 working days) in the intervention group (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71% in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure our other outcomes of SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, or hospitalisation. We found seven ongoing studies using elimination-of-hazard strategies, six RCTs and one non-randomised trial. Administrative control interventions We found one ongoing RCT that aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine in preventing COVID-19 infection and reducing disease severity. Combinations of eligible interventions We included one non-randomised study examining a combination of elimination of hazards, administrative controls, and personal protective equipment. The study was conducted in two large retail companies in Italy in 2020. The study compared a safety operating protocol, measurement of body temperature and oxygen saturation upon entry, and a SARS-CoV-2 test strategy with a minimum activity protocol. Both groups received protective equipment. All employees working at the companies during the study period were included: 1987 in the intervention company and 1798 in the control company. The study did not report an outcome of interest for this systematic review. Other intervention categories We did not find any studies in this category.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-positive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. A test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absenteeism rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. The non-randomised study included in our updated search did not report any outcome of interest for this Cochrane review. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included RCT did not report on any of our other primary outcomes (i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events). We identified no completed studies on any other interventions specified in this review; however, eight eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Protocol for a living evidence synthesis on variants of concern and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness

BACKGROUND

It is evident that COVID-19 will remain a public health concern in the coming years, largely driven by variants of concern (VOC). It is critical to continuously monitor vaccine effectiveness as new variants emerge and new vaccines and/or boosters are developed. Systematic surveillance of the scientific evidence base is necessary to inform public health action and identify key uncertainties. Evidence syntheses may also be used to populate models to fill in research gaps and help to prepare for future public health crises. This protocol outlines the rationale and methods for a living evidence synthesis of the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with, and transmission of, VOC of SARS-CoV-2.

METHODS

Living evidence syntheses of vaccine effectiveness will be carried out over one year for (1) a range of potential outcomes in the index individual associated with VOC (pathogenesis); and (2) transmission of VOC. The literature search will be conducted up to May 2023. Observational and database-linkage primary studies will be included, as well as RCTs. Information sources include electronic databases (MEDLINE; Embase; Cochrane, L*OVE; the CNKI and Wangfang platforms), pre-print servers (medRxiv, BiorXiv), and online repositories of grey literature. Title and abstract and full-text screening will be performed by two reviewers using a liberal accelerated method. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed by one reviewer with verification of the assessment by a second reviewer. Results from included studies will be pooled via random effects meta-analysis when appropriate, or otherwise summarized narratively.

DISCUSSION

Evidence generated from our living evidence synthesis will be used to inform policy making, modelling, and prioritization of future research on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against VOC.

Experiences and challenges of African traditional medicine: lessons from COVID-19 pandemic

Management of COVID-19 in Africa is challenging due to limited resources, including the high cost of vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices and routine pharmaceuticals. These challenges, in addition to wide acceptability, have resulted in increased use of herbal medicines based on African traditional medicines (ATMs) by patients in Africa. This is in spite of the often-significant gaps in evidence regarding these traditional medicines as to their efficacy and safety for COVID-19. African scientists, with some support from their governments, and guidance from WHO and other bodies, are addressing this evidence gap, developing and testing herbal medicines based on ATMs to manage mild-to-moderate cases of COVID-19. Such efforts need further support to meet public health needs.

COVID-19 Vaccination and Alcohol Consumption: Justification of Risks

Since the beginning of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic, pharmaceutical companies and research institutions have been actively working to develop vaccines, and the mass roll-out of vaccinations against COVID-19 began in January 2021. At the same time, during lockdowns, the consumption of alcoholic beverages increased. During the peak of vaccination, consumption remained at high levels around the world, despite the gradual relaxation of quarantine restrictions. Two of the popular queries on search engines were whether it is safe to drink alcohol after vaccination and whether this will affect the effectiveness of vaccines. Over the past two years, many studies have been published suggesting that excessive drinking not only worsens the course of an acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus but can also exacerbate post-COVID-19 syndrome. Despite all sorts of online speculation, there is no specific scientific data on alcohol-induced complications after vaccination in the literature. Most of the published vaccine clinical trials do not include groups of patients with a history of alcohol-use disorders. This review analyzed the well-known and new mechanisms of action of COVID-19 vaccines on the immune system and the effects of alcohol and its metabolites on these mechanisms.

Comparison of health-oriented cross-regional allocation strategies for the COVID-19 vaccine: a mathematical modelling study

BACKGROUND

Controlling the epidemic spread and establishing the immune barrier in a short time through accurate vaccine demand prediction and optimised vaccine allocation strategy are still urgent problems to be solved under the condition of frequent virus mutations.

METHODS

A cross-regional Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed dynamic model was used for scenario simulation to systematically elaborate and compare the effects of different cross-regional vaccine allocation strategies on the future development of the epidemic in regions with different population sizes, prevention and control capabilities, and initial risk levels. Furthermore, the trajectory of the cross-regional vaccine allocation strategy, calculated using a particle swarm optimisation algorithm, was compared with the trajectories of other strategies.

RESULTS

By visualising the final effect of the particle swarm optimisation vaccine allocation strategy, this study revealed the important role of prevention and control (including the level of social distancing control, the speed of tracking and isolating exposed and infected individuals, and the initial frequency of mask-wearing) in determining the allocation of vaccine resources. Most importantly, it supported the idea of prioritising control in regions with a large population and low initial risk level, which broke the general view that high initial risk needs to be given priority and proposed that outbreak risk should be firstly considered instead.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to use a particle swarm optimisation algorithm to study the cross-regional allocation of COVID-19 vaccines. These data provide a theoretical basis for countries and regions to develop more targeted and sustainable vaccination strategies.KEY MESSAGEThe innovative combination of particle swarm optimisation and cross-regional SEIR model to simulate the pandemic trajectory and predict the vaccine demand helped to speed up and stabilise the construction of the immune barrier, especially faced with new virus mutations.We proposed that priority should be given to regions where it is possible to prevent more infections rather than regions where it is at high initial risk, thus regional outbreak risk should be considered when making vaccine allocation decisions.An optimal health-oriented strategy for vaccine allocation in the COVID-19 pandemic is determined considering both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical policy interventions, including speed of isolation, degree of social distancing control, and frequency of mask-wearing.

Safety surveillance and challenges in accelerated COVID-19 vaccine development

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by a novel type of coronavirus, continues to infect people, increasing morbidity and mortality across the globe. Measures to slow the transmission of the virus have had limited impact, and people, businesses, and economies have suffered. The disease has disproportionally impacted elderly and individuals with certain pre-existing conditions and has highlighted health and social inequities in some racial and ethnic minority groups. The majority of those who contract the disease recover completely, but some experience long-lasting complications. Vaccines have the potential to end the pandemic, and through the intense collaboration of scientists in government and private sectors, more than 200 COVID-19 candidate vaccines have been or are being developed, using known platforms and previous experiences with severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), at unprecedented speed. The expectations for vaccine safety and quality in the setting of accelerated development are the same as during non-emergency times; however, challenges inherent with the circumstances of the pandemic situation provide opportunities to improve clinical trial conduct and strengthen pharmacovigilance systems. We have reviewed and analyzed existing PV guidelines and recommendations throughout the lifecycle of vaccine development with a focus on developing a global/worldwide effort for post-marketing vaccine safety surveillance.

Recent Progress in the Discovery and Development of Monoclonal Antibodies against Viral Infections

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), the new revolutionary class of medications, are fast becoming tools against various diseases thanks to a unique structure and function that allow them to bind highly specific targets or receptors. These specialized proteins can be produced in large quantities via the hybridoma technique introduced in 1975 or by means of modern technologies. Additional methods have been developed to generate mAbs with new biological properties such as humanized, chimeric, or murine. The inclusion of mAbs in therapeutic regimens is a major medical advance and will hopefully lead to significant improvements in infectious disease management. Since the first therapeutic mAb, muromonab-CD3, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1986, the list of approved mAbs and their clinical indications and applications have been proliferating. New technologies have been developed to modify the structure of mAbs, thereby increasing efficacy and improving delivery routes. Gene delivery technologies, such as non-viral synthetic plasmid DNA and messenger RNA vectors (DMabs or mRNA-encoded mAbs), built to express tailored mAb genes, might help overcome some of the challenges of mAb therapy, including production restrictions, cold-chain storage, transportation requirements, and expensive manufacturing and distribution processes. This paper reviews some of the recent developments in mAb discovery against viral infections and illustrates how mAbs can help to combat viral diseases and outbreaks.

The influence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on post-operative outcomes in microsurgery patients

Background

The healthcare industry's efforts to immunize the global community against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus‐2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) have been unprecedented. Given the fast‐tracking of the novel vaccine, its short‐ and long‐term medical implications remain largely to‐be‐determined in most patient populations. This study aims to analyze 90‐day post‐operative outcomes in microsurgical patients, who have received or not received SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccination, using a continuously updated federated electronic medical record network (TriNetX Inc, Cambridge, MA).

Methods

After screening 70 million de‐identified records, 16,799 microsurgery patients aged 18–99 meeting medical coding criteria were allocated into two cohorts. Cohort One received SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccination prior to undergoing microsurgery whereas Cohort Two did not. Two equally sized cohorts, totaling 818 patients were created after propensity score matching for characteristics including: age, race, ethnicity, smoking, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and history of SARS‐CoV‐2 exposure. Postoperative outcomes within 30‐, 60‐, and 90‐days of microsurgery were analyzed.

Results

Patients who were SARS‐CoV‐2‐immunized experienced significantly lower (p < .01) surgical site infections (Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR)[95%CI]) = (3.79%–5.36% [0.84–8.54]) ICU admission (9.47%–9.82%[5.45–13.88]), generalized infections (7.68%–9.92%[3.15–14.64]), and hospitalizations (28.48%–32.57%[20.99–40.13]) within 30‐, 60‐, and 90‐days of microsurgery. Additionally, SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccinated patients also experienced significantly less flap failure (2.49%[0.97–4.02]) and death (2.46%[0.96–3.97]) within 30‐ and 60‐days post‐operatively.

Conclusion

Our analysis examines the potential protective effect of SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccination in microsurgical patients. Limitations include the retrospective nature of this analysis and the inherent reliance on medical coding. Future prospective studies are warranted to better understand if in fact pre‐operative SARS‐CoV‐2‐vaccination has the potential to protect against post‐operative microsurgery outcomes.

Effectiveness of the Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson) Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine for Preventing COVID-19 Hospitalizations and Progression to High Disease Severity in the United States

Background . Adults in the United States (US) began receiving the adenovirus vector coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, Ad26.COV2.S (Johnson & Johnson [Janssen]), in February 2021. We evaluated Ad26.COV2.S vaccine effectiveness (VE) against COVID-19 hospitalization and high disease severity during the first 10 months of its use. Methods . In a multicenter case-control analysis of US adults (≥18 years) hospitalized 11 March to 15 December 2021, we estimated VE against susceptibility to COVID-19 hospitalization (VEs), comparing odds of prior vaccination with a single dose Ad26.COV2.S vaccine between hospitalized cases with COVID-19 and controls without COVID-19. Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, we estimated VE against disease progression (VEp) to death or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), comparing odds of prior vaccination between patients with and without progression. Results . After excluding patients receiving mRNA vaccines, among 3979 COVID-19 case-patients (5% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S) and 2229 controls (13% vaccinated with Ad26.COV2.S), VEs of Ad26.COV2.S against COVID-19 hospitalization was 70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 63-75%) overall, including 55% (29-72%) among immunocompromised patients, and 72% (64-77%) among immunocompetent patients, for whom VEs was similar at 14-90 days (73% [59-82%]), 91-180 days (71% [60-80%]), and 181-274 days (70% [54-81%]) postvaccination. Among hospitalized COVID-19 case-patients, VEp was 46% (18-65%) among immunocompetent patients. Conclusions . The Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine reduced the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization by 72% among immunocompetent adults without waning through 6 months postvaccination. After hospitalization for COVID-19, vaccinated immunocompetent patients were less likely to require IMV or die compared to unvaccinated immunocompetent patients.

Determinants of COVID-19 Vaccine Engagement in Algeria: A Population-Based Study With Systematic Review of Studies From Arab Countries of the MENA Region

Background

The Algerian COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which started at the end of January 2021, is marked by a slowly ascending curve despite the deployed resources. To tackle the issue, we assessed the levels and explored determinants of engagement toward the COVID-19 vaccine among the Algerian population.

Methods

A nationwide, online-based cross-sectional study was conducted between March 27 and April 30, 2021. A two-stage stratified snowball sampling method was used to include an equivalent number of participants from the four cardinal regions of the country. A vaccine engagement scale was developed, defining vaccine engagement as a multidimensional parameter (5 items) that combined self-stated acceptance and willingness with perceived safety and efficacy of the vaccine. An Engagement score was calculated and the median was used to define engagement vs. non-engagement. Sociodemographic and clinical data, perceptions about COVID-19, and levels of adherence to preventive measures were analyzed as predictors for non-engagement.

Results

We included 1,019 participants, 54% were female and 64% were aged 18-29 years. Overall, there were low rates of self-declared acceptance (26%) and willingness (21%) to take the vaccine, as well as low levels of agreement regarding vaccine safety (21%) and efficacy (30%). Thus, the vaccine engagement rate was estimated at 33.5%, and ranged between 29.6-38.5% depending on the region (p > 0.05). Non-engagement was independently associated with female gender (OR = 2.31, p < 0.001), low adherence level to preventive measures (OR = 6.93, p < 0.001), private-sector jobs (OR = 0.53, p = 0.038), perceived COVID-19 severity (OR = 0.66, p = 0.014), and fear from contracting the disease (OR = 0.56, p = 0.018). Concern about vaccine side effects (72.0%) and exigence for more efficacy and safety studies (48.3%) were the most commonly reported barrier and enabler for vaccine acceptance respectively; whereas beliefs in the conspiracy theory were reported by 23.4%.

Conclusions

The very low rates of vaccine engagement among the Algerian population probably explain the slow ascension of the vaccination curve in the country. Vaccine awareness campaigns should be implemented to address the multiple misconceptions and enhance the levels of knowledge and perception both about the disease and the vaccine, by prioritizing target populations and engaging both healthcare workers and the general population.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

The Polarity and Specificity of Antiviral T Lymphocyte Responses Determine Susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Patients with Cancer and Healthy Individuals

Vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on the in-depth understanding of protective immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). We characterized the polarity and specificity of memory T cells directed against SARS-CoV-2 viral lysates and peptides to determine correlates with spontaneous, virus-elicited, or vaccine-induced protection against COVID-19 in disease-free and cancer-bearing individuals. A disbalance between type 1 and 2 cytokine release was associated with high susceptibility to COVID-19. Individuals susceptible to infection exhibited a specific deficit in the T helper 1/T cytotoxic 1 (Th1/Tc1) peptide repertoire affecting the receptor binding domain of the spike protein (S1-RBD), a hotspot of viral mutations. Current vaccines triggered Th1/Tc1 responses in only a fraction of all subject categories, more effectively against the original sequence of S1-RBD than that from viral variants. We speculate that the next generation of vaccines should elicit Th1/Tc1 T-cell responses against the S1-RBD domain of emerging viral variants.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study prospectively analyzed virus-specific T-cell correlates of protection against COVID-19 in healthy and cancer-bearing individuals. A disbalance between Th1/Th2 recall responses conferred susceptibility to COVID-19 in both populations, coinciding with selective defects in Th1 recognition of the receptor binding domain of spike. See related commentary by McGary and Vardhana, p. 892. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 873.

Modelling the Effect of the Interaction between Vaccination and Nonpharmaceutical Measures on COVID-19 Incidence

Since December 2019, the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread rapidly from Wuhan (China) across the globe, affecting more than 200 countries by mid-2021, with over 190 M reported cases and around 4 M fatalities. During the first year of the pandemic, affected countries implemented a variety of nonpharmaceutical interventions to control virus transmission. In December 2020, countries started administering several authorised vaccines under a limited supply scenario. In this context, the aim of this study was to develop a SEIR-type continuous-time deterministic disease model, to determine the impact of interaction between different vaccination scenarios and levels of protection measures on disease incidence. For this, the model incorporates (i) a protection measure including low (self-protection), medium (mobility limitation), high (closure of indoor facilities), and very high (lockdown) protection levels, (ii) quarantine for confirmed cases, and (iii) vaccination rate and efficacy of four types of vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca, and Janssen). The model was verified and evaluated using the response timeline and vaccination strategies and rates in the Basque Country (N. Spain). Once the model performance was validated, different initial phase (when 30% of the population is vaccinated) vaccination scenarios were simulated, including (i) a realistic vaccine limited supply scenario and (ii) four potential full vaccine supply scenarios where a unique vaccine type is administered. Significant differences in disease prevalence and cumulative mortality were found between vaccination scenarios for low and medium-level protection measures. For high-level protection measures, any vaccine scenario is effective at limiting the virus transmission and disease mortality. The results obtained here may vary in further studies since there may be some unpredictable factors/covariates. With this in mind, the model here could be easily applied to other regions or countries, modifying the strategies implemented and initial conditions.

Communication about vaccine efficacy and COVID-19 vaccine choice: Evidence from a survey experiment in the United States

While mass vaccination campaigns against COVID-19 have inoculated almost 200 million Americans and billions more worldwide, significant pockets of vaccine hesitancy remain. Research has firmly established that vaccine efficacy is an important driver of public vaccine acceptance and choice. However, current vaccines offer widely varying levels of protection against different adverse health outcomes of COVID-19. This study employs an experiment embedded on a survey of 1,194 US adults in June 2021 to examine how communications about vaccine efficacy affect vaccine choice. The experiment manipulated how vaccine efficacy was defined across four treatments: (1) protection against symptomatic infection; (2) protection against severe illness; (3) protection against hospitalization/death; (4) efficacy data on all three metrics. The control group received no efficacy information. Subjects were asked to choose between a pair of vaccines-a one-dose viral vector vaccine or two-dose mRNA vaccine-whose efficacy data varied across the four experimental treatment groups. Efficacy data for each vaccine on each dimension were adapted from clinical trial data on the Johnson & Johnson/Janssen and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. Among all respondents, only modest preference gaps between the two vaccines emerged in the control group and when the two vaccines' roughly equivalent efficacy data against hospitalization and death were reported. Strong preferences for a two-dose mRNA vaccine emerged in treatments where its higher efficacy against symptomatic or severe illness was reported, as well as in the treatment where data on all three efficacy criteria were reported. Unvaccinated respondents preferred a one-dose viral vector vaccine when only efficacy data against hospitalization or death was presented. Black and Latino respondents were significantly more likely to choose the one-shot viral vector vaccine in the combined efficacy treatment than were whites. Results speak to the importance of understanding how communications about vaccine efficacy affect public preferences in an era of increasing uncertainty about efficacy against variants.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibodies in COVID-19 convalescent plasma do not enhance viral infection

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2 that causes COVID-19 has resulted in the death of nearly 4 million people within the last 18 months. While preventive vaccination, and monoclonal antibody therapies have been rapidly developed and deployed, early in the pandemic the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was a common means of passive immunization with a theoretical risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of viral infection. Though vaccines elicit a strong and protective immune response and transfusion of CCP with high titers of neutralization activity are correlated with better clinical outcomes, the question of whether antibodies in CCP can enhance infection of SARS-CoV-2 has not been directly addressed. In this study, we analyzed for and observed passive transfer of neutralization activity with CCP transfusion. Furthermore, to specifically understand if antibodies against the spike protein (S) enhance infection, we measured the anti-S IgG, IgA, and IgM responses and adapted retroviral-pseudotypes to measure virus neutralization with target cells expressing the ACE2 virus receptor and the Fc alpha receptor (FcαR) or Fc gamma receptor IIA (FcγRIIA). Whereas neutralizing activity of CCP correlated best with higher titers of anti-S IgG antibodies, the neutralizing titer was not affected when Fc receptors were present on target cells. These observations support the absence of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection (ADE) by IgG and IgA isotypes found in CCP. The results presented, therefore, not only supports the therapeutic use of currently available antibody-based treatment, including the continuation of CCP transfusion strategies, but also the use of various vaccine platforms in a prophylactic approach.

Potency of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome-CoV-2 variants of concern: A systematic review of in vitro studies

BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 are two types of mRNA-based vaccine platforms that have received emergency use authorization. The emergence of novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) variants has raised concerns of reduced sensitivity to neutralization by their elicited antibodies. We aimed to systematically review the most recent in vitro studies evaluating the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 induced neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern. We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science in addition to bioRxiv and medRxiv with terms including 'SARS-CoV-2', 'BNT162b2', 'mRNA-1273', and 'neutralizing antibody' up to June 29, 2021. A modified version of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist was used for assessing included study quality. A total 36 in vitro studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review. B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), and B.1.617.2 (Delta) are four SARS-CoV-2 variants that have recently been identified as variants of concern. Included studies implemented different methods regarding pseudovirus or live virus neutralization assays for measuring neutralization titres against utilized viruses. After two dose vaccination by BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273, the B.1.351 variant had the least sensitivity to neutralizing antibodies, while B.1.1.7 variant had the most sensitivity; that is, it was better neutralized relative to the comparator strain. P.1 and B.1.617.2 variants had an intermediate level of impaired naturalization activity of antibodies elicited by prior vaccination. Our review suggests that immune sera derived from vaccinated individuals might show reduced protection of individuals immunized with mRNA vaccines against more recent SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern.

The ins and outs of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs)

SARS-CoV-2, a newly emerging coronavirus that caused the COVID-19 epidemic, has been spreading quickly throughout the world. Despite immunization and some fairly effective therapeutic regimens, SARS-CoV-2 has been ravaging patients, health workers, and the economy. SARS-CoV-2 mutates and evolves to adapt to its host as a result of extreme selection pressure. As a consequence, new SARS-CoV-2 variants have emerged, some of which are classified as variants of concern (VOC) because they exhibit greater transmissibility, cause more-severe disease, are better able to escape immunity, or cause higher mortality than the original Wuhan strain. Here, we introduce these VOCs and review their characteristics, such as transmissibility, immune escape, mortality risk, and diagnostics.

Heterologous vaccination interventions to reduce pandemic morbidity and mortality: Modeling the US winter 2020 COVID-19 wave

COVID-19 remains a stark health threat worldwide, in part because of minimal levels of targeted vaccination outside high-income countries and highly transmissible variants causing infection in vaccinated individuals. Decades of theoretical and experimental data suggest that nonspecific effects of non-COVID-19 vaccines may help bolster population immunological resilience to new pathogens. These routine vaccinations can stimulate heterologous cross-protective effects, which modulate nontargeted infections. For example, immunization with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin, inactivated influenza vaccine, oral polio vaccine, and other vaccines have been associated with some protection from SARS-CoV-2 infection and amelioration of COVID-19 disease. If heterologous vaccine interventions (HVIs) are to be seriously considered by policy makers as bridging or boosting interventions in pandemic settings to augment nonpharmaceutical interventions and specific vaccination efforts, evidence is needed to determine their optimal implementation. Using the COVID-19 International Modeling Consortium mathematical model, we show that logistically realistic HVIs with low (5 to 15%) effectiveness could have reduced COVID-19 cases, hospitalization, and mortality in the United States fall/winter 2020 wave. Similar to other mass drug administration campaigns (e.g., for malaria), HVI impact is highly dependent on both age targeting and intervention timing in relation to incidence, with maximal benefit accruing from implementation across the widest age cohort when the pandemic reproduction number is >1.0. Optimal HVI logistics therefore differ from optimal rollout parameters for specific COVID-19 immunizations. These results may be generalizable beyond COVID-19 and the US to indicate how even minimally effective heterologous immunization campaigns could reduce the burden of future viral pandemics.

Association between county-level risk groups and COVID-19 outcomes in the United States: a socioecological study

BACKGROUND

Geographic heterogeneity in COVID-19 outcomes in the United States is well-documented and has been linked with factors at the county level, including sociodemographic and health factors. Whether an integrated measure of place-based risk can classify counties at high risk for COVID-19 outcomes is not known.

METHODS

We conducted an ecological nationwide analysis of 2,701 US counties from 1/21/20 to 2/17/21. County-level characteristics across multiple domains, including demographic, socioeconomic, healthcare access, physical environment, and health factor prevalence were harmonized and linked from a variety of sources. We performed latent class analysis to identify distinct groups of counties based on multiple sociodemographic, health, and environmental domains and examined the association with COVID-19 cases and deaths per 100,000 population.

RESULTS

Analysis of 25.9 million COVID-19 cases and 481,238 COVID-19 deaths revealed large between-county differences with widespread geographic dispersion, with the gap in cumulative cases and death rates between counties in the 90th and 10th percentile of 6,581 and 291 per 100,000, respectively. Counties from rural areas tended to cluster together compared with urban areas and were further stratified by social determinants of health factors that reflected high and low social vulnerability. Highest rates of cumulative COVID-19 cases (9,557 [2,520]) and deaths (210 [97]) per 100,000 occurred in the cluster comprised of rural disadvantaged counties.

CONCLUSIONS

County-level COVID-19 cases and deaths had substantial disparities with heterogeneous geographic spread across the US. The approach to county-level risk characterization used in this study has the potential to provide novel insights into communicable disease patterns and disparities at the local level.

Exploring the COVID-19 vaccine candidates against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants: where do we stand and where do we go?

As of September 2021, 117 COVID-19 vaccines are in clinical development, and 194 are in preclinical development as per the World Health Organization (WHO) published draft landscape. Among the 117 vaccines undergoing clinical trials, the major platforms include protein subunit; RNA; inactivated virus; viral vector, among others. So far, USFDA recognized to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech (Comirnaty) COVID-19 vaccine for its full use in individuals of 16 years of age and older. Though the approved vaccines are being manufactured at a tremendous pace, the wealthiest countries have about 28% of total vaccines despite possessing only 10.8% of the total world population, suggesting an inequity of vaccine distribution. The review comprehensively summarizes the history of vaccines, mainly focusing on vaccines for SARS-CoV-2. The review also connects relevant topics, including measurement of vaccines efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, associated challenges, and limitations, as hurdles in global vaccination are also kept forth.

Tackling the pandemic with (biased) data

[Figure: see text].

SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Induced Atypical Immune Responses in Antibody Defects: Everybody Does their Best

Background

Data on immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with Primary Antibody Deficiencies (PAD) are limited to infected patients and to heterogeneous cohorts after immunization.

Methods

Forty-one patients with Common Variable Immune Deficiencies (CVID), six patients with X-linked Agammaglobulinemia (XLA), and 28 healthy age-matched controls (HD) were analyzed for anti-Spike and anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody production, generation of Spike-specific memory B-cells, and Spike-specific T-cells before vaccination and one week after the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine.

Results

The vaccine induced Spike-specific IgG and IgA antibody responses in all HD and in 20% of SARS-CoV-2 naive CVID patients. Anti-Spike IgG were detectable before vaccination in 4 out 7 CVID previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and were boosted in six out of seven patients by the subsequent immunization raising higher levels than patients naïve to infection. While HD generated Spike-specific memory B-cells, and RBD-specific B-cells, CVID generated Spike-specific atypical B-cells, while RBD-specific B-cells were undetectable in all patients, indicating the incapability to generate this new specificity. Specific T-cell responses were evident in all HD and defective in 30% of CVID. All but one patient with XLA responded by specific T-cell only.

Conclusion

In PAD patients, early atypical immune responses after BNT162b2 immunization occurred, possibly by extra-follicular or incomplete germinal center reactions. If these responses to vaccination might result in a partial protection from infection or reinfection is now unknown. Our data suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection more effectively primes the immune response than the immunization alone, possibly suggesting the need for a third vaccine dose for patients not previously infected.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10875-021-01133-0.

Improved estimates of 222 nm far-UVC susceptibility for aerosolized human coronavirus via a validated high-fidelity coupled radiation-CFD code

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by aerosols has played a significant role in the rapid spread of COVID-19 across the globe. Indoor environments with inadequate ventilation pose a serious infection risk. Whilst vaccines suppress transmission, they are not 100% effective and the risk from variants and new viruses always remains. Consequently, many efforts have focused on ways to disinfect air. One such method involves use of minimally hazardous 222 nm far-UVC light. Whilst a small number of controlled experimental studies have been conducted, determining the efficacy of this approach is difficult because chamber or room geometry, and the air flow within them, influences both far-UVC illumination and aerosol dwell times. Fortunately, computational multiphysics modelling allows the inadequacy of dose-averaged assessment of viral inactivation to be overcome in these complex situations. This article presents the first validation of the WYVERN radiation-CFD code for far-UVC air-disinfection against survival fraction measurements, and the first measurement-informed modelling approach to estimating far-UVC susceptibility of viruses in air. As well as demonstrating the reliability of the code, at circa 70% higher, our findings indicate that aerosolized human coronaviruses are significantly more susceptible to far-UVC than previously thought.

Controversy surrounding the Sputnik V vaccine

The Sputnik V COVID-19 vaccine is a member of the so-called vector vaccines and uses two different vectors (Ad26 priming and Ad5 boost) to reduce the risk of a reduction in the effectiveness of the vaccination. Real life data indicate an efficacy of the vaccine above 97%. Low cost and no need for ultra-cold storage temperature temperatures are other pluses of the Sputnik V vaccine. However, there are also several important shortcomings that must be considered such as the possible reduction of its immunogenicity in the presence of very high Ad5 neutralizing antibody titres and the decrease with age of the antibody titres neutralizing the virus. Furthermore, there is emerging documentation that Sputnik V has a reduced neutralizing capacity against the Beta variant and all variants with the spike protein carrying the E484K substitution. Nevertheless, due to its characteristics, Sputnik V could be another useful means of satisfying the need for mass vaccination. However, it is imperative to document the efficacy and safety of the Sputnik V vaccine in individuals with high pre-existing anti-Ad26 and Ad5-neutralizing antibody titres and in those under the age of 18 or older than 60 years and be certain that Sputnik V does not cause the rare development of immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia. It is hoped that the now widespread use of this vaccine will generate a large pragmatic real-world study with data accessible to anyone interested in verifying them.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibodies in COVID-19 convalescent plasma do not facilitate antibody-dependent enhance of viral infection

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2, which causes COVID-19, has resulted in the death of nearly 4 million people within the last 18 months. While preventive vaccination and monoclonal antibody therapies have been rapidly developed and deployed, early in the pandemic the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was a common means of passive immunization, with the theoretical risk of antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) of viral infection remaining undetermined. Though vaccines elicit a strong and protective immune response, and transfusion of CCP with high titers of neutralization activity are correlated with better clinical outcomes, the question of whether antibodies in CCP can enhance infection of SARS-CoV2 has not been directly addressed. In this study, we analyzed for and observed passive transfer of neutralization activity with CCP transfusion. Furthermore, to specifically understand if antibodies against the spike protein (S) enhance infection, we measured the anti-S IgG, IgA, and IgM responses and adapted retroviral-pseudotypes to measure virus neutralization with target cells expressing the ACE2 virus receptor and the Fc alpha receptor (FcαR) or Fc gamma receptor IIA (FcγRIIA). Whereas neutralizing activity of CCP correlated best with higher titers of anti-S IgG antibodies, the neutralizing titer was not affected when Fc receptors were present on target cells. These observations support the absence of antibody-dependent enhancement of infection (ADE) by IgG and IgA isotypes found in CCP. The results presented, therefore, support the clinical use of currently available antibody-based treatment including the continued study of CCP transfusion strategies.

Determinants of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Engagement in Algeria: A Population-based Study with Systematic Review of Studies from Arab Countries of the MENA Region.. [DOI: 10.1101/2021.07.17.21260662]

Background

The Algerian COVID-19 vaccination campaign, which started by the end of January 2021, is marked by a slowly ascending curve despite the deployed resources. To tackle the issue, we assessed the levels and explored determinants of engagement towards the COVID-19 vaccine among the Algerian population.

Methods

A nationwide, online-based cross-sectional study was conducted between March 27 and April 30, 2021. A two-stage stratified snowball sampling method was used to include an equivalent number of participants from the four cardinal regions of the country. A vaccine engagement scale was developed, defining vaccine engagement as a multidimensional parameter (5 items) that combined self-stated acceptance and willingness with perceived safety and efficacy of the vaccine. An Engagement score was calculated and the median was used to define engagement versus nonengagement. Sociodemographic and clinical data, perceptions about COVID-19 and levels of adherence to preventive measures were analyzed as predictors for nonengagement.

Results

We included 1,019 participants, 54% were female and 64% were aged 18-29 years. Overall, there were low rates of self-declared acceptance (26%) and willingness (21%) to take the vaccine, as well as low levels of agreement regarding vaccine safety (21%) and efficacy (30%). Thus, vaccine engagement rate was estimated at 33.5%, and ranged between 29.6-38.5% depending on the region (p>0.05). Nonengagement was independently associated with female gender (OR=2.31, p<0.001), low adherence level to preventive measures (OR=6.93p<0.001), private sector jobs (OR=0.53, p=0.038), perceived COVID-19 severity (OR=0.66, p=0.014), and fear from contracting the disease (OR=0.56, p=0.018). Concern about vaccine side effects (72.0%) and exigence for more efficacy and safety studies (48.3%) were the most commonly reported barrier and enabler for vaccine acceptance respectively; whereas beliefs in the conspiracy theory were reported by 23.4%.

Conclusions

The very low rates of vaccine engagement among the Algerian population probably explain the slow ascension of the vaccination curve in the country. Vaccine awareness campaigns should be implemented to address the multiple misconceptions and enhance the levels of knowledge and perception both about the disease and the vaccine, by prioritizing target populations and engaging both healthcare workers and the general population.

[The corona pandemic and multiple sclerosis: vaccinations and their implications for patients-Part 2: vaccine technologies]

Im Zusammenhang mit den Herausforderungen durch die weltweit vorherrschende COVID-19-Pandemie kam es zu teils epochalen Fortschritten im Bereich der Impfstofftechnologien. Neben den bereits langjährig eingesetzten Tot‑, Lebend- und proteinbasierten Impfstoffen gewannen im Zuge dieser Gesundheitskrise vektor- und genbasierte Impfstoffe enorm an Bedeutung. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es daher, einen Überblick über Multiple Sklerose und Impfen, rezente Fortschritte in der SARS-CoV-2-Impfstoff-Landschaft sowie eine detaillierte Auseinandersetzung mit den verschiedenen Impfstofftechnologien zu bieten. Abschließend sollen übersichtsmäßig klare Empfehlungen im Zusammenhang mit krankheitsmodifizierenden Therapien und Impfen bei Multiple Sklerose gegeben werden.

[The corona pandemic and multiple sclerosis: vaccinations and their implications for patients-Part 1: recommendations]

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is a global health crisis. New challenges are constantly emerging especially for the healthcare system, not least with the emergence of various viral mutations. Given the variety of immunomodulatory and immunosuppressive therapies for multiple sclerosis (MS) and the immense developments in vaccine production, there is a high need of information for people with MS. The aim of this article is therefore to provide an overview of MS and COVID-19 as well as to clarify the implications for patients with MS, especially regarding vaccination and to formulate appropriate recommendations.

Performance characteristics of five SARS-CoV-2 serological assays: Clinical utility in health-care workers

STUDY OBJECTIVE

SARS-CoV-2, which causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19), continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of acute infection relies on reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-based viral detection. The objective of this study was to evaluate the optimal serological testing strategy for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies which provides an important indicator of prior infection and potential short-term immunity.

METHODS

The sensitivity and specificity of four different ELISA assays (Euroimmun IgG, Euroimmun NCP-IgG, Fortress and DIAsource) and one CLIA assay (Roche ELECSYS) were evaluated in 423 samples; 137 patients with confirmed RT-PCR COVID-19 infection (true positives), and 100 pre-pandemic samples collected prior to October 2019 (true negatives). A further 186 samples were collected from health-care staff and analysed by all five assays.

RESULTS

The Fortress ELISA assay demonstrated the highest sensitivity and specificity followed by the Roche ECLIA assay. The highest overall sensitivity came from the assays that measured total antibody (IgM-IgG combined) and the three assays that performed the best (Fortress, Roche, Euroimmun IgG) all have different antigens as their target proteins which suggests that antigen target does not affect assay performance. In mildly symptomatic participants with either a negative RT-PCR or no RT-PCR performed, 16.76% had detectable antibodies suggesting previous infection.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend a combined testing strategy utilizing assays with different antigenic targets using the fully automated Roche ECLIA assay and confirming discordant samples with the Fortress Total Antibody ELISA assay. This study provides an important indicator of prior infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals.

The Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 Variant(s) and Its Impact on the Prevalence of COVID-19 Cases in the Nabatieh Region, Lebanon

Background: An outbreak of an unknown respiratory illness caused by a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, emerged in the city of Wuhan in Hubei Province, China, in December 2019 and was referred to as coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Soon after, it was declared as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2020. SARS-CoV-2 mainly infects the respiratory tract with different outcomes ranging from asymptomatic infection to severe critical illness leading to death. Different SARS-CoV-2 variants are emerging of which three have raised concerns worldwide due to their high transmissibility among populations. Objective: To study the prevalence of COVID-19 in the region of Nabatieh-South Lebanon during the past year and assess the presence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and their effect on the spread of infection during times of lockdown. Methods: In our study, 37,474 nasopharyngeal swab samples were collected and analyzed for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 virus in suspected patients attending a tertiary health care center in South Lebanon during the period between 16 March 2020 and 21 February 2021. Results: The results demonstrated a variation in the prevalence rates ranging from less than 1% during full lockdown of the country to 8.4% upon easing lockdown restrictions and reaching 27.5% after the holidays and 2021 New Year celebrations. Interestingly, a new variant(s) appeared starting January 2021 with a significant positive association between the prevalence of positive tests and the percentage of the variant(s). Conclusions: Our results indicate that the lockdown implemented by the Lebanese officials was an effective intervention to contain COVID-19 spread. Our study also showed that lifting lockdown measures during the holidays, which allowed indoor crowded gatherings to occur, caused a surge in COVID-19 cases and rise in the mortality rates nationwide. More importantly, we confirmed the presence of a highly transmissible SARS-CoV-2 variant(s) circulating in the Lebanese community from at least January 2021 onwards.

Modeling vaccination rollouts, SARS-CoV-2 variants and the requirement for non-pharmaceutical interventions in Italy

Despite progress in clinical care for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1, population-wide interventions are still crucial to manage the pandemic, which has been aggravated by the emergence of new, highly transmissible variants. In this study, we combined the SIDARTHE model2, which predicts the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections, with a new data-based model that projects new cases onto casualties and healthcare system costs. Based on the Italian case study, we outline several scenarios: mass vaccination campaigns with different paces, different transmission rates due to new variants and different enforced countermeasures, including the alternation of opening and closure phases. Our results demonstrate that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have a higher effect on the epidemic evolution than vaccination alone, advocating for the need to keep NPIs in place during the first phase of the vaccination campaign. Our model predicts that, from April 2021 to January 2022, in a scenario with no vaccine rollout and weak NPIs ([Formula: see text] = 1.27), as many as 298,000 deaths associated with COVID-19 could occur. However, fast vaccination rollouts could reduce mortality to as few as 51,000 deaths. Implementation of restrictive NPIs ([Formula: see text] = 0.9) could reduce COVID-19 deaths to 30,000 without vaccinating the population and to 18,000 with a fast rollout of vaccines. We also show that, if intermittent open-close strategies are adopted, implementing a closing phase first could reduce deaths (from 47,000 to 27,000 with slow vaccine rollout) and healthcare system costs, without substantive aggravation of socioeconomic losses.

Airborne Coronaviruses: Observations from Veterinary Experience

The virus responsible for the pandemic that has affected 152 countries worldwide is a new strain of coronavirus (CoV), which belongs to a family of viruses widespread in many animal species, including birds, and mammals including humans. Indeed, CoVs are known in veterinary medicine affecting several species, and causing respiratory and/or enteric, systemic diseases and reproductive disease in poultry. Animal diseases caused by CoV may be considered from the following different perspectives: livestock and poultry CoVs cause mainly "population disease"; while in companion animals they are a source of mainly "individual/single subject disease". Therefore, respiratory CoV diseases in high-density, large populations of livestock or poultry may be a suitable example for the current SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. In this review we describe some strategies applied in veterinary medicine to control CoV and discuss if they may help to develop practical and useful strategies to control the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 vaccines: evidence, challenges and the future

Through an unprecedented research and development process, in early 2021, just one year after the COVID-19 pandemic started devastating the world, there are several vaccines commercially available or in advances phase of testing, each with its own characteristics and challenges. For the first time in the history of vaccination, a global immunization program has started at a time of intense pandemic activity characterized by high virus transmission, facilitating selection of variants potentially able to escape the vaccine-induced antibody response. The reality is that one cannot rely on a single vaccine when dealing with a pandemic emergency: the urgent need of billions of doses clashes with the production capacity of the pharmaceutical industry. There is therefore no ideal vaccine, but there are many good vaccines to be used immediately. The current international debate about COVID-19 vaccines is today the hottest topic in global health whether it relates to technical and scientific issues or to the ethical aspects of access to vaccinations for all. This article aims at reviewing the status of vaccines that are used, or about to be used, in immunization campaigns worldwide.