Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline antibody status in staff and residents of 100 long-term care facilities (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

Risk factors contributing to infection with SARS-CoV-2 are modulated by sex

Throughout the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico (August-December 2020), we closely followed a cohort of n = 100 healthcare workers. These workers were initially seronegative for Immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and maintained close contact with patients afflicted by the disease. We explored the database of demographic, physiological and laboratory parameters of the cohort recorded at baseline to identify potential risk factors for infection with SARS-CoV-2 at a follow-up evaluation six months later. Given that susceptibility to infection may be a systemic rather than a local property, we hypothesized that a multivariate statistical analysis, such as MANOVA, may be an appropriate statistical approach. Our results indicate that susceptibility to infection with SARS-CoV-2 is modulated by sex. For men, different physiological states appear to exist that predispose to or protect against infection, whereas for women, we did not find evidence for divergent physiological states. Intriguingly, male participants who remained uninfected throughout the six-month observation period, had values for mean arterial pressure and waist-to-hip ratio that exceeded the normative reference range. We hypothesize that certain risk factors that worsen the outcome of COVID-19 disease, such as being overweight or having high blood pressure, may instead offer some protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2.

Built Environment and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Long-Term Care Facilities: Cross-Sectional Survey and Data Linkage

OBJECTIVES

To describe the built environment in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and its association with introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey with linkage to routine surveillance data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

LTCFs in England caring for adults ≥65 years old, participating in the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421) were eligible. Data were included from residents and staff.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of the LTCF built environment with linkage to routinely collected asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination data between September 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. We used individual and LTCF level Poisson and Negative Binomial regression models to identify risk factors for 4 outcomes: incidence rate of resident infections and outbreaks, outbreak size, and duration. We considered interactions with variant transmissibility (pre vs post Omicron dominance).

RESULTS

A total of 134 of 151 (88.7%) LTCFs participated in the survey, contributing data for 13,010 residents and 17,766 staff. After adjustment and stratification, outbreak incidence (measuring infection introduction) was only associated with SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community [incidence rate ratio (IRR) for high vs low incidence, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.85-4.36]. Characteristics of the built environment were associated with transmission outcomes and differed by variant transmissibility. For resident infection incidence, factors included number of storeys (0.64; 0.43-0.97) and bedrooms (1.04; 1.02-1.06), and purpose-built vs converted buildings (1.99; 1.08-3.69). Air quality was associated with outbreak size (dry vs just right 1.46; 1.00-2.13). Funding model (0.99; 0.99-1.00), crowding (0.98; 0.96-0.99), and bedroom temperature (1.15; 1.01-1.32) were associated with outbreak duration.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

We describe previously undocumented diversity in LTCF built environments. LTCFs have limited opportunities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 introduction, which was only driven by community incidence. However, adjusting the built environment, for example by isolating infected residents or improving airflow, may reduce transmission, although data quality was limited by subjectivity. Identifying LTCF built environment modifications that prevent infection transmission should be a research priority.

SARS-CoV-2 specific sIgA in saliva increases after disease-related video stimulation

Secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA) in saliva is the most important immunoglobulin fighting pathogens in the respiratory tract and may thus play a role in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections. To gain a better understanding of the plasticity in the mucosal antibody, we investigated the proactive change in secretion of salivary SARS-CoV-2-specific sIgA in 45 vaccinated and/or previously infected, generally healthy persons (18 to 35 years, 22 women). Participants were exposed to a disease video displaying humans with several respiratory symptoms typical for COVID-19 in realistic situations of increased contagion risk. The disease video triggered an increase in spike-specific sIgA, which was absent after a similar control video with healthy people. The increase further correlated inversely with revulsion and aversive feelings while watching sick people. In contrast, the receptor binding domain-specific sIgA did not increase after the disease video. This may indicate differential roles of the two salivary antibodies in response to predictors of airborne contagion. The observed plasticity of spike-specific salivary antibody release after visual simulation of enhanced contagion risk suggests a role in immune exclusion.

Establishing SARS-CoV-2 membrane protein-specific antibodies as a valuable serological target via high-content microscopy

The prevalence and strength of serological responses mounted toward SARS-CoV-2 proteins other than nucleocapsid (N) and spike (S), which may be of use as additional serological markers, remains underexplored. Using high-content microscopy to assess antibody responses against full-length StrepTagged SARS-CoV-2 proteins, we found that 85% (166/196) of unvaccinated individuals with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections and 74% (31/42) of individuals infected after being vaccinated developed detectable IgG against the structural protein M, which is higher than previous estimates. Compared with N antibodies, M IgG displayed a shallower time-dependent decay and greater specificity. Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was enhanced when N and M IgG detection was combined. These findings indicate that screening for M seroconversion may be a good approach for detecting additional vaccine breakthrough infections and highlight the potential to use HCM as a rapidly deployable method to identify the most immunogenic targets of newly emergent pathogens.

Clinical and Demographic Factors Associated With COVID-19, Severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults: A Secondary Cross-Protocol Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials

Importance

Current data identifying COVID-19 risk factors lack standardized outcomes and insufficiently control for confounders.

Objective

To identify risk factors associated with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This secondary cross-protocol analysis included 4 multicenter, international, randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials with harmonized protocols established by the COVID-19 Prevention Network. Individual-level data from participants randomized to receive placebo within each trial were combined and analyzed. Enrollment began July 2020 and the last data cutoff was in July 2021. Participants included adults in stable health, at risk for SARS-CoV-2, and assigned to the placebo group within each vaccine trial. Data were analyzed from April 2022 to February 2023.

Exposures

Comorbid conditions, demographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk at the time of enrollment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes were COVID-19 and severe COVID-19. Multivariate Cox proportional regression models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs for baseline covariates, accounting for trial, region, and calendar time. Secondary outcomes included severe COVID-19 among people with COVID-19, subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Results

A total of 57 692 participants (median [range] age, 51 [18-95] years; 11 720 participants [20.3%] aged ≥65 years; 31 058 participants [53.8%] assigned male at birth) were included. The analysis population included 3270 American Indian or Alaska Native participants (5.7%), 7849 Black or African American participants (13.6%), 17 678 Hispanic or Latino participants (30.6%), and 40 745 White participants (70.6%). Annualized incidence was 13.9% (95% CI, 13.3%-14.4%) for COVID-19 and 2.0% (95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%) for severe COVID-19. Factors associated with increased rates of COVID-19 included workplace exposure (high vs low: aHR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.58]; medium vs low: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.65]; P < .001) and living condition risk (very high vs low risk: aHR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.21-1.66]; medium vs low risk: aHR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.32]; P < .001). Factors associated with decreased rates of COVID-19 included previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (aHR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.09-0.19]; P < .001), age 65 years or older (aHR vs age <65 years, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.50-0.64]; P < .001) and Black or African American race (aHR vs White race, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]; P = .002). Factors associated with increased rates of severe COVID-19 included race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.85-3.69]; multiracial vs White: aHR, 2.19 [95% CI, 1.50-3.20]; P < .001), diabetes (aHR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.14-2.08]; P = .005) and at least 2 comorbidities (aHR vs none, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.76]; P = .008). In analyses restricted to participants who contracted COVID-19, increased severe COVID-19 rates were associated with age 65 years or older (aHR vs <65 years, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.32-2.31]; P < .001), race (American Indian or Alaska Native vs White: aHR, 1.98 [95% CI, 1.38-2.83]; Black or African American vs White: aHR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.03-2.14]; multiracial: aHR, 1.81 [95% CI, 1.21-2.69]; overall P = .001), body mass index (aHR per 1-unit increase, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.01-1.04]; P = .001), and diabetes (aHR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.37-2.49]; P < .001). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with decreased severe COVID-19 rates (aHR, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.01-0.14]; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this secondary cross-protocol analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials, exposure and demographic factors had the strongest associations with outcomes; results could inform mitigation strategies for SARS-CoV-2 and viruses with comparable epidemiological characteristics.

Risk of and duration of protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection assessed with real-world data

This retrospective observational study aimed to gain a better understanding of the protective duration of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection. The objectives were two-fold: to assess the durability of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially unvaccinated individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to evaluate the crude SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate and associated risk factors. During the pandemic era time period from February 29, 2020, through April 30, 2021, 144,678,382 individuals with SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic or antibody test results were studied. Rates of reinfection among index-positive individuals were compared to rates of infection among index-negative individuals. Factors associated with reinfection were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. For both objectives, the outcome was a subsequent positive molecular diagnostic test result. Consistent with prior findings, the risk of reinfection among index-positive individuals was 87% lower than the risk of infection among index-negative individuals. The duration of protection against reinfection was stable over the median 5 months and up to 1-year follow-up interval. Factors associated with an increased reinfection risk included older age, comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had a decreased reinfection risk. This large US population-based study suggests that infection induced immunity is durable for variants circulating pre-Delta predominance.

Antibody responses to BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine among healthcare workers and residents of long-term care facilities: A cohort study in Northern Italy

Background and Aims

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been severely impacted by COVID-19, with a disproportionate amount of SARS-CoV-2 infections and related deaths occurring among residents.

Methods

This study is part of an ongoing multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) and residents of 13 LTCFs in Northern Italy designed to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 specific immunoglobulin class G (IgG) titers before and following vaccination with Pfizer/BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine (two doses of vaccine, 21 days apart). Serum samples were obtained from participants (t0) before vaccination, and (t1) 2 weeks after and analyzed to determine anti-S1 IgG antibodies.

Results

Five hundred and thirty-four participants were enrolled (404 subjects participated in both blood draws). Seropositivity was 50.19% at t0 and 99% at t1, with a significant difference in IgG titers. A higher proportion of residents were seropositive at t0 compared with HCWs, with significantly higher IgG titers among residents at both t0 and t1. Pre-existing immunity also had a significant effect on postvaccination IgG titers. However, a significant difference in titers at t1 between HCWs and residents considering only participants seropositive at t0 was found, with higher median titers among previously seropositive residents.

Conclusion

Findings of this study provide scientific evidence endorsing the policy of universal vaccination in LTCFs.

Strong peak immunogenicity but rapid antibody waning following third vaccine dose in older residents of care homes

Third-dose coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines are being deployed widely but their efficacy has not been assessed adequately in vulnerable older people who exhibit suboptimal responses after primary vaccination series. This observational study, which was carried out by the VIVALDI study based in England, looked at spike-specific immune responses in 341 staff and residents in long-term care facilities who received an mRNA vaccine following dual primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Third-dose vaccination strongly increased antibody responses with preferential relative enhancement in older people and was required to elicit neutralization of Omicron. Cellular immune responses were also enhanced with strong cross-reactive recognition of Omicron. However, antibody titers fell 21-78% within 100 d after vaccine and 27% of participants developed a breakthrough Omicron infection. These findings reveal strong immunogenicity of a third vaccine in one of the most vulnerable population groups and endorse an approach for widespread delivery across this population. Ongoing assessment will be required to determine the stability of immune protection.

Glycogen Synthase Kinase-3 Interaction Domain Enhances Phosphorylation of SARS-CoV-2 Nucleocapsid Protein

A structural protein of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), nucleocapsid (N) protein is phosphorylated by glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)-3 on the serine/arginine (SR) rich motif located in disordered regions. Although phosphorylation by GSK-3β constitutes a critical event for viral replication, the molecular mechanism underlying N phosphorylation is not well understood. In this study, we found the putative alpha-helix L/FxxxL/AxxRL motif known as the GSK-3 interacting domain (GID), found in many endogenous GSK-3β binding proteins, such as Axins, FRATs, WWOX, and GSKIP. Indeed, N interacts with GSK-3β similarly to Axin, and Leu to Glu substitution of the GID abolished the interaction, with loss of N phosphorylation. The N phosphorylation is also required for its structural loading in a virus-like particle (VLP). Compared to other coronaviruses, N of Sarbecovirus lineage including bat RaTG13 harbors a CDK1-primed phosphorylation site and Gly-rich linker for enhanced phosphorylation by GSK-3β. Furthermore, we found that the S202R mutant found in Delta and R203K/G204R mutant found in the Omicron variant allow increased abundance and hyper-phosphorylation of N. Our observations suggest that GID and mutations for increased phosphorylation in N may have contributed to the evolution of variants.

The Protection of Naturally Acquired Antibodies Against Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The specific antibodies induced by SARS-CoV-2 infection may provide protection against a subsequent infection. However, the efficacy and duration of protection provided by naturally acquired immunity against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection remain controversial. We systematically searched for the literature describing COVID-19 reinfection published before 07 February 2022. The outcomes were the pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) for estimating the risk of subsequent infection. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Statistical analyses were conducted using the R programming language 4.0.2. We identified 19 eligible studies including more than 3.5 million individuals without the history of COVID-19 vaccination. The efficacy of naturally acquired antibodies against reinfection was estimated at 84% (pooled IRR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.14-0.18), with higher efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 cases (pooled IRR = 0.09, 95% CI = 0.07-0.12) than asymptomatic infection (pooled IRR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.14-0.54). In the subgroup analyses, the pooled IRRs of COVID-19 infection in health care workers (HCWs) and the general population were 0.22 (95% CI = 0.16-0.31) and 0.14 (95% CI = 0.12-0.17), respectively, with a significant difference (P = 0.02), and those in older (over 60 years) and younger (under 60 years) populations were 0.26 (95% CI = 0.15–0.48) and 0.16 (95% CI =  0.14-0.19), respectively. The risk of subsequent infection in the seropositive population appeared to increase slowly over time. In conclusion, naturally acquired antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 can significantly reduce the risk of subsequent infection, with a protection efficacy of 84%.

Registration number: CRD42021286222

Time-varying risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection in Swedish long-term care facility residents: a matched cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities is associated with higher mortality after the acute phase of infection, and to estimate survival in uninfected residents.

DESIGN

Extended follow-up of a previous, propensity score-matched, retrospective cohort study based on the Swedish Senior Alert register.

SETTING

LTC facilities in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

n=3604 LTC residents with documented SARS-CoV-2 until 15 September 2020 matched to 3604 uninfected controls using time-dependent propensity scores on age, sex, health status, comorbidities, prescription medications, geographical region and Senior Alert registration time. In a secondary analysis (n=3731 in each group), geographical region and Senior Alert registration time were not matched for in order to increase the follow-up time in controls and allow for an estimation of median survival.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality until 24 October 2020, tracked using the National Cause of Death Register.

RESULTS

Median age was 87 years and 65% were women. Excess mortality peaked at 5 days after documented SARS-CoV-2-infection (HR 21.5, 95% CI 15.9 to 29.2), after which excess mortality decreased. From the second month onwards, mortality rate became lower in infected residents than controls. The HR for death during days 61-210 of follow-up was 0.76 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.93). The median survival of uninfected controls was 1.6 years, which was much lower than the national life expectancy in Sweden at age 87 (5.05 years in men, 6.07 years in women).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection in LTC residents peaked after 5 days and decreased after 2 months, probably because the frailest residents died during the acute phase, leaving healthier residents remaining. The limited life expectancy in this population suggests that LTC resident status should be accounted for when estimating years of life lost due to COVID-19.

Time-varying risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection in Swedish long-term care facility residents: a matched cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care (LTC) facilities is associated with higher mortality after the acute phase of infection, and to estimate survival in uninfected residents.

DESIGN

Extended follow-up of a previous, propensity score-matched, retrospective cohort study based on the Swedish Senior Alert register.

SETTING

LTC facilities in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

n=3604 LTC residents with documented SARS-CoV-2 until 15 September 2020 matched to 3604 uninfected controls using time-dependent propensity scores on age, sex, health status, comorbidities, prescription medications, geographical region and Senior Alert registration time. In a secondary analysis (n=3731 in each group), geographical region and Senior Alert registration time were not matched for in order to increase the follow-up time in controls and allow for an estimation of median survival.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

All-cause mortality until 24 October 2020, tracked using the National Cause of Death Register.

RESULTS

Median age was 87 years and 65% were women. Excess mortality peaked at 5 days after documented SARS-CoV-2-infection (HR 21.5, 95% CI 15.9 to 29.2), after which excess mortality decreased. From the second month onwards, mortality rate became lower in infected residents than controls. The HR for death during days 61-210 of follow-up was 0.76 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.93). The median survival of uninfected controls was 1.6 years, which was much lower than the national life expectancy in Sweden at age 87 (5.05 years in men, 6.07 years in women).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of death after SARS-CoV-2 infection in LTC residents peaked after 5 days and decreased after 2 months, probably because the frailest residents died during the acute phase, leaving healthier residents remaining. The limited life expectancy in this population suggests that LTC resident status should be accounted for when estimating years of life lost due to COVID-19.

Antibody correlates of protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection prior to vaccination: A nested case-control within the SIREN study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate serological differences between SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases and contemporary controls, to identify antibody correlates of protection against reinfection.

METHODS

We performed a case-control study, comparing reinfection cases with singly infected individuals pre-vaccination, matched by gender, age, region and timing of first infection. Serum samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S), anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (anti-N), live virus microneutralisation (LV-N) and pseudovirus microneutralisation (PV-N). Results were analysed using fixed effect linear regression and fitted into conditional logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 23 cases and 92 controls. First infections occurred before November 2020; reinfections occurred before February 2021, pre-vaccination. Anti-S levels, LV-N and PV-N titres were significantly lower among cases; no difference was found for anti-N levels. Increasing anti-S levels were associated with reduced risk of reinfection (OR 0·63, CI 0·47-0·85), but no association for anti-N levels (OR 0·88, CI 0·73-1·05). Titres >40 were correlated with protection against reinfection for LV-N Wuhan (OR 0·02, CI 0·001-0·31) and LV-N Alpha (OR 0·07, CI 0·009-0·62). For PV-N, titres >100 were associated with protection against Wuhan (OR 0·14, CI 0·03-0·64) and Alpha (0·06, CI 0·008-0·40).

CONCLUSIONS

Before vaccination, protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was directly correlated with anti-S levels, PV-N and LV-N titres, but not with anti-N levels. Detectable LV-N titres were sufficient for protection, whilst PV-N titres >100 were required for a protective effect.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN11041050.

On the Need to Determine the Contribution of Anti-Nucleocapsid Antibodies as Potential Contributors to COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Efficacy

Historically the therapeutic potential of polyclonal passive immunotherapies in viral diseases has been related to antiviral neutralizing antibodies, but there is also considerable evidence that non-neutralizing antibodies can translate into clinical benefit as well. In the setting of SARS-CoV-2 infection, we review here in vitro and in vivo evidence supporting a contributing role for anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Retrospective investigation of anti-nucleocapsid antibody levels in randomized clinical trials of COVID-19 convalescent plasma is warranted to better understand whether there is an association with efficacy or lack thereof.

SARS-CoV-2-The Role of Natural Immunity: A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity to COVID-19 may be useful to reduce the mortality/morbidity of this disease, but still a lot of controversy exists.

AIMS

This narrative review analyzes the literature regarding these two immunitary processes and more specifically: (a) the duration of natural immunity; (b) cellular immunity; (c) cross-reactivity; (d) the duration of post-vaccination immune protection; (e) the probability of reinfection and its clinical manifestations in the recovered patients; (f) the comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated as to the possible reinfections; (g) the role of hybrid immunity; (h) the effectiveness of natural and vaccine-induced immunity against Omicron variant; (i) the comparative incidence of adverse effects after vaccination in recovered individuals vs. COVID-19-naïve subjects.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

through multiple search engines we investigated COVID-19 literature related to the aims of the review, published since April 2020 through July 2022, including also the previous articles pertinent to the investigated topics.

RESULTS

nearly 900 studies were collected, and 246 pertinent articles were included. It was highlighted that the vast majority of the individuals after suffering from COVID-19 develop a natural immunity both of cell-mediated and humoral type, which is effective over time and provides protection against both reinfection and serious illness. Vaccine-induced immunity was shown to decay faster than natural immunity. In general, the severity of the symptoms of reinfection is significantly lower than in the primary infection, with a lower degree of hospitalizations (0.06%) and an extremely low mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

this extensive narrative review regarding a vast number of articles highlighted the valuable protection induced by the natural immunity after COVID-19, which seems comparable or superior to the one induced by anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Consequently, vaccination of the unvaccinated COVID-19-recovered subjects may not be indicated. Further research is needed in order to: (a) measure the durability of immunity over time; (b) evaluate both the impacts of Omicron BA.5 on vaccinated and healed subjects and the role of hybrid immunity.

The Proportion of Long-term Response to Anti-N IgG Antibody after 12 Months for COVID-19 Subclinical Infections and a Longitudinal Survey for COVID-19 Subclinical Infections in 2021

Objective To examine the continuation of antibody prevalence status after 12 months and background factors in antibody-positive subjects following asymptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Methods We initially determined the SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid protein immunoglobulin G (anti-N IgG) antibody prevalence in 1,603 patients, doctors, and nurses at 65 medical institutions in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. We then obtained consent from 33 of the 39 subjects who tested positive and performed follow-up for 12 months. Results Follow-up for up to 12 months showed that a long-term response of the anti-N IgG antibody could be detected in 6 of the 33 participants (18.2%). The proportions with hypertension, using an angiotensin-receptor blocker, and without a drinking habit were higher among the participants with a long-term anti-N IgG antibody response for up to 12 months than among those without a long-term antibody response. Conclusions The proportion of individuals with subclinical COVID-19 who continuously had a positive result for the anti-N IgG antibody at 12 months was low.

Risk of reinfection and disease after SARS-CoV-2 primary infection: Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

A precise estimate of the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections would be critical to optimize restriction and vaccination policies for the hundreds of millions previously infected subjects. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of reinfection and COVID-19 following primary infection.

METHODS

We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories for cohort studies evaluating the onset of new infections among baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects. Random-effect meta-analyses of proportions were stratified by gender, exposure risk, vaccination status, viral strain, time between episodes, and reinfection definition.

RESULTS

Ninety-one studies, enrolling 15,034,624 subjects, were included. Overall, 158,478 reinfections were recorded, corresponding to a pooled rate of 0.97% (95% CI: 0.71%-1.27%), with no substantial differences by definition criteria, exposure risk or gender. Reinfection rates were still 0.66% after ≥12 months from first infection, and the risk was substantially lower among vaccinated subjects (0.32% vs. 0.74% for unvaccinated individuals). During the first 3 months of Omicron wave, the reinfection rates reached 3.31%. Overall rates of severe/lethal COVID-19 were very low (2-7 per 10,000 subjects according to definition criteria) and were not affected by strain predominance.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong natural immunity follows the primary infection and may last for more than one year, suggesting that the risk and health care needs of recovered subjects might be limited. Although the reinfection rates considerably increased during the Omicron wave, the risk of a secondary severe or lethal disease remained very low. The risk-benefit profile of multiple vaccine doses for this subset of population needs to be carefully evaluated.

Managing the Impact of COVID-19 in Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities: An Update

Older adults in nursing homes are at greatest risk of morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nursing home residents constituted one-third to more than half of all deaths during the early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Following this, widespread adaptation of infection prevention and control measures and the supply and use of personal protective equipment resulted in a significant decrease in nursing home infections and deaths. For nursing homes, the most important determinant of experiencing a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the first instance appears to be community-transmission levels (particularly with variants of concern), although nursing home size and quality, for-profit status, and sociodemographic characteristics are also important. Use of visitation bans, imposed to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on residents, must be delicately balanced against their impact on resident, friend or family, and staff well-being. The successful rollout of primary vaccination has resulted in a sharp decrease in morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes. However, emerging evidence suggests that vaccine efficacy may wane over time, and the use of a third or additional vaccine "booster" doses in nursing home residents restores protection afforded by primary vaccination. Ongoing monitoring of vaccine efficacy in terms of infection, morbidity, and mortality is crucial in this vulnerable group in informing ongoing SARS-CoV-2 vaccine boosting strategies. Here, we detail the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on nursing home residents and discuss important considerations in the management of nursing home SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks. We additionally examine the use of testing strategies, nonpharmacologic outbreak control measures and vaccination strategies in this cohort. Finally, the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on the sector is reflected on as we emphasize the need for adoption of universal standards of medical care and integration with wider public health infrastructure in nursing homes in order to provide a safe and effective long-term care sector.

Antibody and cellular immune responses following dual COVID-19 vaccination within infection-naive residents of long-term care facilities: an observational cohort study

Background

Older age and frailty are risk factors for poor clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, COVID-19 vaccination has been prioritised for individuals with these factors, but there is concern that immune responses might be impaired due to age-related immune dysregulation and comorbidity. We aimed to study humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccines in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

Methods

In this observational cohort study, we assessed antibody and cellular immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in members of staff and residents at 74 LTCFs across the UK. Staff and residents were eligible for inclusion if it was possible to link them to a pseudo-identifier in the COVID-19 datastore, if they had received two vaccine doses, and if they had given a blood sample 6 days after vaccination at the earliest. There were no comorbidity exclusion criteria. Participants were stratified by age (<65 years or ≥65 years) and infection status (previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [infection-primed group] or SARS-CoV-2 naive [infection-naive group]). Anticoagulated edetic acid (EDTA) blood samples were assessed and humoral and cellular responses were quantified.

Findings

Between Dec 11, 2020, and June 27, 2021, blood samples were taken from 220 people younger than 65 years (median age 51 years [IQR 39-61]; 103 [47%] had previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection) and 268 people aged 65 years or older of LTCFs (median age 87 years [80-92]; 144 [43%] had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Samples were taken a median of 82 days (IQR 72-100) after the second vaccination. Antibody responses following dual vaccination were strong and equivalent between participants younger then 65 years and those aged 65 years and older in the infection-primed group (median 125 285 Au/mL [1128 BAU/mL] for <65 year olds vs 157 979 Au/mL [1423 BAU/mL] for ≥65 year olds; p=0·47). The antibody response was reduced by 2·4-times (467 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and 8·1-times (174 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive residents compared with their infection-primed counterparts. Antibody response was 2·6-times lower in infection-naive residents than in infection-naive people younger than 65 years (p=0·0006). Impaired neutralisation of delta (1.617.2) variant spike binding was also apparent in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and in those aged 65 years and older. Spike-specific T-cell responses were also significantly enhanced in the infection-primed group. Infection-naive people aged 65 years and older (203 SFU per million [IQR 89-374]) had a 52% lower T-cell response compared with infection-naive people younger than 65 years (85 SFU per million [30-206]; p≤0·0001). Post-vaccine spike-specific CD4 T-cell responses displayed single or dual production of IFN-γ and IL-2 were similar across infection status groups, whereas the infection-primed group had an extended functional profile with TNFα and CXCL10 production.

Interpretation

These data reveal suboptimal post-vaccine immune responses within infection-naive residents of LTCFs, and they suggest the need for optimisation of immune protection through the use of booster vaccination.

Funding

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and subsequent infection risk: a prospective cohort study

•

Subsequent infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 is currently not very well understood.

•

An 8-month follow-up demonstrated that subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infections were uncommon.

•

Antibody concentration potentially influences the risk of subsequent infection.

Objectives

This aim of this study was to examine the relationship between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity and subsequent infection.

Design

A cohort study design was employed.

Methods

Stratified random sampling was undertaken to identify individuals aged 10 years and above registered with Qatar's largest primary healthcare provider. A questionnaire was administered, and blood samples were collected and analyzed for immunoglobulin G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at baseline. Participants were followed up until March 31, 2021 (a 34-week follow-up period) for vaccination status and a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2.

Results

A total of 2044 individuals participated in the study (97.2% of the planned sample). Of these, 185 (9%) were found to be seropositive at baseline. 450 individuals were vaccinated during the follow-up period — 246 with one dose and 204 with two doses. 86 (4.2%) individuals had a positive PCR test during the follow-up period, of which 80 (3.9%) were seronegative and six (0.3%) were seropositive (five undiluted and one with a titer ≥ 1:8).

Conclusions

Overall, the findings suggest that reinfections are uncommon. Antibody concentrations potentially influence the risk of subsequent infection. Therefore, it might not be necessary to subject seropositive individuals to vaccination and the quarantine policies that apply to seronegative individuals.

Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific and heterologous immune responses in vaccine-naïve residents of long-term care facilities who survive natural infection

We studied humoral and cellular immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 152 long-term care facility staff and 124 residents over a prospective 4-month period shortly after the first wave of infection in England. We show that residents of long-term care facilities developed high and stable levels of antibodies against spike protein and receptor-binding domain. Nucleocapsid-specific responses were also elevated but waned over time. Antibodies showed stable and equivalent levels of functional inhibition against spike-angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 binding in all age groups with comparable activity against viral variants of concern. SARS-CoV-2 seropositive donors showed high levels of antibodies to other beta-coronaviruses but serostatus did not impact humoral immunity to influenza or other respiratory syncytial viruses. SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular responses were similar across all ages but virus-specific populations showed elevated levels of activation in older donors. Thus, survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection show a robust and stable immunity against the virus that does not negatively impact responses to other seasonal viruses.

High Incidence Rate of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers at a Dedicated COVID-19 Hospital: Experiences of the Pandemic from a Large Mexican Hospital

Health care workers (HCW) are at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW has been examined in cross-sectional studies by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) tests, which may lead to underestimating exact incidence rates. We thus investigated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a group of HCW at a dedicated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospital in a six-month follow-up period. We conducted a prospective cohort study on 109 participants of both sexes working in areas of high, moderate, and low SARS-CoV-2 exposure. qPCR tests in nasopharyngeal swabs and anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG serum antibodies were assessed at the beginning and six months later. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory parameters were analyzed according to IgG seropositivity by paired Student's T-test or the chi-square test. The incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was considerably high in our cohort of HCW (58%), among whom 67% were asymptomatic carriers. No baseline risk factors contributed to the infection rate, including the workplace. It is still necessary to increase hospital safety procedures to prevent virus transmissibility from HCW to relatives and non-COVID-19 patients during the upcoming waves of contagion.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 18 Months After Primary Infection: Population-Level Observational Study

Current data suggest that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections are rare. Uncertainties remain, however, on the duration of the natural immunity, its protection against Omicron variant, and on the impact of vaccination to reduce reinfection rates. In this retrospective cohort analysis of the entire population of an Italian region, we followed 1,293,941 subjects from the beginning of the pandemic to the current scenario of Omicron predominance (up to mid-February 2022). After an average of 277 days, we recorded 729 reinfections among 119,266 previously infected subjects (overall rate: 6.1‰), eight COVID-19-related hospitalizations (7/100,000), and two deaths. Importantly, the incidence of reinfection did not vary substantially over time: after 18-22 months from the primary infection, the reinfection rate was still 6.7‰, suggesting that protection conferred by natural immunity may last beyond 12 months. The risk of reinfection was significantly higher among females, unvaccinated subjects, and during the Omicron wave.

COVID-19 risk factors amongst 14,786 care home residents: an observational longitudinal analysis including daily community positive test rates of COVID-19, hospital stays and vaccination status in Wales (UK) between 1 September 2020 and 1 May 2021

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccinations have been prioritised for high risk individuals.

AIM

Determine individual-level risk factors for care home residents testing positive for SARS-CoV-2.

STUDY DESIGN

Longitudinal observational cohort study using individual-level linked data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) databank.

SETTING

Fourteen thousand seven hundred and eighty-six older care home residents (aged 65+) living in Wales between 1 September 2020 and 1 May 2021. Our dataset consisted of 2,613,341 individual-level daily observations within 697 care homes.

METHODS

We estimated odds ratios (ORs [95% confidence interval]) using multilevel logistic regression models. Our outcome of interest was a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We included time-dependent covariates for the estimated community positive test rate of COVID-19, hospital inpatient status, vaccination status and frailty. Additional covariates were included for age, sex and specialist care home services.

RESULTS

The multivariable regression model indicated an increase in age (OR 1.01 [1.00,1.01] per year), community positive test rate (OR 1.13 [1.12,1.13] per percent increase), hospital inpatients (OR 7.40 [6.54,8.36]), and residents in care homes with non-specialist dementia care (OR 1.42 [1.01,1.99]) had an increased odds of a positive test. Having a positive test prior to the observation period (OR 0.58 [0.49,0.68]) and either one or two doses of a vaccine (0.21 [0.17,0.25] and 0.05 [0.02,0.09], respectively) were associated with a decreased odds.

CONCLUSIONS

Care providers need to remain vigilant despite the vaccination rollout, and extra precautions should be taken when caring for the most vulnerable. Minimising potential COVID-19 infection for care home residents when admitted to hospital should be prioritised.

COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in longer-term care facilities

This essay considers the factors that have contributed to very high COVID-19 mortality in longer-term care facilities (LTCFs). We compare the demographic characteristics of LTCF residents with those of community-dwelling older adults, and then we review the evidence regarding prevalence and infection fatality rates (IFRs), including links to frailty and some comorbidities. Finally, we discuss policy measures that could foster the physical and mental health and well-being of LTCF residents in the present context and in potential future pandemics.

Does a humoral correlate of protection exist for SARS-CoV-2? A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A correlate of protection (CoP) is an immunological marker associated with protection against infection. Despite an urgent need, a CoP for SARS-CoV-2 is currently undefined.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to review the evidence for a humoral correlate of protection for SARS-CoV-2, including variants of concern.

METHODS

We searched OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Global Health, Biosis Previews and Scopus to January 4, 2022 and pre-prints (using NIH iSearch COVID-19 portfolio) to December 31, 2021, for studies describing SARS-CoV-2 re-infection or breakthrough infection with associated antibody measures. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and performed quality assessment.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies were included in our systematic review. Two studies examined the correlation of antibody levels to VE, and reported values from 48.5% to 94.2%. Similarly, several studies found an inverse relationship between antibody levels and infection incidence, risk, or viral load, suggesting that both humoral immunity and other immune components contribute to protection. However, individual level data suggest infection can still occur in the presence of high levels of antibodies. Two studies estimated a quantitative CoP: for Ancestral SARS-CoV-2, these included 154 (95% confidence interval (CI) 42, 559) anti-S binding antibody units/mL (BAU/mL), and 28.6% (95% CI 19.2, 29.2%) of the mean convalescent antibody level following infection. One study reported a CoP for the Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of concern of 171 (95% CI 57, 519) BAU/mL. No studies have yet reported an Omicron-specific CoP.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review suggests that a SARS-CoV-2 CoP is likely relative, where higher antibody levels decrease the risk of infection, but do not eliminate it completely. More work is urgently needed in this area to establish a SARS-CoV-2 CoP and guide policy as the pandemic continues.

Sub-optimal neutralisation of omicron (B.1.1.529) variant by antibodies induced by vaccine alone or SARS-CoV-2 Infection plus vaccine (hybrid immunity) post 6-months

BACKGROUND

Rapid spread of the omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant despite extensive vaccination suggests immune escape. The neutralising ability of different vaccines alone or with natural SARS-CoV-2 infection against omicron is not well-known.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we tested the ability of vaccine and natural infection induced antibodies to neutralise omicron variant in a live virus neutralisation assay in four groups of individuals: (i) ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination, (ii) ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, (iii) vaccination with inactivated virus vaccine (BBV152), and (iv) BBV152 vaccination plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary outcome was fold-change in virus neutralisation titre against omicron compared with ancestral virus.

FINDINGS

We included 80 subjects. The geometric mean titre (GMT) of the 50% focus reduction neutralisation test (FRNT50) was 380·4 (95% CI: 221·1, 654·7) against the ancestral virus with BBV152 vaccination and 379·3 (95% CI: 185·6, 775·2) with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 vaccination alone. GMT for vaccination plus infection groups were 806·1 (95% CI: 478·5, 1357·8) and 1526·2 (95% CI: 853·2, 2730·0), respectively. Against omicron variant, only 5 out of 20 in both BBV152 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine only groups, 6 out of 20 in BBV152 plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection group, and 9 out of 20 in ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 plus prior SARS-CoV-2 infection group exhibited neutralisation titres above the lower limit of quantification (1:20) suggesting better neutralisation with prior infection. A reduction of 26·6 and 25·7 fold in FRNT50 titres against Omicron compared to ancestral SARS-CoV-2 strain was observed for individuals without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection vaccinated with BBV152 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, respectively. The corresponding reduction was 57·1 and 58·1 fold, respectively, for vaccinated individuals with prior infection. The 50% neutralisation titre against omicron demonstrated moderate correlation with serum anti-RBD IgG levels [Spearman r: 0·58 (0·41, 0·71)].

INTERPRETATION

Significant reduction in the neutralising ability of both vaccine-induced and vaccine plus infection-induced antibodies was observed for omicron variant which might explain immune escape.

FUNDING

Department of Biotechnology, India; Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, USA.

Risk for Reinfection After SARS-CoV-2: A Living, Rapid Review for American College of Physicians Practice Points on the Role of the Antibody Response in Conferring Immunity Following SARS-CoV-2 Infection

BACKGROUND

The strength and duration of immunity from infection with SARS-CoV-2 are important for public health planning and clinical practice.

PURPOSE

To synthesize evidence on protection against reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), the World Health Organization global literature database, ClinicalTrials.gov, COVID19reviews.org, and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Longitudinal studies that compared the risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection versus infection risk in individuals with no prior infection.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two investigators sequentially extracted study data and rated quality.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Across 18 eligible studies, reinfection risk ranged from 0% to 2.2%. In persons with recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals, 80% to 98% of symptomatic infections with wild-type or Alpha variants were prevented (high strength of evidence). In the meta-analysis, previous infection reduced risk for reinfection by 87% (95% CI, 84% to 90%), equaling 4.3 fewer infections per 100 persons in both the general population (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.071 to -0.015]) and health care workers (risk difference, -0.043 [CI, -0.069 to -0.016]), and 26.6 fewer infections per 100 persons in care facilities (risk difference, -0.266 [CI, -0.449 to -0.083]). Protection remained above 80% for at least 7 months, but no study followed patients after the emergence of the Delta or Omicron variant. Results for the elderly were conflicting.

LIMITATION

Methods to ascertain and diagnose infections varied.

CONCLUSION

Before the emergence of the Delta and Omicron variants, persons with recent infection had strong protection against symptomatic reinfections for 7 months compared with unvaccinated, previously uninfected individuals. Protection in immunocompromised persons, racial and ethnic subgroups, and asymptomatic index case patients is unclear. The durability of protection in the setting of the Delta and Omicron variants is unknown.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020207098).

Infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly populations

This mixed design synthesis aimed to estimate the infection fatality rate (IFR) of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in community-dwelling elderly populations and other age groups from seroprevalence studies. Protocol: https://osf.io/47cgb. Eligible were seroprevalence studies done in 2020 and identified by any of four existing systematic reviews; with ≥ 500 participants aged ≥ 70 years; presenting seroprevalence in elderly people; aimed to generate samples reflecting the general population; and whose location had available data on cumulative COVID-19 deaths in elderly (primary cutoff ≥ 70 years; ≥ 65 or ≥ 60 also eligible). We extracted the most fully adjusted (if unavailable, unadjusted) seroprevalence estimates; age- and residence-stratified cumulative COVID-19 deaths (until 1 week after the seroprevalence sampling midpoint) from official reports; and population statistics, to calculate IFRs adjusted for test performance. Sample size-weighted IFRs were estimated for countries with multiple estimates. Thirteen seroprevalence surveys representing 11 high-income countries were included in the main analysis. Median IFR in community-dwelling elderly and elderly overall was 2.9% (range 1.8–9.7%) and 4.5% (range 2.5–16.7%) without accounting for seroreversion (2.2% and 4.0%, respectively, accounting for 5% monthly seroreversion). Multiple sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. IFR was higher with larger proportions of people > 85 years. The IFR of COVID-19 in community-dwelling elderly is lower than previously reported.

Mortality among Care Home Residents in England during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study of 4.3 million adults over the age of 65

BACKGROUND

Residents in care homes have been severely impacted by COVID-19. We describe trends in the mortality risk among residents of care homes compared to private homes.

METHODS

On behalf of NHS England we used OpenSAFELY-TPP to calculate monthly age-standardised risks of death due to all causes and COVID-19 among adults aged >=65 years between 1/2/2019 and 31/03/2021. Care home residents were identified using linkage to Care and Quality Commission data.

FINDINGS

We included 4,340,648 people aged 65 years or older on the 1st of February 2019, 2.2% of whom were classified as residing in a care or nursing home. Age-standardised mortality risks were approximately 10 times higher among care home residents compared to those in private housing in February 2019: comparative mortality figure (CMF) = 10.59 (95%CI = 9.51, 11.81) among women, and 10.87 (9.93, 11.90) among men. By April 2020 these relative differences had increased to more than 17 times with CMFs of 17.57 (16.43, 18.79) among women and 18.17 (17.22, 19.17) among men. CMFs did not increase during the second wave, despite a rise in the absolute age-standardised COVID-19 mortality risks.

INTERPRETATION

COVID-19 has had a disproportionate impact on the mortality of care home residents in England compared to older residents of private homes, but only in the first wave. This may be explained by a degree of acquired immunity, improved protective measures or changes in the underlying frailty of the populations. The care home population should be prioritised for measures aimed at controlling COVID-19.

FUNDING

Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1.

Duration of Protection Against SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection and Associated Risk of Reinfection Assessed with Real-World Data

IMPORTANCE

Better understanding of the protective duration of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection against reinfection is needed.

OBJECTIVE

Primary: To assess the durability of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection among initially unvaccinated individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary: Evaluate the crude SARS-CoV-2 reinfection rate and associated characteristics.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Retrospective observational study of HealthVerity data among 144,678,382 individuals, during the pandemic era through April 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals studied had SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnostic or antibody index test results from February 29 through December 9, 2020, with ≥365 days of pre-index continuous closed medical enrollment, claims, or electronic health record activity.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Rates of reinfection among index-positive individuals were compared to rates of infection among index-negative individuals. Factors associated with reinfection were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. For both objectives, the outcome was a subsequent positive molecular diagnostic test result.

RESULTS

Among 22,786,982 individuals with index SARS-CoV-2 laboratory test data (2,023,341 index positive), the crude rate of reinfection during follow-up was significantly lower (9.89/1,000-person years) than that of primary infection (78.39/1,000 person years). Consistent with prior findings, the risk of reinfection among index-positive individuals was 87% lower than the risk of infection among index-negative individuals (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.13, 0.13). The cumulative incidence of reinfection among index-positive individuals and infection among index-negative individuals was 0.85% (95% CI: 0.82%, 0.88%) and 6.2% (95% CI: 6.1%, 6.3%), respectively, over follow-up of 375 days. The duration of protection against reinfection was stable over the median 5 months and up to 1-year follow-up interval. Factors associated with an increased reinfection risk included older age, comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had a decreased reinfection risk.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This large US population-based study demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is uncommon among individuals with laboratory evidence of a previous infection. Protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is stable up to one year. Reinfection risk was primarily associated with age 85+ years, comorbid immunologic conditions and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers demonstrated a decreased reinfection risk. These findings suggest that infection induced immunity is durable for variants circulating prior to Delta.

KEY POINTS

Question: How long does prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provide protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection?Finding: Among >22 million individuals tested February 2020 through April 2021, the relative risk of reinfection among those with prior infection was 87% lower than the risk of infection among individuals without prior infection. This protection was durable for up to a year. Factors associated with increased likelihood of reinfection included older age (85+ years), comorbid immunologic conditions, and living in congregate care settings; healthcare workers had lower risk.Meaning: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provides a durable, high relative degree of protection against reinfection.

SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection Rate and Estimated Effectiveness of the Inactivated Whole Virion Vaccine BBV152 Against Reinfection Among Health Care Workers in New Delhi, India

Importance

A surge of COVID-19 occurred from March to June 2021, in New Delhi, India, linked to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2. COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out for health care workers (HCWs) starting in January 2021.

Objective

To assess the incidence density of reinfection among a cohort of HCWs and estimate the effectiveness of the inactivated whole virion vaccine BBV152 against reinfection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study among HCWs working at a tertiary care center in New Delhi, India.

Exposures

Vaccination with 0, 1, or 2 doses of BBV152.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The HCWs were categorized as fully vaccinated (with 2 doses and ≥15 days after the second dose), partially vaccinated (with 1 dose or 2 doses with <15 days after the second dose), or unvaccinated. The incidence density of COVID-19 reinfection per 100 person-years was computed, and events from March 3, 2020, to June 18, 2021, were included for analysis. Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated using a Cox proportional hazards model. Estimated vaccine effectiveness (1 - adjusted HR) was reported.

Results

Among 15 244 HCWs who participated in the study, 4978 (32.7%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 36.6 (10.3) years, and 55.0% were male. The reinfection incidence density was 7.26 (95% CI: 6.09-8.66) per 100 person-years (124 HCWs [2.5%], total person follow-up period of 1696 person-years as time at risk). Fully vaccinated HCWs had lower risk of reinfection (HR, 0.14 [95% CI, 0.08-0.23]), symptomatic reinfection (HR, 0.13 [95% CI, 0.07-0.24]), and asymptomatic reinfection (HR, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.05-0.53]) compared with unvaccinated HCWs. Accordingly, among the 3 vaccine categories, reinfection was observed in 60 of 472 (12.7%) of unvaccinated (incidence density, 18.05 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 14.02-23.25), 39 of 356 (11.0%) of partially vaccinated (incidence density 15.62 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 11.42-21.38), and 17 of 1089 (1.6%) fully vaccinated (incidence density 2.18 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.35-3.51) HCWs. The estimated effectiveness of BBV152 against reinfection was 86% (95% CI, 77%-92%); symptomatic reinfection, 87% (95% CI, 76%-93%); and asymptomatic reinfection, 84% (95% CI, 47%-95%) among fully vaccinated HCWs. Partial vaccination was not associated with reduced risk of reinfection.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that BBV152 was associated with protection against both symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection in HCWs after a complete vaccination schedule, when the predominant circulating variant was B.1.617.2.

Quantifying the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time

Despite over 140 million SARS-CoV-2 infections worldwide since the beginning of the pandemic, relatively few confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection have been reported. While immunity from SARS-CoV-2 infection is probable, at least in the short term, few studies have quantified the reinfection risk. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to synthesise the evidence on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time. A standardised protocol was employed, based on Cochrane methodology. Electronic databases and preprint servers were searched from 1 January 2020 to 19 February 2021. Eleven large cohort studies were identified that estimated the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection over time, including three that enrolled healthcare workers and two that enrolled residents and staff of elderly care homes. Across studies, the total number of PCR-positive or antibody-positive participants at baseline was 615,777, and the maximum duration of follow-up was more than 10 months in three studies. Reinfection was an uncommon event (absolute rate 0%-1.1%), with no study reporting an increase in the risk of reinfection over time. Only one study estimated the population-level risk of reinfection based on whole genome sequencing in a subset of patients; the estimated risk was low (0.1% [95% CI: 0.08-0.11%]) with no evidence of waning immunity for up to 7 months following primary infection. These data suggest that naturally acquired SARS-CoV-2 immunity does not wane for at least 10 months post-infection. However, the applicability of these studies to new variants or to vaccine-induced immunity remains uncertain.

Evaluation of protection by COVID-19 vaccines after deployment in low and lower-middle income countries

The availability and use of vaccines for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in low and middle-income countries (L/MICs) lags far behind more affluent countries, and vaccines currently used in L/MICs are predominantly of lower efficacy. As vaccines continue to be rolled out in L/MICs, successful control of COVID-19 by vaccines requires monitoring both of vaccine protection of vaccinees (effectiveness) and of the entire targeted populations, including vaccine herd protection of non-vaccinees (impact). To be of greatest relevance to L/MICs, there is the need to address the distinctive medical and demographic features of populations, health systems, and demography that may greatly affect vaccine performance in these settings. We identified 58 published studies that included 85 evaluations of the effectiveness of different COVID-19 vaccines globally. Only three were done in L/MICs, and no impact studies were identified in these settings. Post-deployment studies of the protection by COVID-19 vaccines rolled out in L/MICs constitute an important but currently neglected global priority.

Prevalence and duration of detectable SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies in staff and residents of long-term care facilities over the first year of the pandemic (VIVALDI study): prospective cohort study in England

Background

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and related mortality, but the proportion of infected people among those who have survived, and duration of the antibody response to natural infection, is unknown. We determined the prevalence and stability of nucleocapsid antibodies (the standard assay for detection of previous infection) in staff and residents in LTCFs in England.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study of residents 65 years or older and of staff 65 years or younger in 201 LTCFs in England between March 1, 2020, and May 7, 2021. Participants were linked to a unique pseudo-identifier based on their UK National Health Service identification number. Serial blood samples were tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein using the Abbott ARCHITECT i-system (Abbott, Maidenhead, UK) immunoassay. Primary endpoints were prevalence and cumulative incidence of antibody positivity, which were weighted to the LTCF population. Incidence rate of loss of antibodies (seroreversion) was estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves.

Findings

9488 samples were included, 8636 (91·0%) of which could be individually linked to 1434 residents and 3288 staff members. The cumulative incidence of nucleocapsid seropositivity was 34·6% (29·6–40·0) in residents and 26·1% (23·0–29·5) in staff over 11 months. 239 (38·6%) residents and 503 women (81·3%) were included in the antibody-waning analysis, and median follow-up was 149 days (IQR 107–169). The incidence rate of seroreversion was 2·1 per 1000 person-days at risk, and median time to reversion was 242·5 days.

Interpretation

At least a quarter of staff and a third of surviving residents were infected with SAR-CoV-2 during the first two waves of the pandemic in England. Nucleocapsid-specific antibodies often become undetectable within the first year following infection, which is likely to lead to marked underestimation of the true proportion of people with previous infection. Given that natural infection might act to boost vaccine responses, better assays to identify natural infection should be developed.

Funding

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

SARS-CoV-2 in Nursing Homes: Analysis of Routine Surveillance Data in Four European Countries

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in nursing homes is poorly documented. Using surveillance data of 228 European private nursing homes, we estimated weekly SARS-CoV-2 incidences among 21,467 residents and 14,371 staff members, compared to that in the general population, between August 3, 2020, and February 20, 2021. We studied the outcomes of "episodes of introduction" where one case was first detected and computed attack rates, reproduction ratio (R), and dispersion parameter (k). Out of 502 episodes of SARS-CoV-2 introduction, 77.1% (95%CI, 73.2%-80.6%) led to additional cases. Attack rates were highly variable, ranging from 0.4% to 86.5%. The R was 1.16 (95%CI, 1.11-1.22) with k at 2.5 (95%CI, 0.5-4.5). The timing of viral circulation in nursing homes did not mirror that in the general population (p-values<0.001). We estimated the impact of vaccination in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Before vaccination's roll-out, a cumulated 5,579 SARS-CoV-2 infections were documented among residents and 2,321 among staff. Higher staffing ratio and previous natural immunization reduced the probability of an outbreak following introduction. Despite strong preventive measures, transmission likely occurred, regardless of building characteristics. Vaccination started on January 15, 2021, and coverage reached 65.0% among residents, and 42.0% among staff by February 20, 2021. Vaccination yielded a 92% reduction (95%CI, 71%-98%) of outbreak probability, and lowered R to 0.87 (95%CI, 0.69-1.10). In the post-pandemic era, much attention will have to be paid to multi-lateral collaboration, policy making, and prevention plans.

Reinfection with new variants of SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection: a prospective observational cohort in 13 care homes in England

Background

Understanding the duration of protection and risk of reinfection after natural infection is crucial to planning COVID-19 vaccination for at-risk groups, including care home residents, particularly with the emergence of more transmissible variants. We report on the duration, neutralising activity, and protection against the alpha variant of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in care home residents and staff infected more than 6 months previously.

Methods

We did this prospective observational cohort surveillance in 13 care homes in Greater London, England. All staff and residents were included. Staff and residents had regular nose and throat screening for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR according to national guidelines, with ad hoc testing of symptomatic individuals. From January, 2021, antigen lateral flow devices were also used, but positive tests still required RT-PCR confirmation. Staff members took the swab samples for themselves and the residents. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive primary infection or reinfection in previously infected individuals, as determined by previous serological testing and screening or diagnostic RT-PCR results. Poisson regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate protective effectiveness of previous exposure. SARS-CoV-2 spike, nucleoprotein, and neutralising antibodies were assessed at multiple timepoints as part of the longitudinal follow-up.

Findings

Between April 10 and Aug 3, 2020, we recruited and tested 1625 individuals (933 staff and 692 residents). 248 participants were lost to follow-up (123 staff and 125 residents) and 1377 participants were included in the follow-up period to Jan 31, 2021 (810 staff and 567 residents). There were 23 reinfections (ten confirmed, eight probable, five possible) in 656 previously infected individuals (366 staff and 290 residents), compared with 165 primary infections in 721 susceptible individuals (444 staff and 277 residents). Those with confirmed reinfections had no or low neutralising antibody concentration before reinfection, with boosting of titres after reinfection. Kinetics of binding and neutralising antibodies were similar in older residents and younger staff.

Interpretation

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections were rare in older residents and younger staff. Protection from SARS-CoV-2 was sustained for longer than 9 months, including against the alpha variant. Reinfection was associated with no or low neutralising antibody before reinfection, but significant boosting occurred on reinfection.

Funding

Public Health England.

Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 among previously infected healthcare personnel and first responders

Background

SARS-CoV-2 virus testing among first responders and healthcare personnel who participated in a May-August 2020 serosurvey which assessed spike protein antibodies (S1 region) provided an opportunity to assess reinfection.

Methods

Serology survey data were merged with virus testing results from Rhode Island (March 1, 2020-February 17, 2021) and New York City (March 10-December 14, 2020). Participants with a positive virus test ≥14 days before their serology test were included. Reinfection was defined as a second positive SARS-CoV-2 test result ≥90 days after the first positive test. The association between serostatus and reinfection was assessed with a proportional hazards model adjusting for demographics, exposures, and virus testing frequency.

Results

Among 1,572 previously infected persons, 40 (2.5%) were reinfected. Reinfection differed by serostatus: 8.4% among seronegative versus 1.9% among seropositive participants (p<0.0001). Most reinfections occurred among Rhode Island nursing home and corrections (RINHC) personnel (n=30) who were most frequently tested (mean 30.3 tests versus 4.6 for other Rhode Island and 2.3 for New York City participants). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for reinfection in seropositive versus seronegative persons was 0.41 (95% CI 0.20, 0.81). Exposure to a household member with COVID-19 before the serosurvey was also protective (aHR 0.34, 95% CI 0.13, 0.89).

Conclusions

Reinfections were uncommon among previously infected persons over a 9-month period that preceded widespread variant circulation. Seropositivity decreased reinfection risk. Lower reinfection risk associated with exposure to a household member with COVID-19 before the serosurvey may reflect subsequently reduced household transmission among members of previously infected households.

Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination.

METHODS

The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421.

FINDINGS

10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Long-Term Course of Humoral and Cellular Immune Responses in Outpatients After SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Characterization of the naturally acquired B and T cell immune responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is important for the development of public health and vaccination strategies to manage the burden of COVID-19 disease. We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional analysis in COVID-19 recovered patients at various time points over a 10-month period in order to investigate how circulating antibody levels and interferon-gamma (IFN-γ) release by peripheral blood cells change over time following natural infection. From March 2020 till January 2021, we enrolled 412 adults mostly with mild or moderate disease course. At each study visit, subjects donated peripheral blood for testing of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and IFN-γ release after SARS-CoV-2 S-protein stimulation. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies were positive in 316 of 412 (76.7%) and borderline in 31 of 412 (7.5%) patients. Our confirmation assay for the presence of neutralizing antibodies was positive in 215 of 412 (52.2%) and borderline in 88 of 412 (21.4%) patients. Likewise, in 274 of 412 (66.5%) positive IFN-γ release and IgG antibodies were detected. With respect to time after infection, both IgG antibody levels and IFN-γ concentrations decreased by about half within 300 days. Statistically, production of IgG and IFN-γ were closely associated, but on an individual basis, we observed patients with high-antibody titres but low IFN-γ levels and vice versa. Our data suggest that immunological reaction is acquired in most individuals after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 and is sustained in the majority of patients for at least 10 months after infection after a mild or moderate disease course. Since, so far, no robust marker for protection against COVID-19 exists, we recommend utilizing both, IgG and IFN-γ release for an individual assessment of the immunity status.

Inhibition of receptor-binding domain-ACE2 interaction after two doses of Sinovac's CoronaVac or AstraZeneca/Oxford's AZD1222 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

Practical laboratory proxies that correlate to vaccine efficacy may facilitate trials, identify nonresponders, and inform about boosting strategies. Among clinical and laboratory markers, assays that evaluate antibodies that inhibit receptor‐binding domain (RBD) ligation to angiotensin‐converting enzyme‐2 receptor (receptor‐binding inhibition [RBI]) may provide a surrogate for viral neutralization assays. We evaluated RBI before and after a median of 34 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 33–40) of the second dose of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) Sinovac's CoronaVac (CN) or AstraZeneca/Oxford's AZD1222 (AZ) vaccines in 166 individuals. Both vaccines elicited high inhibitory titers in most subjects, 95% (158/166), with signal inhibition above 30% and 89% (127/143) with more than fourfold increase from prevaccination titers, but titers tend to decrease over time. Both postvaccination inhibitory titers (95%, IQR 85%–97% for AZ vs. 79%, IQR 60%–96% for CN, p = 0.004) and pre/post‐titer increase (AZ 76%, IQR 51%–86% for AZ vs. 47%, IQR 24%–67% for CN, p < 0.0001) were higher among AZ vaccinees. Previous serological reactivity due to natural infection was associated with high prevaccination signal inhibition titers. The study documents a robust antibody response capable of interfering with RBD–angiotensin‐converting enzyme binding. Evaluation of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection incidence in these populations is necessary to assess its association to protection and its duration.

Prevalence, Distribution and IgG Antibody Levels Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Among Health-System and Community-Based Employees and Patients

BACKGROUND

Following the high morbidity and mortality due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in New Orleans, Louisiana, we sought to assess progress toward herd immunity.

METHODS

Ochsner Health employees and patients who volunteered for Abbott SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody test between March 1 and May 1, 2020 were included. We estimated IgG prevalence and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for variables associated with IgG test status.

RESULTS

Of the 13,343 participants with IgG test results, 78.6% were women, 70.6% were non-Hispanic White, 21.1% non-Hispanic Black, 2.9% Hispanic Americans and 5.4% belonged to other races. Overall, 7.99% (95% CI: 7.53-8.45%) of the participants tested IgG positive. In age-, sex- and body mass index (BMI)-adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Blacks were 2.7-times more likely to test positive than non-Hispanic Whites (OR=2.72; 95% CI: 2.33-3.19). Corresponding ORs (95% CIs) were 1.29 (0.84-1.99) for Hispanic Americans and 1.22 (0.85-1.75) for Other race/ethnicities. Compared to participants in administrative occupations, physician assistants (OR=7.14; 95% CI: 1.72-29.6) and therapists (OR=4.74; 95% CI: 1.49-15.03) were significantly more likely to have IgG antibodies while the association among nurses was not significant (OR=2.35; 95% CI: 0.96-5.77). Relative to 1.40, the test threshold for positivity, our measurements indicate a strong immune response (5.38±1.69), especially among those with a higher BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies were prevalent only in 8% of the participants. IgG prevalence was highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and participants with higher BMI but was lower among older participants.

mRNA vaccination in people over 80 years of age induces strong humoral immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 with cross neutralization of P.1 Brazilian variant

Age is the major risk factor for mortality after SARS-CoV-2 infection and older people have received priority consideration for COVID-19 vaccination. However, vaccine responses are often suboptimal in this age group and few people over the age of 80 years were included in vaccine registration trials. We determined the serological and cellular response to spike protein in 100 people aged 80-96 years at 2 weeks after the second vaccination with the Pfizer BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine. Antibody responses were seen in every donor with high titers in 98%. Spike-specific cellular immune responses were detectable in only 63% and correlated with humoral response. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection substantially increased antibody responses after one vaccine and antibody and cellular responses remained 28-fold and 3-fold higher, respectively, after dual vaccination. Post-vaccine sera mediated strong neutralization of live Victoria infection and although neutralization titers were reduced 14-fold against the P.1 variant first discovered in Brazil they remained largely effective. These data demonstrate that the mRNA vaccine platform delivers strong humoral immunity in people up to 96 years of age and retains broad efficacy against the P.1 variant of concern.

Profile of humoral and cellular immune responses to single doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in residents and staff within residential care homes (VIVALDI): an observational study

BACKGROUND

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination because of the high COVID-19 mortality in this population. Several countries have implemented an extended interval of up to 12 weeks between the first and second vaccine doses to increase population coverage of single-dose vaccination. We aimed to assess the magnitude and quality of adaptive immune responses following a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents and staff.

METHODS

From the LTCFs participating in the ongoing VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421), staff and residents who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [tozinameran] or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), had pre-vaccination and post-vaccination blood samples (collected between Dec 11, 2020, and Feb 16, 2021), and could be linked to a pseudoidentifier in the COVID-19 Data Store were included in our cohort. Past infection with SARS-CoV-2 was defined on the basis of nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies being detected through a semiquantitative immunoassay, and participants who tested positive on this assay after but not before vaccination were excluded from the study. Processed blood samples were assessed for spike-specific immune responses, including spike-specific IgG antibody titres, T-cell responses to spike protein peptide mixes, and inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from four variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the original strain as well as the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants). Responses before and after vaccination were compared on the basis of age, previous infection status, role (staff or resident), and time since vaccination.

FINDINGS

Our cohort comprised 124 participants from 14 LTCFs: 89 (72%) staff (median age 48 years [IQR 35·5-56]) and 35 (28%) residents (87 years [77-90]). Blood samples were collected a median 40 days (IQR 25-47; range 6-52) after vaccination. 30 (24%) participants (18 [20%] staff and 12 [34%] residents) had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants with previous infection had high antibody titres following vaccination that were independent of age (r s=0·076, p=0·70). In participants without evidence of previous infection, titres were negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·434, p<0·0001) and were 8·2-times lower in residents than in staff. This effect appeared to result from a kinetic delay antibody generation in older infection-naive participants, with the negative age correlation disappearing only in samples taken more than 42 days post-vaccination (r s=-0·207, p=0·20; n=40), in contrast to samples taken after 0-21 days (r s=-0·774, p=0·0043; n=12) or 22-42 days (r s=-0·437, p=0·0034; n=43). Spike-specific cellular responses were similar between older and younger participants. In infection-naive participants, antibody inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·439, p<0·0001), and was significantly lower against spike protein from the B.1.351 variant (median inhibition 31% [14-100], p=0·010) and the P.1 variant (23% [14-97], p<0·0001) than against the original strain (58% [27-100]). By contrast, a single dose of vaccine resulted in around 100% inhibition of the spike-ACE2 interaction against all variants in people with a history of infection.

INTERPRETATION

History of SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts the magnitude and quality of antibody response after a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents. Residents who are infection-naive have delayed antibody responses to the first dose of vaccine and should be considered for an early second dose where possible.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Population (Antibody) Testing for COVID-19-Technical Challenges, Application and Relevance, an English Perspective

In the UK, population virus or antibody testing using virus swabs, serum samples, blood spots or oral fluids has been performed to a limited extent for several diseases including measles, mumps, rubella and hepatitis and HIV. The collection of population-based infection and immunity data is key to the monitoring of disease prevalence and assessing the effectiveness of interventions such as behavioural modifications and vaccination. In particular, the biological properties of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its interaction with the human host have presented several challenges towards the development of population-based immunity testing. Measuring SARS-CoV-2 immunity requires the development of antibody assays of acceptable sensitivity and specificity which are capable of accurately detecting seroprevalence and differentiating protection from non-protective responses. Now that anti-COVID-19 vaccines are becoming available there is a pressing need to measure vaccine efficacy and the development of herd immunity. The unprecedented impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the UK in terms of morbidity, mortality, and economic and social disruption has mobilized a national scientific effort to learn more about this virus. In this article, the challenges of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in relation to population-based immunity testing, will be considered and examples given of relevant national level studies.