Search

Infectious viral load (VL) expelled as droplets and aerosols by infected individuals partly determines transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RNA VL measured by qRT-PCR is only a weak proxy for infectiousness. Studies on the kinetics of infectious VL are important to understand the mechanisms behind the different transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the effect of vaccination on transmission, which allows guidance of public health measures. In this study, we quantified infectious VL in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the first five symptomatic days by in vitro culturability assay in unvaccinated or vaccinated individuals infected with pre-variant of concern (pre-VOC) SARS-CoV-2, Delta or Omicron BA.1. Unvaccinated individuals infected with pre-VOC SARS-CoV-2 had lower infectious VL than Delta-infected unvaccinated individuals. Full vaccination (defined as2 weeks after receipt of the second dose during the primary vaccination series) significantly reduced infectious VL for Delta breakthrough cases compared to unvaccinated individuals. For Omicron BA.1 breakthrough cases, reduced infectious VL was observed only in boosted but not in fully vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. In addition, infectious VL was lower in fully vaccinated Omicron BA.1 -infected individuals compared to fully vaccinated Delta-infected individuals, suggesting that mechanisms other than increased infectious VL contribute to the high infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 . Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease.

COVID-19 is the latest zoonotic RNA virus epidemic of concern. Learning how it began and spread will help to determine how to reduce the risk of future events. We review major RNA virus outbreaks since 1967 to identify common features and opportunities to prevent emergence, including ancestral viral origins in birds, bats, and other mammals; animal reservoirs and intermediate hosts; and pathways for zoonotic spillover and community spread, leading to local, regional, or international outbreaks. The increasing scientific evidence concerning the origins of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is most consistent with a zoonotic origin and a spillover pathway from wildlife to people via wildlife farming and the wildlife trade. We apply what we know about these outbreaks to identify relevant, feasible, and implementable interventions. We identify three primary targets for pandemic prevention and preparedness: first, smart surveillance coupled with epidemiological risk assessment across wildlife–livestock–human (One Health) spillover interfaces; second, research to enhance pandemic preparedness and expedite development of vaccines and therapeutics; and third, strategies to reduce underlying drivers of spillover risk and spread and reduce the influence of misinformation. For all three, continued efforts to improve and integrate biosafety and biosecurity with the implementation of a One Health approach are essential. We discuss new models to address the challenges of creating an inclusive and effective governance structure, with the necessary stable funding for cross-disciplinary collaborative research. Finally, we offer recommendations for feasible actions to close the knowledge gaps across the One Health continuum and improve preparedness and response in the future.

Background Many new variants of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been termed variants of concern/interest (VOC/I) because of the greater risk they pose due to possible enhanced transmissibility and/or severity, immune escape, diagnostic and/or treatment failure, and reduced vaccine efficacy. Aims We sought to review the current knowledge of emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants, particularly those deemed VOC/Is: B.1.351, B.1.1.7, and P.1. Sources MEDLINE and BioRxiv databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched for reports of SARS-CoV-2 variants since November 2020. Relevant articles and their references were screened. Content Mutations on the spike protein in particular may affect both affinity for the SARS-CoV-2 cell receptor ACEII and antibody binding. These VOC/Is often share similar mutation sets. The N501Y mutation is shared by the three main VOCs: B.1.1.7, first identified in the United Kingdom, P.1, originating from Brazil, and B.1.351, first described in South Africa. This mutation likely increases transmissibility by increasing affinity for ACEII. The B.1.351 and P.1 variants also display the E484K mutation which decreases binding of neutralizing antibodies, leading to partial immune escape; this favours reinfections, and decreases the in vitro efficacy of some antibody therapies or vaccines. Those mutations may also have phenotypical repercussions of greater severity. Furthermore, the accumulation of mutations poses a diagnostic risk (lowered when using multiplex assays), as seen for some assays targeting the S gene. With ongoing surveillance, many new VOC/Is have been identified. The emergence of the E484K mutation independently in different parts of the globe may reflect the adaptation of SARS-CoV-2 to humans against a background of increasing immunity. Implications These VOC/Is are increasing in frequency globally and pose challenges to any herd immunity approach to managing the pandemic. While vaccination is ongoing, vaccine updates may be prudent. The virus continues to adapt to transmission in humans, and further divergence from the initial Wuhan sequences is expected.

Understanding the risk of infection from household- and community-exposures and the transmissibility of asymptomatic infections is critical to SARS-CoV-2 control. Limited previous evidence is based primarily on virologic testing, which disproportionately misses mild and asymptomatic infections. Serologic measures are more likely to capture all previously infected individuals. We apply household transmission models to data from a cross-sectional, household-based population serosurvey of 4,534 people ≥5 years from 2,267 households enrolled April-June 2020 in Geneva, Switzerland. We found that the risk of infection from exposure to a single infected household member aged ≥5 years (17.3%,13.7-21.7) was more than three-times that of extra-household exposures over the first pandemic wave (5.1%,4.5-5.8). Young children had a lower risk of infection from household members. Working-age adults had the highest extra-household infection risk. Seropositive asymptomatic household members had 69.4% lower odds (95%CrI,31.8-88.8%) of infecting another household member compared to those reporting symptoms, accounting for 14.5% (95%CrI, 7.2-22.7%) of all household infections., Household-based studies can provide insights into SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Here, the authors fit transmission models to serological data from Geneva, Switzerland, and estimate that the risk of infection from single household exposure (17.3%) was higher than for extra-household exposure (5.1%).

Emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants raise questions about escape from previous immunity. As the population immunity to SARS-CoV-2 has become more complex due to prior infections with different variants, vaccinations or the combination of both, understanding the antigenic relationship between variants is needed. Here, we have assessed neutralizing capacity of 120 blood specimens from convalescent individuals infected with ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Alpha, Beta, Gamma or Delta, double vaccinated individuals and patients after breakthrough infections with Delta or Omicron-BA.1. Neutralization against seven authentic SARS-CoV-2 isolates (B.1, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Zeta and Omicron-BA.1) determined by plaque-reduction neutralization assay allowed us to map the antigenic relationship of SARS-CoV-2 variants. Highest neutralization titers were observed against the homologous variant. Antigenic cartography identified Zeta and Omicron-BA.1 as separate antigenic clusters. Substantial immune escape in vaccinated individuals was detected for Omicron-BA.1 but not Zeta. Combined infection/vaccination derived immunity results in less Omicron-BA.1 immune escape. Last, breakthrough infections with Omicron-BA.1 lead to broadly neutralizing sera.

Background:The dynamics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) seroconversion of hospital employees are understudied. We measured the proportion of seroconverted employees and evaluated risk factors for seroconversion during the first pandemic wave.Methods:In this prospective cohort study, we recruited Geneva University Hospitals employees and sampled them 3 times, every 3 weeks from March 30 to June 12, 2020. We measured the proportion of seroconverted employees and determined prevalence ratios of risk factors for seroconversion using multivariate mixed-effects Poisson regression models.Results:Overall, 3,421 participants (29% of all employees) were included, with 92% follow-up. The proportion of seroconverted employees increased from 4.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7%–5.1%) at baseline to 8.5% [(95% CI, 7.6%–9.5%) at the last visit. The proportions of seroconverted employees working in COVID-19 geriatrics and rehabilitation (G&R) wards (32.3%) and non–COVID-19 G&R wards (12.3%) were higher compared to office workers (4.9%) at the last visit. Only nursing assistants had a significantly higher risk of seroconversion compared to office workers (11.7% vs 4.9%; P = .006). Significant risk factors for seroconversion included the use of public transportation (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.25–2.03), known community exposure to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (2.80; 95% CI, 2.22–3.54), working in a ward with a nosocomial COVID outbreak (2.93; 95% CI, 2.27–3.79), and working in a COVID-19 G&R ward (3.47; 95% CI, 2.45–4.91) or a non–COVID-19 G&R ward (1.96; 95% CI, 1.46–2.63). We observed an association between reported use of respirators and lower risk of seroconversion (0.73; 95% CI, 0.55–0.96).Conclusion:Additional preventive measures should be implemented to protect employees in G&R wards. Randomized trials on the protective effect of respirators are urgently needed.

By the beginning of November 2020, almost 50 million cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) had been reported worldwide, with over 35 million people defined as recovering from the disease [1]. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), updated on 10 September 2020, there were no confirmed reports to date of a person being reinfected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within 3 months of the initial infection [2]. In the absence of solid human data, Rhesus monkeys were challenged 28 days after first SARS-CoV-2 infection with same virus strain and did not establish reinfection [3]. However, on 21 September 2020 the European CDC issued a report addressing SARS-CoV-2 reinfection, citing several case studies and calling for a case definition [4]. Defining reinfection, relapsed infection and recurrence of positive (re-positive) nucleic acid detection might have clinical and epidemiological implications for treatment and infection control measures, respectively. In this commentary, we aimed to provide such definitions, including a microbiologically confirmed definition of reinfection, as well as clinical and epidemiological ones. Reinfections are observed with many respiratory viruses, including human coronaviruses. Reinfections with respiratory viruses may be due to weak or waning initial immune response (e.g. respiratory syncytial virus), reinfection with another genotype/species (e.g. rhinoviruses) or the high variability of the viruses (e.g. influenza virus). Following the SARS-CoV-1 and Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemics, specific antibodies were detected in survivors up to 24 and 34 months, respectively. The negligible risk of a second exposure to these viruses has not allowed for a clinical determination as to the immunity against reinfection [5,6]. For endemic coronaviruses, immunity was shown to be temporary, lasting from several months to a few years, and reinfection has been reported after experimental and natural infection [7]. It is assumed that the immune response following a natural viral infection is incomplete and reinfections are possible [8]. Currently tested COVID-19 vaccine platforms such as RNA and viral vector vaccines are designed to elicit antibody and T-cell responses, whereas subunit vaccines are more restricted to antibody responses, precluding the effect of active effector T cells and memory T cells. However, it is one of the subunit vaccine candidates that shows so far the highest neutralizing antibody titres and it is still unclear if a future COVID-19 vaccine will provide sustained and sterilizing immunity.

BackgroundPopulation-based serological surveys provide a means for assessing the immunologic landscape of a community, without the biases related to health-seeking behaviors and testing practices typically associated with rt-PCR testing. This study assesses SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence over the first epidemic wave in Canton Geneva, Switzerland, as well as biological and socio-economic risk factors for infection and symptoms associated with IgG seropositivity.Methods and findingsBetween April 6 and June 30, 2020, former participants of a yearly representative cross-sectional survey of the 20-75-year-old population of the canton of Geneva were invited to participate in a seroprevalence study, along with household members five years and older. We collected blood and tested it for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins G (IgG). Questionnaires were self-administered. We estimated seroprevalence with a Bayesian model accounting for test performance and sampling design. We included 8344 participants (53.5% women, mean age 46.9 years). The population-level seroprevalence over the 12-week study period was 7.8 % (95% Credible Interval (CrI) 6.8-8.9), accounting for sex, age and household random effects. Seroprevalence was highest among 18-49 year olds (9.5%, 95%CrI 8.1-10.9), with young children (5-9 years) and those >65 years having significantly lower seroprevalence (4.3% and 4.7-5.4% respectively). Men were more likely to be seropositive than women (relative risk 1.2, 95%CrI 1.1-1.4). Odds of seropositivity were reduced for female retirees (0.46, 95%CI 0.23-0.93) and unemployed men (0.35, 95%CI 0.13-1.0) compared to employed individuals, and for current smokers (0.36, 95%CI 0.23-0.55) compared to never-smokers. We found no significant association between occupation, level of education, neighborhood income and the risk of being seropositive. Symptoms most strongly associated with seropositivity were anosmia/dysgeusia, loss of appetite, fever, fatigue and myalgia and/or arthralgia. Thirteen percent of seropositive participants reported no symptoms.ConclusionsOur results confirm a low population seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after the first wave in Geneva, a region hard hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Socioeconomic factors were not associated with seropositivity in this sample. The elderly and young children were less frequently seropositive, though it is not clear how biology and behaviors shape these differences. These specificities should be considered when assessing the need for targeted public health measures.

Background Unravelling autoimmune targets triggered by SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may provide crucial insights into the physiopathology of the disease and foster the development of potential therapeutic candidate targets and prognostic tools. We aimed at determining (a) the association between anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 and anti‐apoA‐1 humoral response and (b) the degree of linear homology between SARS‐CoV‐2, apoA‐1 and Toll‐like receptor 2 (TLR2) epitopes. Design Bioinformatics modelling coupled with mimic peptides engineering and competition experiments were used to assess epitopes sequence homologies. Anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 and anti‐apoA‐1 IgG as well as cytokines were assessed by immunoassays on a case‐control (n = 101), an intensive care unit (ICU; n = 126) and a general population cohort (n = 663) with available samples in the pre and post‐pandemic period. Results Using bioinformatics modelling, linear sequence homologies between apoA‐1, TLR2 and Spike epitopes were identified but without experimental evidence of cross‐reactivity. Overall, anti‐apoA‐1 IgG levels were higher in COVID‐19 patients or anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 seropositive individuals than in healthy donors or anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 seronegative individuals (P

ObjectivesTo report a prospective epidemiological, virological and serological investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a primary school.MethodsAs part of a longitudinal, prospective, school-based surveillance study, this investigation involved repeated testing of 73 pupils, 9 teachers, 13 non-teaching staff and 26 household members of participants who tested positive, with rapid antigen tests and/or RT-PCR (Day 0–2 and Day 5–7), serologies on dried capillary blood samples (Day 0–2 and Day 30), contact tracing interviews and SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing.ResultsWe identified 20 children (aged 4 to 6 years from 4 school classes), 2 teachers and a total of 4 household members who were infected by the Alpha variant during this outbreak. Infection attack rates were between 11.8 and 62.0% among pupils from the 4 school classes, 22.2% among teachers and 0% among non-teaching staff. Secondary attack rate among household members was 15.4%. Symptoms were reported by 63% of infected children, 100% of teachers and 50% of household members. All analysed sequences but one showed 100% identity. Serological tests detected 8 seroconversions unidentified by SARS-CoV-2 virological tests.ConclusionsThis study confirmed child-to-child and child-to-adult SARS-CoV-2 transmission and introduction into households. Effective measures to limit transmission in schools have the potential to reduce the overall community circulation.

ImportanceAntigen-based rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have shown good sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection in adults and are used in children despite the lack data from children.ObjectiveWe evaluated the diagnostic performance of the Panbio™-COVID-19 Ag Rapid Test Device (P-RDT) in symptomatic and asymptomatic children against reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS).DesignProspective diagnostic study from 11.2020 to 03.2021.SettingSingle-center.ParticipantsConsecutive symptomatic and asymptomatic participants 0-16yo.InterventionTwo NPS for both RT-PCR and P-RDT.Main outcomeP-RDT sensitivity and specificity.ResultsEight-hundred and twenty-two participants completed the study, of which 533 (64.9%) were symptomatic. Among the 119 (14.5%) RT-PCR positive patients, the overall P-RDT sensitivity was 0.66 (95%CI 0.57-0.74). Mean viral load (VL) was higher among P-RDT positive than negative ones (p1.0E6 copies/mL (95%CI 0.87-1.00), which is the accepted cut-off for the presence of infectious virus, and decreased to 0.67 (95%CI 0.59-0.76) for specimens >1.0E3 copies/mL.Among symptomatic participants, the P-RDT displayed a sensitivity of 0.73 (95%CI 0.64-0.82), which peaked at 1.00 at 2 days post onset of symptoms (DPOS; 95%CI 1.00-1.00), then decreased to 0.56 (95%CI 0.23-0.88) at 5 DPOS. There was a trend towards lower P-RDT sensitivity in symptomatic children Specificity was 1.00 in symptomatic and asymptomatic children (95%CI 0.99-1.00).Conclusion and relevanceThe overall respective 73% and 43% sensitivities of P-RDT in symptomatic and asymptomatic children was below the 80% cut-off recommended by the World Health Organization. These findings are likely explained by lower VLs in children at the time of diagnosis. As expected, we observed a direct correlation between VL and P-RDT sensitivity as well as variation of sensitivity according to DPOS, a major determinant of VL. These data highlight the limitations of RDTs both in symptomatic and asymptomatic children, with the potential exception in early symptomatic children ≥12yrs where sensitivity reached 80%.

Significance COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, led to an unprecedented global health crisis. As the majority of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 have no or only mild symptoms, many cases aren’t captured by direct testing. However, it is important to establish the true spread of the virus by identifying how many people have been exposed. Detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2–specific antibodies in blood samples can help us understand how the pandemic is evolving over time. We developed a sensitive and specific assay that performs 1,024 measurements in parallel. To enable decentralized blood sample collection, the method can detect antibodies in a small drop of blood obtainable by finger pricking, and the blood can be collected and shipped with a simple, low-cost blood glucose test strip., Novel technologies are needed to facilitate large-scale detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) specific antibodies in human blood samples. Such technologies are essential to support seroprevalence studies and vaccine clinical trials, and to monitor quality and duration of immunity. We developed a microfluidic nanoimmunoassay (NIA) for the detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in 1,024 samples per device. The method achieved a specificity of 100% and a sensitivity of 98% based on the analysis of 289 human serum samples. To eliminate the need for venipuncture, we developed low-cost, ultralow-volume whole blood sampling methods based on two commercial devices and repurposed a blood glucose test strip. The glucose test strip permits the collection, shipment, and analysis of 0.6 μL of whole blood easily obtainable from a simple finger prick. The NIA platform achieves high throughput, high sensitivity, and specificity based on the analysis of 289 human serum samples, and negligible reagent consumption. We furthermore demonstrate the possibility to combine NIA with decentralized and simple approaches to blood sample collection. We expect this technology to be applicable to current and future SARS-CoV-2 related serological studies and to protein biomarker analysis in general.

The rapid spread of the SARS-CoV-2 lineages B.1.1.7 (N501Y.V1) throughout the UK, B.1.351 (N501Y.V2) in South Africa, and P.1 (B.1.1.28.1; N501Y.V3) in Brazil has led to the definition of variants of concern (VoCs) and recommendations for lineage specific surveillance. In Switzerland, during the last weeks of December 2020, we established a nationwide screening protocol across multiple laboratories, focusing first on epidemiological and microbiological definitions. In January 2021, we validated and implemented an N501Y-specific PCR to rapidly screen for VoCs, which are then confirmed using amplicon sequencing or whole genome sequencing (WGS). A total of 13,387 VoCs have been identified since the detection of the first Swiss case in October 2020, with 4194 being B.1.1.7, 172 B.1.351, and 7 P.1. The remaining 9014 cases of VoCs have been described without further lineage specification. Overall, all diagnostic centers reported a rapid increase of the percentage of detected VOCs, with a range of 6 to 46% between 25 to 31 of January 2021 increasing towards 41 to 82% between 22 to 28 of February. A total of 739 N501Y positive genomes were analysed and show a broad range of introduction events to Switzerland. In this paper, we describe the nationwide coordination and implementation process across laboratories, public health institutions, and researchers, the first results of our N501Y-specific variant screening, and the phylogenetic analysis of all available WGS data in Switzerland, that together identified the early introduction events and subsequent community spreading of the VoCs., Microorganisms, 9 (4)

SARS-CoV-2 viral load (VL) can serve as a correlate for infectious virus presence and transmission. Viral shedding kinetics over the first week of illness for symptomatic children (n = 279), adolescents (n = 639), and adults (n = 7109) show VLs compatible with infectious virus presence, with slightly lower VL in children than adults.

Purpose: To assess the diagnostic performances of five automated anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays, Epitope (N), Diasorin (S1/S2), Euroimmun (S1), Roche N (N), and Roche S (S-RBD), and to provide a testing strategy based on pre-test probability. Methods: We assessed the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas under the curve (AUC) values, along with the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPVs), and negative predictive values (NPVs), of each assay using a validation sample set of 172 COVID-19 sera and 185 negative controls against a validated S1-immunofluorescence as a reference method. The three assays displaying the highest AUCs were selected for further serodetection of 2033 sera of a large population-based cohort. Results: In the validation analysis (pre-test probability: 48.1%), Roche N, Roche S and Euroimmun showed the highest discriminant accuracy (AUCs: 0.99, 0.98, and 0.98) with PPVs and NPVs above 96% and 94%, respectively. In the population-based cohort (pre-test probability: 6.2%) these three assays displayed AUCs above 0.97 and PPVs and NPVs above 90.5% and 99.4%, respectively. A sequential strategy using an anti-S assay as screening test and an anti-N as confirmatory assays resulted in a 96.7% PPV and 99.5% NPV, respectively. Conclusions: Euroimmun and both Roche assays performed equally well in high pre-test probability settings. At a lower prevalence, sequentially combining anti-S and anti-N assays resulted in the optimal trade-off between diagnostic performances and operational considerations.

Background SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract that may be determinant in virus dissemination. The extent of intranasal antiviral response in relation to symptoms is unknown. Understanding how local innate responses control virus is key in the development of therapeutic approaches. Methods SARS-CoV-2-infected patients were enrolled in an observational study conducted at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland, investigating virological and immunological characteristics. Nasal wash and serum specimens from a subset of patients were collected to measure viral load, IgA specific for the S1 domain of the spike protein, and a cytokine panel at different time points after infection; cytokine levels were analyzed in relation to symptoms. Results Samples from 13 SARS-CoV-2-infected patients and six controls were analyzed. We found an increase in CXCL10 and IL-6, whose levels remained elevated for up to 3 weeks after symptom onset. SARS-CoV-2 infection also induced CCL2 and GM-CSF, suggesting local recruitment and activation of myeloid cells. Local cytokine levels correlated with viral load but not with serum cytokine levels, nor with specific symptoms, including anosmia. Some patients had S1-specific IgA in the nasal cavity while almost none had IgG. Conclusion The nasal epithelium is an active site of cytokine response against SARS-CoV-2 that can last more than 2 weeks; in this mild COVID-19 cohort, anosmia was not associated with increases in any locally produced cytokines.

Objectives Determine the diagnostic accuracy of two antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDT) for SARS-CoV-2 at the point of care and define individuals’ characteristics providing best performance. Methods We performed a prospective, single-center, point of care validation of two Ag-RDT in comparison to RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs. Results Between October 9th and 23rd, 2020, 1064 participants were enrolled. The PanbioTM Covid-19 Ag Rapid Test device (Abbott) was validated in 535 participants, with 106 positive Ag-RDT results out of 124 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 85.5% (95% CI: 78.0–91.2). Specificity was 100.0% (95% CI: 99.1–100) in 411 RT-PCR negative individuals. The Standard Q Ag-RDT (SD Biosensor, Roche) was validated in 529 participants, with 170 positive Ag-RDT results out of 191 positive RT-PCR individuals, yielding a sensitivity of 89.0% (95%CI: 83.7–93.1). One false positive result was obtained in 338 RT-PCR negative individuals, yielding a specificity of 99.7% (95%CI: 98.4–100). For individuals presenting with fever 1–5 days post symptom onset, combined Ag-RDT sensitivity was above 95%. Lower sensitivity of 88.2% was seen on the same day of symptom development (day 0). Conclusions We provide an independent validation of two widely available commercial Ag-RDTs, both meeting WHO criteria of ≥80% sensitivity and ≥97% specificity. Although less sensitive than RT-PCR, these assays could be beneficial due to their rapid results, ease of use, and independence from existing laboratory structures. Testing criteria focusing on patients with typical symptoms in their early symptomatic period onset could further increase diagnostic value.

Objectives To report a case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) reinfection 6 months after the first infection in a young healthy female physician. Both episodes led to mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected by real-time reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal specimens. Reinfection was confirmed by whole-genome sequencing. Kinetics of total anti-S receptor binding domain immunoglobulins (Ig anti–S RBD), anti-nucleoprotein (anti-N) and neutralizing antibodies were determined in serial serum samples retrieved during both infection episodes. Memory B-cell responses were assessed at day 12 after reinfection. Results Whole-genome sequencing identified two different SARS-CoV-2 genomes both belonging to clade 20A, with only one nonsynonymous mutation in the spike protein and clustered with viruses circulating in Geneva (Switzerland) at the time of each of the corresponding episodes. Seroconversion was documented with low levels of total Ig anti–S RBD and anti-N antibodies at 1 month after the first infection, whereas neutralizing antibodies quickly declined after the first episode and then were boosted by the reinfection, with high titres detectable 4 days after symptom onset. A strong memory B-cell response was detected at day 12 after onset of symptoms during reinfection, indicating that the first episode elicited cellular memory responses. Conclusions Rapid decline of neutralizing antibodies may put medical personnel at risk of reinfection, as shown in this case. However, reinfection leads to a significant boosting of previous immune responses. Larger cohorts of reinfected subjects with detailed descriptions of their immune responses are needed to define correlates of protection and their duration after infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has infected more than 35 million people globally, with more than 1 million deaths recorded by WHO as of Oct 12, 2020. As a second wave of COVID-19 affects Europe, and with winter approaching, we need clear communication about the risks posed by COVID-19 and effective strategies to combat them. Here, we share our view of the current evidence-based consensus on COVID-19.

To understand SARS-CoV-2 immunity after natural infection or vaccination, functional assays such as virus neutralising assays are needed. So far, assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies rely on cell-culture based infection assays either using wild type SARS-CoV-2 or pseudotyped viruses. Such assays are labour-intensive, require appropriate biosafety facilities and are difficult to standardize. Recently, a new surrogate virus neutralisation test (sVNT) was described that uses the principle of an ELISA to measure the neutralisation capacity of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies directed against the receptor binding domain. Here, we performed an independent evaluation of the robustness, specificity and sensitivity on an extensive panel of sera from 269 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 259 unmatched samples collected before 2020 and compared it to cell-based neutralisation assays. We found a high specificity of 99.2 (95%CI: 96.9–99.9) and overall sensitivity of 80.3 (95%CI: 74.9–84.8) for the sVNT. Clinical sensitivity increased between early (14 dpos/dpd) from 75.0 (64.7–83.2) to 83.1 (76.5–88.1). Also, higher severity was associated with an increase in clinical sensitivity. Upon comparison with cell-based neutralisation assays we determined an analytical sensitivity of 74.3 (56.4–86.9) and 98.2 (89.4–99.9) for titres ≥10 to

ObjectivesTo validate the diagnostic accuracy of a Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA immunoassay for COVID-19.MethodsIn this unmatched (1:1) case-control validation study, we used sera of 181 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 176 controls collected before SARS-CoV-2 emergence. Diagnostic accuracy of the immunoassay was assessed against a whole spike protein-based recombinant immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Discrepant cases between ELISA and rIFA were further tested by pseudo-neutralization assay.ResultsCOVID-19 patients were more likely to be male and older than controls, and 50.3% were hospitalized. ROC curve analyses indicated that IgG and IgA had high diagnostic accuracies with AUCs of 0.992 (95% Confidence Interval [95%CI]: 0.986-0.996) and 0.977 (95%CI: 0.963-0.990), respectively. IgG assays outperformed IgA assays (p=0.008). Taking an assessed 15% inter-assay imprecision into account, an optimized IgG ratio cut-off > 1.5 displayed a 100% specificity (95%CI: 98–100) and a 100% positive predictive value (95%CI: 97-100). A 0.5 cut-off displayed a 97% sensitivity (95%CI: 93–99) and a 97% negative predictive value (95%CI: 93–99). Substituting these thresholds for the manufacturer’s, improved assay performance, leaving 12% of IgG ratios indeterminate between 0.5-1.5.ConclusionsThe Euroimmun assay displays a nearly optimal diagnostic accuracy using IgG against SARS-CoV-2 in patient samples, with no obvious gains from IgA serology. The optimized cut-offs are fit for rule-in and rule-out purposes, allowing determination of whether individuals in our study population have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 or not. IgG serology should however not be considered as a surrogate of protection at this stage.

To validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Augurix SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG rapid immunoassay diagnostic test (RDT) for COVID-19.In this unmatched 1:1 case-control study, blood samples from 46 real-time RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 hospitalized cases and 45 healthy donors (negative controls) were studied. Diagnostic accuracy of the IgG RDT was assessed against both an in-house recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA), as an established reference method (primary endpoint), and the Euroimmun SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (secondary endpoint).COVID-19 patients were more likely to be male (61% vs 20%; P = .0001) and older (median 66 vs 47 years old; P .001) than controls. Whole blood IgG-RDT results showed 86% and 93% overall Kendall concordance with rIFA and IgG ELISA, respectively. IgG RDT performances were similar between plasma and whole blood. Overall, RDT sensitivity was 88% (95% confidence interval [95%CI]: 70-96), specificity 98% (95%CI: 90-100), PPV 97% (95%CI: 80-100) and NPV 94% (95%CI: 84-98). The IgG-RDT carried out from 0 to 6 days, 7 to 14 days and 14 days after the SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test displayed 30%, 73% and 100% positivity rates in the COVID-19 group, respectively. When considering samples taken14 days after RT-PCR diagnosis, NPV was 100% (95%CI:90-100), and PPV was 100% (95%CI:72-100).The Augurix IgG-RDT done in whole blood displays a high diagnostic accuracy for SARS-CoV-2 IgG in high COVID-19 prevalence settings, where its use could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.

Background: Comparative data of SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG serology rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) is scarce. We thus performed a head-to-head comparison of three RDTs. Methods: In this unmatched case-control study, blood samples from 41 RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases and 50 negative controls were studied. The diagnostic accuracy of three commercially available COVID-19 RDTs: NTBIO (RDT-A), Orient-Gene (RDT-B), and MEDsan (RDT-C), against both a recombinant spike-expressing immunofluorescence assay (rIFA) and Euroimmun IgG ELISA, was assessed. RDT results concordant with the reference methods, and between whole blood and plasma, were established by the Kendall coefficient. Results: COVID-19 cases&rsquo, median time from RT-PCR to serology was 22 days (interquartile range (IQR) 13&ndash, 31 days). Whole-blood IgG detection with RDT-A, -B, and -C showed 0.93, 0.83, and 0.98 concordance with rIFA. Against rIFA, RDT-A sensitivity (SN) was 92% (95% CI: 78&ndash, 98) and specificity (SP) 100% (95% CI: 91&ndash, 100), RDT-B showed 87% SN (95% CI: 72&ndash, 95) and 98% SP (95% CI: 88&ndash, 100), and RDT-C 100% SN (95% CI: 88&ndash, 100) and 98% SP (95% CI: 88&ndash, 100). Against ELISA, SN and SP were above 90% for all three RDTs. Conclusions: RDT-A and RDT-C displayed IgG detection SN and SP above 90% in whole blood. These RDTs could be considered in the absence of routine diagnostic serology facilities.

The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics) was developed to provide accurate, reliable detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We evaluated sensitivity, specificity, cross-reactivity, and agreement with a vesicular stomatitis virus-based pseudoneutralization assay for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Sensitivity and agreement between Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and pseudoneutralization assay measurements were evaluated using samples from patients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, a majority of whom were hospitalized. Specificity was evaluated using samples from routine diagnostic testing/blood donors collected before December 2019 and thus deemed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Cross-reactivity was evaluated using samples containing a wide range of potentially cross-reacting analytes, purchased from commercial vendors. For sensitivity and specificity, point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Agreement between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and the pseudoneutralization assay was calculated. The sensitivity of the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay in patients with prior PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection was 99.5% (95% CI, 97.0 to 100.0%) at ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation. Overall specificity (n = 10,453) was 99.80% (95% CI, 99.69 to 99.88%). Only 4/792 samples containing potential cross-reacting analytes were reactive with the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay, resulting in an overall specificity in this cohort of 99.5% (95% CI, 98.6 to 99.9%). Positive, negative, and overall agreement (n = 46) between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay and the pseudoneutralization assay were 86.4% (95% CI, 73.3 to 93.6%), 100% (95% CI, 34.2 to 100%), and 87.0% (95% CI, 74.3 to 93.9%), respectively. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated high sensitivity (99.5% at ≥14 days post-PCR confirmation) and specificity (99.80%), supporting its use as a tool for identification of past SARS-CoV-2 infection, including use in populations with low disease prevalence.

Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) cases per capita in the world. There are likely many people with undetected SARS-CoV-2 infection because testing efforts are currently not detecting all infected people, including some with clinical disease compatible with COVID-19. Testing on its own will not stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Testing is part of a strategy. The World Health Organization recommends a combination of measures: rapid diagnosis and immediate isolation of cases, rigorous tracking and precautionary self-isolation of close contacts. In this article, we explain why the testing strategy in Switzerland should be strengthened urgently, as a core component of a combination approach to control COVID-19.

Objective To study the clinical characteristics of patients in Zhejiang province, China, infected with the 2019 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-2019). Design Retrospective case series. Setting Seven hospitals in Zhejiang province, China. Participants 62 patients admitted to hospital with laboratory confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection. Data were collected from 10 January 2020 to 26 January 2020. Main outcome measures Clinical data, collected using a standardised case report form, such as temperature, history of exposure, incubation period. If information was not clear, the working group in Hangzhou contacted the doctor responsible for treating the patient for clarification. Results Of the 62 patients studied (median age 41 years), only one was admitted to an intensive care unit, and no patients died during the study. According to research, none of the infected patients in Zhejiang province were ever exposed to the Huanan seafood market, the original source of the virus; all studied cases were infected by human to human transmission. The most common symptoms at onset of illness were fever in 48 (77%) patients, cough in 50 (81%), expectoration in 35 (56%), headache in 21 (34%), myalgia or fatigue in 32 (52%), diarrhoea in 3 (8%), and haemoptysis in 2 (3%). Only two patients (3%) developed shortness of breath on admission. The median time from exposure to onset of illness was 4 days (interquartile range 3-5 days), and from onset of symptoms to first hospital admission was 2 (1-4) days. Conclusion As of early February 2020, compared with patients initially infected with SARS-Cov-2 in Wuhan, the symptoms of patients in Zhejiang province are relatively mild.

The factors that contribute to transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by children are unclear. We analyzed viral load at the time of diagnosis in 53 children and 352 adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the first 5 days post symptom onset. No significant differences in SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads were seen between children and adults.

Children do not seem to drive transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We isolated culture-competent virus in vitro from 12 (52%) of 23 SARS-CoV-2–infected children; the youngest was 7 days old. Our findings show that symptomatic neonates, children, and teenagers shed infectious SARS-CoV-2, suggesting that transmission from them is plausible.

Summary Background Assessing the burden of COVID-19 on the basis of medically attended case numbers is suboptimal given its reliance on testing strategy, changing case definitions, and disease presentation. Population-based serosurveys measuring anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (anti-SARS-CoV-2) antibodies provide one method for estimating infection rates and monitoring the progression of the epidemic. Here, we estimate weekly seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population of Geneva, Switzerland, during the epidemic. Methods The SEROCoV-POP study is a population-based study of former participants of the Bus Santé study and their household members. We planned a series of 12 consecutive weekly serosurveys among randomly selected participants from a previous population-representative survey, and their household members aged 5 years and older. We tested each participant for anti-SARS-CoV-2-IgG antibodies using a commercially available ELISA. We estimated seroprevalence using a Bayesian logistic regression model taking into account test performance and adjusting for the age and sex of Geneva's population. Here we present results from the first 5 weeks of the study. Findings Between April 6 and May 9, 2020, we enrolled 2766 participants from 1339 households, with a demographic distribution similar to that of the canton of Geneva. In the first week, we estimated a seroprevalence of 4·8% (95% CI 2·4–8·0, n=341). The estimate increased to 8·5% (5·9–11·4, n=469) in the second week, to 10·9% (7·9–14·4, n=577) in the third week, 6·6% (4·3–9·4, n=604) in the fourth week, and 10·8% (8·2–13·9, n=775) in the fifth week. Individuals aged 5–9 years (relative risk [RR] 0·32 [95% CI 0·11–0·63]) and those older than 65 years (RR 0·50 [0·28–0·78]) had a significantly lower risk of being seropositive than those aged 20–49 years. After accounting for the time to seroconversion, we estimated that for every reported confirmed case, there were 11·6 infections in the community. Interpretation These results suggest that most of the population of Geneva remained uninfected during this wave of the pandemic, despite the high prevalence of COVID-19 in the region (5000 reported clinical cases over

The infection fatality risk (IFR) is the average number of deaths per infection by a pathogen and is key to characterizing the severity of infection across the population and for specific demographic groups. To date, there are few empirical estimates of IFR published due to challenges in measuring infection rates.1,2 Outside of closed, closely surveilled populations where infection rates can be monitored through viral surveillance, we must rely on indirect measures of infection, like specific antibodies. Representative seroprevalence studies provide an important avenue for estimating the number of infections in a community, and when combined with death counts can lead to robust estimates of the IFR. We estimated overall and age-specific IFR for the canton of Geneva, Switzerland using age-stratified daily case and death incidence reports combined with five weekly population-based seroprevalence estimates.3 From February 24th to June 2nd there were 5’039 confirmed cases and 286 reported deaths within Geneva (population of 506’765). We inferred age-stratified (5-9, 10-19, 20-49, 50-65 and 65+) IFRs by linking the observed number of deaths to the estimated number of infected individuals from each serosurvey. We account for the delays between infection and seroconversion as well as between infection and death.4 Inference is drawn in a Bayesian framework that incorporates uncertainty in seroprevalence estimates (supplement).Of the 286 reported deaths caused by SARS-CoV-2, the youngest person to die was 31 years old. Infected individuals younger than 50 years experienced statistically similar IFRs (range 0.00032-0.0016%), which increases to 0.14% (95% CrI 0.096-0.19) for those 50-64 years old to 5.6% (95% CrI 4.3-7.4) for those 65 years and older (supplement). After accounting for demography and age-specific seroprevalence, we estimate a population-wide IFR of 0.64% (95% CrI 0.38-0.98).Our results are subject to two notable limitations. Among the 65+ age group that died of COVID-19 within Geneva, 50% were reported among residents of assisted care facilities, where around 0.8% of the Geneva population resides. While the serosurvey protocol did not explicitly exclude these individuals, they are likely to have been under-represented. This would lead to an overestimation of the IFR in the 65+ age group if seroprevalence in this institutionalized population was higher than in the general population (supplement). Further, our IFR estimates are based on current evidence regarding post-infection antibody kinetics, which may differ between severe and mild infections. If mild infections have significantly lower and short-lived antibody responses, our estimates of IFR may be biased upwards.5Estimates of IFR are key for understanding the true pandemic burden and for weighing different risk reduction strategies. The IFR is not solely determined by host and pathogen biology, but also by the capacity of health systems to treat severe cases. Despite having among the highest per capita incidence in Switzerland, Geneva’s health system accommodated the influx of cases needing intensive care (peak of 80/110 ICU-beds including surge capacity) while maintaining care quality standards. As such, our IFR estimates can be seen as a best-case scenario with respect to health system capacity. Our results reveal that population-wide estimates of IFR mask great heterogeneity by age and point towards the importance of age-targeted interventions to reduce exposures among those at highest risk of death.

Objectives Serological studies have been critical in tracking the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persistence remain sparse, especially from infected individuals with few to no symptoms. The objective of the study was to quantify the sensitivity for detecting historic SARS-CoV-2 infections as a function of time since infection for three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and to explore the implications of decaying immunoassay sensitivity in estimating seroprevalence. Methods We followed a cohort of mostly mild/asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (n = 354) at least 8 months after their presumed infection date and tested their serum for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with three commercially available assays: Roche-N, Roche-RBD and EuroImmun-S1. We developed a latent class statistical model to infer the specificity and time-varying sensitivity of each assay and show through simulations how inappropriately accounting for test performance can lead to biased serosurvey estimates. Results Antibodies were detected at follow-up in 74–100% of participants, depending on immunoassays. Both Roche assays maintain high sensitivity, with the EuroImmun assay missing 40% of infections after 9 months. Simulations reveal that without appropriate adjustment for time-varying assay sensitivity, seroprevalence surveys may underestimate infection rates. Discussion Antibodies persist for at least 8 months after infection in a cohort of mildly infected individuals with detection depending on assay choice. Appropriate assay performance adjustment is important for the interpretation of serological studies in the case of diminishing sensitivity after infection.