Search

Background: Our understanding of the global scale of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection remains incomplete: Routine surveillance data underestimate infection and cannot infer on population immunity; there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in the World Health Organization's Unity protocol (WHO Unity) for general population seroepidemiological studies, to estimate the extent of population infection and seropositivity to the virus 2 years into the pandemic., Methods and Findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between January 1, 2020 and May 20, 2022. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies-those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol-were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with risk of bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate underascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% low- and middle-income countries [LMICs]) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/subnational scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1% to 62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6 to 28.8] to 86.7% [84.6% to 88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3% to 11.0%] in June 2020 to 95.9% [92.6% to 97.8%] in December 2021, in European high-income countries [HICs]). After the emergence of Omicron in March 2022, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0% to 54.9%] in Europe HIC and 33.7% [31.6% to 36.0%] in Americas HIC. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0 to 9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20 to 29 (p < 0.001 and p = 0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using prevaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p = 0.02). The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being overrepresented., Conclusions: In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation; however, over one-third of the global population are seronegative to the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions., Competing Interests: I have read the journal policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RKA, MW, HW, ZL, XM, CC, MYL, DB, JP, MPC, ML, MS, GRD, NI, CZ, SP, HPR, TY, KCN, DK, SAA, ND, CD, NAD, EL, RKI, ASB, ELB, AS, JC and NB report grants from Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force through the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Medical Association Joule Innovation Fund. RKA, MW, HW, ZL, CC, MYL, NB also report grants from the World Health Organisation and the Robert Koch Institute. RKA reports personal fees from the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Investment Fund, as well as equity in Alethea Medical (Outside the submitted work). MPC reports grants from McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and Canadian Institute of Health Research, and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (Outside the submitted work), nplex biosciences (Outside the submitted work), Kanvas biosciences (Outside the submitted work). JP reports grants from MedImmune (Outside the submitted work) and Sanofi-Pasteur (Outside the submitted work), grants and personal fees from Merck (Outside the submitted work) and AbbVie (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from AstraZeneca (Outside the submitted work). DB reports grants from the World Health Organization, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (Outside the submitted work), Institute national d excellence en sante et service sociaux (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from McGill University Health Centre (Outside the submitted work) and Public Health Agency of Canada (Outside the submitted work). CC reports funding from Sanofi Pasteur (Outside of the submitted work). TY reports working for Health Canada as a part-time Senior Policy Analyst with the COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Panel, from Nov 2020-Jun 2021 (Outside of the submitted work). TH reports funding recieved from the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for Columbia University (Outside of the submitted work). Author HCL declares receiving funding as a WHO consultant from WHO Solidarity Response Fund and the German Federal Ministry of Health COVID-19 Research and Development., (Copyright: © 2022 Bergeri et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Correctional workers are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2, determined the effects of carceral and occupational exposures on seropositivity, and explored predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake among correctional workers in Quebec, Canada., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study in three provincial prisons. The primary and secondary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity (Roche Elecsys ® serology test) and self-reported COVID-19 vaccination status ("fully vaccinated" defined as two doses or prior infection plus one dose), respectively. Poisson regression models with robust standard error were used to examine the effect of occupational variables with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and predictors of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Estimates are presented as crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI)., Results: From 14 July to 15 November 2021, 105/600 (18%) correctional workers tested positive across three prisons (range 11-21%); 76% were fully vaccinated. Seropositivity was affected by prison occupation (aPR 1.59, 95% CI 1.11-2.27 for correctional officers vs. all other occupations) and low perceived concern of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition (aPR 1.62, 95% CI 1.11-2.38 for not/hardly worried vs. somewhat/extremely worried). Predictors of being fully vaccinated included race/ethnicity (aPR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.99 for visible minority vs. White), presence of comorbidities (aPR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28 for > 2 vs. none), and prison occupation (aPR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73-0.92 for correctional officers vs. all other occupations)., Conclusions: Correctional officers were most likely to have acquired SARS-CoV-2, but least likely to be vaccinated, underscoring the importance of addressing both occupational risks and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy to mitigate future outbreaks., Competing Interests: Author NK reports research funding from Gilead Sciences, advisory fees from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, Merck and Abbvie, and speaker fees from Gilead Sciences, Abbvie and Merck, all outside of the submitted work. Author MM-G reports an investigator-sponsored research grant from Gilead Sciences Inc. Author MM-G reports contractual arrangements with the World Health Organization, the Institut national de santé publique du Québec, and the Institut 19 d'excellence en santé et services sociaux du Québec, all outside of the submitted work. Author MC reports grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Author MC reports personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences and form nplex biosciences, both outside the submitted work. Author MC is the co-founder of Kanvas Biosciences, Inc. and owns equity in the company. Author MC has a pending patent for Methods for detecting tissue damage, graft versus host disease, and infections using cell-free DNA profiling pending, and a pending patent for Methods for assessing the severity and progression of SARS-CoV-2 infections using cell-free DNA. Author JC has research funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, and reports remuneration for advisory work (ViiV Healthcare, Gilead Sciences and Merck Canada), outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Kronfli, Dussault, Maheu-Giroux, Halavrezos, Chalifoux, Park, Balso, Cheng and Cox.)

Importance: Longitudinal mass testing using rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) for serial screening of asymptomatic persons has been proposed for preventing SARS-CoV-2 community transmission. The feasibility of this strategy relies on accurate self-testing., Objective: To quantify the adequacy of serial self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT testing in the workplace, in terms of the frequency of correct execution of procedural steps and accurate interpretation of the range of possible RADT results., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective repeated cross-sectional study was performed from July to October 2021 at businesses with at least 2 active cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Montreal, Canada. Participants included untrained persons in their workplace, not meeting Public Health quarantine criteria (ie, required quarantine for 10 days after a moderate-risk contact with someone infected with SARS-CoV-2). Interpretation and performance were compared between participants who received instructions provided by the manufacturer vs those who received modified instructions that were informed by the most frequent or most critical errors we observed. Data were analyzed from October to November 2021., Exposures: RADT testing using a modified quick reference guide compared with the original manufacturer's instructions., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the difference in correctly interpreted RADT results. Secondary outcomes included difference in proportions of correctly performed procedural steps. Additional analyses, assessed among participants with 2 self-testing visits, compared the second self-test visit with the first self-test visit using the same measures., Results: Overall, 1892 tests were performed among 647 participants, of whom 278 participants (median [IQR] age, 43 [31-55] years; 156 [56.1%] men) had at least 1 self-testing visit. For self-test visit 1, significantly better accuracy in test interpretation was observed among participants using the modified quick reference guide than those using the manufacturer's instructions for reading results that were weak positive (64 of 115 participants [55.6%] vs 20 of 163 participants [12.3%]; difference, 43.3 [95% CI, 33.0-53.8] percentage points), positive (103 of 115 participants [89.6%] vs 84 of 163 participants [51.5%]; difference, 38.1 [95% CI, 28.5-47.5] percentage points), strong positive (219 of 229 participants [95.6%] vs 274 of 326 participants [84.0%]; difference, 11.6 [95% CI, 6.8-16.3] percentage points), and invalid (200 of 229 participants [87.3%] vs 252 of 326 participants [77.3%]; difference, 10.0 [95% CI, 3.8-16.3] percentage points). Use of the modified guide was associated with improvements on self-test visit 2 for results that were weak positive (difference, 15.4 [95% CI, 0.7-30.1] percentage points), positive (difference, 19.0 [95% CI, 7.2-30.9] percentage points), and invalid (difference, 8.0 [95% CI, 0.8-15.4] percentage points). For procedural steps identified as critical for test validity, adherence to procedural testing steps did not differ meaningfully according to instructions provided or reader experience., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of self-performed SARS-CoV-2 RADT in an intended-use setting, a modified quick reference guide was associated with significantly improved accuracy in RADT interpretations.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity., Methods: Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence., Results: Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63-6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12-1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.98)., Interpretation: Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Patrice Savard reports grants from Merck, Sunovion and Verity Pharmaceuticals. Yves Longtin reports grants from Merck, GenePOC, Becton Dickinson and Gojo. Matthew Cheng reports grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity, Consortium Québécois sur la découverte du médicament and Canadian Institutes of Health Research; personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences and nplexbio; 2 pending patents for methods related to using cell-free DNA; and participation with the Canadian Immunity Task Force. Jean-Michel Leduc reports research funding from Biomérieux. All reported competing interests were outside the submitted work. No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 CMA Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Objectives: Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 binds and inhibits angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. The frequency of acute cardiac injury in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 is unknown. The objective was to compare the rates of cardiac injury by angiotensin-converting enzyme-2-binding viruses from viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2., Data Sources: We performed a systematic review of coronavirus disease 2019 literature on PubMed and EMBASE., Study Selection: We included studies with ten or more hospitalized adults with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 or other viral pathogens that described the occurrence of acute cardiac injury. This was defined by the original publication authors or by: 1) myocardial ischemia, 2) new cardiac arrhythmia on echocardiogram, or 3) new or worsening heart failure on echocardiogram., Data Extraction: We compared the rates of cardiac injury among patients with respiratory infections with viruses that down-regulate angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including H1N1, H5N1, H7N9, and severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-1, to those with respiratory infections from other influenza viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, including Influenza H3N2 and influenza B., Data Synthesis: Of 57 studies including 34,072 patients, acute cardiac injury occurred in 50% (95% CI, 44-57%) of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019. The overall risk of acute cardiac injury was 21% (95% CI, 18-26%) among hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019. In comparison, 37% (95% CI, 26-49%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p = 0.061) and 12% (95% CI, 7-22%) of critically ill patients with other respiratory viruses that do not bind angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (p < 0.001) experienced a cardiac injury., Conclusions: Acute cardiac injury may be associated with whether the virus binds angiotensin-converting enzyme-2. Acute cardiac injury occurs in half of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients, but only 12% of patients infected by viruses that do not bind to angiotensin-converting enzyme-2., Competing Interests: Dr. Cheng’s institution received funding from Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and he disclosed being on the scientific advisory board of GEN1E LifeSciences. Dr. Lee received funding from Fonds de Recherche du Québec Santé. Dr. Brodie’s institution received funding from ALung Technologies, and he received funding from Baxter, Xenios, BREETHE, and Hemovent. Dr. Slutsky received funding from Apeiron Biologics (which is investigating recombinant angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). Dr. Marshall received funding from AM Pharma and AKPA Pharma. Dr. Bogoch received funding from BlueDot. Dr. Russell received funding from Asahi Kesai Pharmaceuticals of America, SIB Therapeutics, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and previously received funding for consulting for La Jolla Pharmaceuticals and PAR Pharma. Dr. Russell reports patents owned by the University of British Columbia (UBC) that are related to the use of PCSK9 inhibitor(s) in sepsis and related to the use of vasopressin in septic shock, and he is an inventor on these patents. Dr. Russell was a founder, Director, and shareholder in Cyon Therapeutics Inc. and is a shareholder in Molecular You Corp. Dr. Russell reports having received an investigator-initiated grant from Grifols (entitled “Is HBP a mechanism of albumin’s efficacy in human septic shock?”) that was provided to and administered by UBC. Dr. Russell received support for article research from the CIHR. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: Clinical data on patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provide clinicians and public health officials with information to guide practice and policy. The aims of this study were to describe patients with COVID-19 admitted to hospital and intensive care, and to investigate predictors of outcome to characterize severe acute respiratory infection., Methods: This observational cohort study used Canadian data from 32 selected hospitals included in a global multisite cohort between Jan. 24 and July 7, 2020. Adult and pediatric patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received care in an intensive care unit (ICU) and a sampling of up to the first 60 patients receiving care on hospital wards were included. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, interventions and outcomes. The primary analyses examined in-hospital mortality, with secondary analyses of the length of hospital and ICU stay., Results: Between January and July 2020, among 811 patients admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of COVID-19, the median age was 64 (interquartile range [IQR] 53-75) years, 495 (61.0%) were men, 46 (5.7%) were health care workers, 9 (1.1%) were pregnant, 26 (3.2%) were younger than 18 years and 9 (1.1%) were younger than 5 years. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 7 (IQR 3-10) days. The most common symptoms on admission were fever, shortness of breath, cough and malaise. Diabetes, hypertension and cardiac, kidney and respiratory disease were the most common comorbidities. Among all patients, 328 received care in an ICU, admitted a median of 0 (IQR 0-1) days after hospital admission. Critically ill patients received treatment with invasive mechanical ventilation (88.8%), renal replacement therapy (14.9%) and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (4.0%); 26.2% died. Among those receiving mechanical ventilation, 31.2% died. Age was an influential predictor of mortality (odds ratio per additional year of life 1.06, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.09)., Interpretation: Patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 commonly had fever, respiratory symptoms and comorbid conditions. Increasing age was associated with the development of critical illness and death; however, most critically ill patients in Canada, including those requiring mechanical ventilation, survived and were discharged from hospital., Competing Interests: Competing interests: See the end of the article. Competing interests: Todd Lee reports salary support from Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé. Deepali Kumar reports grants and personal fees from Roche. Michelle Kho reports grants from Canada Research Chairs. Matthew Cheng reports grants from the McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board) and personal fees from nplex biosciences (as a member of the scientific advisory board). Philippe Jouvet reports consulting for Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and grants to his institution from VitalTracer and Evolucare. Patrick Archambault is a co-investigator in the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)–funded Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (https://canadiancovid19ednetwork.org). No other competing interests were declared., (© 2021 Joule Inc. or its licensors.)

Background: The global death toll from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exceeded 2 million, and treatments to decrease mortality are needed urgently., Objectives: To examine the probabilities of a clinically meaningful reduction in mortality for remdesivir and systemic corticosteroids., Design, Setting and Participants: This was a probabilistic re-analysis of clinical trial data for corticosteroids and remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 using a Bayesian random effects meta-analytic approach. Studies were identified from existing meta-analyses performed by the World Health Organization., Main Outcomes and Measures: Posterior probabilities of an absolute decrease in mortality compared with control patients, by subgroups based on oxygen requirements, were calculated for corticosteroids and remdesivir. Probabilities of ≥1%, ≥2% and ≥5% absolute decrease in mortality were quantified., Results: For patients needing mechanical ventilation, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 4% for remdesivir and 93% for corticosteroids. For patients needing supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 81% for remdesivir and 93% for dexamethasone. Finally, for patients who did not need oxygen support, the probability of ≥1% absolute decrease in mortality was 29% for remdesivir and 4% for dexamethasone., Conclusions and Relevance: Using a Bayesian analytic approach, remdesivir had low probability of achieving a clinically meaningful reduction in mortality, except for patients needing supplemental oxygen without mechanical ventilation. Corticosteroids were more promising for patients needing oxygen support, especially mechanical ventilation. While awaiting more definitive studies, this probabilistic interpretation of the evidence will help to guide treatment decisions for clinicians, as well as guideline and policy makers., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: In this proof‐of‐concept study, which included blood donor samples, we aimed to demonstrate how Bayesian latent class models (BLCMs) could be used to estimate SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence in the absence of a gold standard assay under a two‐phase sampling design. Materials and Methods: To this end, 6810 plasma samples from blood donors who resided in Québec (Canada) were collected from May to July 2020 and tested for anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies using seven serological assays (five commercial and two non‐commercial). Results: SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence was estimated at 0.71% (95% credible interval [CrI] = 0.53%–0.92%). The cPass assay had the lowest sensitivity estimate (88.7%; 95% CrI = 80.6%–94.7%), while the Héma‐Québec assay had the highest (98.7%; 95% CrI = 97.0%–99.6%). Conclusion: The estimated low seroprevalence (which indicates a relatively limited spread of SARS‐CoV‐2 in Quebec) might change rapidly—and this tool, developed using blood donors, could enable a rapid update of the prevalence estimate in the absence of a gold standard. Further, the present analysis illustrates how a two‐stage BLCM sampling design, along with blood donor samples, can be used to estimate the performance of new diagnostic tests and inform public health decisions regarding a new or emerging disease for which a perfect reference standard does not exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Omicron is the current predominant variant of concern of SARS-CoV-2. We hypothesized that vaccination alters outcomes of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the Omicron wave and that these patients have different characteristics and outcomes than in previous waves. Methods: This is a substudy of the Host Response Mediators in Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection (ARBs CORONA I) trial, which included adults admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19 up to July 2022 from 9 hospitals in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. We excluded emergency department visits without hospital admission, readmissions and admissions for another reason. Using adjusted regression analysis, we compared mortality and organ dysfunction between vaccinated (≥ 2 doses) and unvaccinated patients during the Omicron wave, as well as between all patients in the Omicron and first 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: During the Omicron wave, 28-day mortality was significantly lower in vaccinated (n = 19/237) than unvaccinated hospitalized patients (n = 12/127) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15--0.89); vaccinated patients had lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit, invasive ventilation and acute respiratory distress syndrome and shorter hospital length of stay. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more comorbidities than in previous waves, and lower 28-day mortality than in waves 1 and 2 (adjusted OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24--0.59; and 0.42, 95% CI 0.26--0.65) but not wave 3 (adjusted OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.43--1.51) and had less organ dysfunction than in the first 2 waves. Interpretation: Patients who were at least double vaccinated had lower mortality than unvaccinated patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave. Patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave had more chronic disease and lower mortality than in the first 2 waves, but not wave 3. Changes in vaccination, treatments and predominant SARS-CoV-2 variant may have decreased mortality in patients hospitalized during the Omicron wave. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic evolves, vaccine evaluation needs to include consideration of both durability and cross-reactivity. This report expands on previously reported results from a Phase 1 trial of an AS03-adjuvanted, plant-based coronavirus-like particle (CoVLP) displaying the spike (S) glycoprotein of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus in healthy adults (NCT04450004). Humoral and cellular responses against the ancestral strain were evaluated 6 months post-second dose (D201) as secondary outcomes. Independent of dose, all vaccinated individuals retain binding antibodies, and ~95% retain neutralizing antibodies (NAb). Interferon gamma and interleukin-4 responses remain detectable in ~94% and ~92% of vaccinees respectively. In post-hoc analyses, variant-specific (Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and Omicron) NAb were assessed at D42 and D201. Using a live virus neutralization assay, broad cross-reactivity is detectable against all variants at D42. At D201, cross-reactive antibodies are detectable in almost all participants against Alpha, Gamma and Delta variants (94%) and the Beta variant (83%) and in a smaller proportion against Omicron (44%). Results are similar with the pseudovirion assay. These data suggest that two doses of 3.75 µg CoVLP+AS03 elicit a durable and cross-reactive response that persists for at least 6 months post-vaccination. Here, the authors report results from a Phase 1 trial with an AS03-adjuvanted, plant-based virus-like particle displaying the spike protein of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2. Six months post-second dose, they observe good neutralizing antibody titers and T cell responses to ancestral virus and variants of concern in participants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding the immune response to natural infection by SARS‐CoV‐2 is key to pandemic management, especially in the current context of emerging variants. Uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy and duration of natural immunity against reinfection. Methods: We conducted an observational prospective cohort study in Canadian healthcare workers (HCWs) with a history of PCR‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection to (i) measure the average incidence rate of reinfection and (ii) describe the serological immune response to the primary infection. Results: Our cohort comprised 569 HCWs; median duration of individual follow‐up was 371 days. We detected six cases of reinfection in absence of vaccination between August 21, 2020, and March 1, 2022, for a reinfection incidence rate of 4.0 per 100 person‐years. Median duration of seropositivity was 415 days in symptomatics at primary infection compared with 213 days in asymptomatics (p < 0.0001). Other characteristics associated with prolonged seropositivity for IgG against the spike protein included age over 55 years, obesity, and non‐Caucasian ethnicity. Conclusions: Among unvaccinated healthcare workers, reinfection with SARS‐CoV‐2 following a primary infection remained rare. SARS‐CoV‐2 reinfections remained rare events among unvaccinated healthcare workers. Prior natural infection confers some protection against reinfection and clinical disease, but waning of serum antibodies suggests this protection may not last in the long term. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background People in prison are at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and associated carceral risk factors among incarcerated adult men in Quebec, Canada. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional seroprevalence study in 2021 across 3 provincial prisons, representing 45% of Quebec's incarcerated male provincial population. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity (Roche Elecsys serology test). Participants completed self-administered questionnaires on sociodemographic, clinical, and carceral characteristics. The association of carceral variables with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was examined using Poisson regression models with robust standard errors. Crude and adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Results Between 19 January 2021 and 15 September 2021, 246 of 1100 (22%) recruited individuals tested positive across 3 prisons (range, 15%–27%). Seropositivity increased with time spent in prison since March 2020 (aPR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.53–3.07 for "all" vs "little time"), employment during incarceration (aPR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28–2.11 vs not), shared meal consumption during incarceration ("with cellmates": aPR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.08–1.97 vs "alone"; "with sector": aPR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03–1.74 vs "alone"), and incarceration post-prison outbreak (aPR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.69–3.18 vs "pre-outbreak"). Conclusions The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among incarcerated individuals was high and varied among prisons. Several carceral factors were associated with seropositivity, underscoring the importance of decarceration and occupational safety measures, individual meal consumption, and enhanced infection prevention and control measures including vaccination during incarceration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected health care workers. We sought to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital health care workers in Quebec, Canada, after the first wave of the pandemic and to explore factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Methods: Between July 6 and Sept. 24, 2020, we enrolled health care workers from 10 hospitals, including 8 from a region with a high incidence of COVID-19 (the Montréal area) and 2 from low-incidence regions of Quebec. Eligible health care workers were physicians, nurses, orderlies and cleaning staff working in 4 types of care units (emergency department, intensive care unit, COVID-19 inpatient unit and non-COVID-19 inpatient unit). Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent SARS-CoV-2 serology testing. We identified factors independently associated with higher seroprevalence.Results: Among 2056 enrolled health care workers, 241 (11.7%) had positive SARS-CoV-2 serology. Of these, 171 (71.0%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Seroprevalence varied among hospitals, from 2.4% to 3.7% in low-incidence regions to 17.9% to 32.0% in hospitals with outbreaks involving 5 or more health care workers. Higher seroprevalence was associated with working in a hospital where outbreaks occurred (adjusted prevalence ratio 4.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.63-6.57), being a nurse or nursing assistant (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.74) or an orderly (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.12-1.97), and Black or Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted prevalence ratio 1.41, 95% CI 1.13-1.76). Lower seroprevalence was associated with working in the intensive care unit (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30-0.71) or the emergency department (adjusted prevalence ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.39-0.98).Interpretation: Health care workers in Quebec hospitals were at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly in outbreak settings. More work is needed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics in health care settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) surrogate neutralization assays that obviate the need for viral culture offer substantial advantages regarding throughput and cost. The cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit (GenScript) is the first such commercially available assay that detects antibodies that block receptor-binding domain (RBD)/angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-2 interaction. We aimed to evaluate cPass to inform its use and assess its added value compared with anti-RBD enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs). Methods Serum reference panels comprising 205 specimens were used to compare cPass to plaque-reduction neutralization test (PRNT) and a pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization (PLV) assay for detection of neutralizing antibodies. We assessed the correlation of cPass with an ELISA detecting anti-RBD immunoglobulin (Ig)G, IgM, and IgA antibodies at a single timepoint and across intervals from onset of symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results Compared with PRNT-50, cPass sensitivity ranged from 77% to 100% and specificity was 95% to 100%. Sensitivity was also high compared with the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay (93%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 85–97), but specificity was lower (58%; 95% CI, 48–67). Highest agreement between cPass and ELISA was for anti-RBD IgG (r = 0.823). Against the pseudotyped lentiviral neutralization assay, anti-RBD IgG sensitivity (99%; 95% CI, 94–100) was very similar to that of cPass, but overall specificity was lower (37%; 95% CI, 28–47). Against PRNT-50, results of cPass and anti-RBD IgG were nearly identical. Conclusions The added value of cPass compared with an IgG anti-RBD ELISA was modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate serologic tests to detect host antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be critical for the public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many use cases are envisaged, including complementing molecular methods for diagnosis of active disease and estimating immunity for individuals. At the population level, carefully designed seroepidemiologic studies will aid in the characterization of transmission dynamics and refinement of disease burden estimates and will provide insight into the kinetics of humoral immunity. Yet, despite an explosion in the number and availability of serologic assays to test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, most have undergone minimal external validation to date. This hinders assay selection and implementation, as well as interpretation of study results. In addition, critical knowledge gaps remain regarding serologic correlates of protection from infection or disease, and the degree to which these assays cross-react with antibodies against related coronaviruses. This article discusses key use cases for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests and their application to serologic studies, reviews currently available assays, highlights key areas of ongoing research, and proposes potential strategies for test implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]