1
|
Haanappel CP, Oude Munnink BB, Sikkema RS, Voor In 't Holt AF, de Jager H, de Boever R, Koene HHHT, Boter M, Chestakova IV, van der Linden A, Molenkamp R, Osbak KK, Arcilla MS, Vos MC, Koopmans MPG, Severin JA. Combining epidemiological data and whole genome sequencing to understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in a large tertiary care hospital during the first COVID-19 wave in The Netherlands focusing on healthcare workers. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2023; 12:46. [PMID: 37165456 PMCID: PMC10170429 DOI: 10.1186/s13756-023-01247-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 04/29/2023] [Indexed: 05/12/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Healthcare facilities have been challenged by the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission between healthcare workers (HCW) and patients. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, infections among HCW were observed, questioning infection prevention and control (IPC) measures implemented at that time. AIM This study aimed to identify nosocomial transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 between HCW and patients in a tertiary care hospital. METHODS All SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive HCW and patients identified between 1 March and 19 May 2020, were included in the analysis. Epidemiological data were collected from patient files and HCW contact tracing interviews. Whole genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2 were generated using Nanopore sequencing (WGS). Epidemiological clusters were identified, whereafter WGS and epidemiological data were combined for re-evaluation of epidemiological clusters and identification of potential transmission clusters. HCW infections were further classified into categories based on the likelihood that the infection was acquired via nosocomial transmission. Secondary cases were defined as COVID-19 cases in our hospital, part of a transmission cluster, of which the index case was either a patient or HCW from our hospital. FINDINGS The study population consisted of 293 HCW and 245 patients. Epidemiological data revealed 36 potential epidemiological clusters, with an estimated 222 (75.7%) HCW as secondary cases. WGS results were available for 195 HCW (88.2%) and 20 patients (12.8%) who belonged to an epidemiological cluster. Re-evaluation of the epidemiological clusters, with the available WGS data identified 31 transmission clusters with 65 (29.4%) HCW as secondary cases. Transmission clusters were all part of 18 (50.0%) previously determined epidemiological clusters, demonstrating that several larger outbreaks actually consisted, of several smaller transmission clusters. A total of 21 (7.2%) HCW infections were classified as from confirmed nosocomial, of which 18 were acquired from another HCW and 3 from a patient. CONCLUSION The majority of SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCW could be attributed to community-acquired infection. Infections among HCW that could be classified as due to nosocomial transmission, were mainly caused by HCW-to-HCW transmission rather than patient-to-HCW transmission. It is important to recognize the uncertainties of cluster analyses based solely on epidemiological data.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia P Haanappel
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bas B Oude Munnink
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Reina S Sikkema
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anne F Voor In 't Holt
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Herbert de Jager
- Department of Occupational Health Services, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rieneke de Boever
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Heidy H H T Koene
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marjan Boter
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Irina V Chestakova
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Anne van der Linden
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Richard Molenkamp
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kara K Osbak
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maris S Arcilla
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Margreet C Vos
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Marion P G Koopmans
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Juliëtte A Severin
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
GeurtsvanKessel CH, Geers D, Schmitz KS, Mykytyn AZ, Lamers MM, Bogers S, Scherbeijn S, Gommers L, Sablerolles RS, Nieuwkoop NN, Rijsbergen LC, van Dijk LL, de Wilde J, Alblas K, Breugem TI, Rijnders BJ, de Jager H, Weiskopf D, van der Kuy PHM, Sette A, Koopmans MP, Grifoni A, Haagmans BL, de Vries RD. Divergent SARS-CoV-2 Omicron-reactive T and B cell responses in COVID-19 vaccine recipients. Sci Immunol 2022; 7:eabo2202. [PMID: 35113647 PMCID: PMC8939771 DOI: 10.1126/sciimmunol.abo2202] [Citation(s) in RCA: 260] [Impact Index Per Article: 130.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2022] [Accepted: 01/31/2022] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory distress syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant is spreading rapidly, even in vaccinated individuals, raising concerns about immune escape. Here, we studied neutralizing antibodies and T cell responses targeting SARS-CoV-2 D614G [wild type (WT)] and the Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants of concern in a cohort of 60 health care workers after immunization with ChAdOx-1 S, Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2. High binding antibody levels against WT SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) were detected 28 days after vaccination with both mRNA vaccines (mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2), which substantially decreased after 6 months. In contrast, antibody levels were lower after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination but did not wane. Neutralization assays showed consistent cross-neutralization of the Beta and Delta variants, but neutralization of Omicron was significantly lower or absent. BNT162b2 booster vaccination after either two mRNA-1273 immunizations or Ad26.COV2 priming partially restored neutralization of the Omicron variant, but responses were still up to 17-fold decreased compared with WT. SARS-CoV-2-specific T cells were detected up to 6 months after all vaccination regimens, with more consistent detection of specific CD4+ than CD8+ T cells. No significant differences were detected between WT- and variant-specific CD4+ or CD8+ T cell responses, including Omicron, indicating minimal escape at the T cell level. This study shows that vaccinated individuals retain T cell immunity to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, potentially balancing the lack of neutralizing antibodies in preventing or limiting severe COVID-19. Booster vaccinations are needed to further restore Omicron cross-neutralization by antibodies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Daryl Geers
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Anna Z. Mykytyn
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Mart M Lamers
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Susanne Bogers
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Lennert Gommers
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | - Janet de Wilde
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Kimberley Alblas
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Tim I. Breugem
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Bart J.A. Rijnders
- Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Herbert de Jager
- Department of Occupational Health Services, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Daniela Weiskopf
- Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
| | | | - Alessandro Sette
- Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Global Public Health, University of California, San Diego (UCSD), La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
| | | | - Alba Grifoni
- Center for Infectious Disease and Vaccine Research, La Jolla Institute for Immunology, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA
| | - Bart L. Haagmans
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Rory D. de Vries
- Department of Viroscience, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Riphagen-Dalhuisen J, Frijstein G, van der Geest-Blankert N, Danhof-Pont M, de Jager H, Bos N, Smeets E, de Vries M, Gallee P, Hak E. Planning and process evaluation of a multi-faceted influenza vaccination implementation strategy for health care workers in acute health care settings. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13:235. [PMID: 23701921 PMCID: PMC3680164 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-235] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/18/2012] [Accepted: 05/10/2013] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Influenza transmitted by health care workers (HCWs) is a potential threat to frail patients in acute health care settings. Therefore, immunizing HCWs against influenza should receive high priority. Despite recommendations of the World Health Organization, vaccine coverage of HCWs remains low in all European countries. This study explores the use of intervention strategies and methods to improve influenza vaccination rates among HCWs in an acute care setting. METHODS The Intervention Mapping (IM) method was used to systematically develop and implement an intervention strategy aimed at changing influenza vaccination behaviour among HCWs in Dutch University Medical Centres (UMCs). Carried out during the influenza seasons 2009/2010 and 2010/2011, the interventions were then qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated by way of feedback from participating UMCs and the completion of a web-based staff questionnaire in the following spring of each season. RESULTS The IM method resulted in the development of a transparent influenza vaccination intervention implementation strategy. The intervention strategy was offered to six Dutch UMCs in a randomized in a clustered Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), where three UMCs were chosen for intervention, and three UMCs acted as controls. A further two UMCs elected to have the intervention. The qualitative process evaluation showed that HCWs at four of the five intervention UMCs were responsive to the majority of the 11 relevant behavioural determinants resulting from the needs assessment in their intervention strategy compared with only one of three control UMCs. The quantitative evaluation among a sample of HCWs revealed that of all the developed communication materials, HCWs reported the posters as the most noticeable. CONCLUSIONS Our study demonstrates that it is possible to develop a structured implementation strategy for increasing the rate of influenza vaccination by HCWs in acute health care settings. The evaluation also showed that it is impossible to expose all HCWs to all intervention methods (which would have been the best case scenario). Further study is needed to (1) improve HCW exposure to intervention methods; (2) determine the effect of such interventions on vaccine uptake among HCWs; and (3) assess the impact on clinical outcomes among patients when such interventions are enacted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Josien Riphagen-Dalhuisen
- Department of PharmacoEpidemiology & PharmacoEconomics, University Centre of Pharmacy, University of Groningen, A. Deusinglaan 1, P.O. Box XB45, Groningen 9713 AV, the Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|