Search

A systematic approach is required for the development of an evidence-based risk assessment tool to robustly estimate the risks and implications of SARS-CoV-2 variants. We conducted a survey among experts involved in technical advisory roles for WHO to capture their assessment of the robustness of different study types that provide evidence for potential changes in transmissibility, antigenicity, virulence, treatability, and detectability of SARS-CoV-2 variants. The views of 62 experts indicated that studies could be grouped on the basis of robustness and reliability for the different risk indicators mentioned. Several study types that experts scored as providing reliable evidence and that can be performed in a timely manner were identified. Although experts from different technical areas had varying responses, there was agreement on the highest and lowest scoring study types. These findings can help to prioritise, harmonise, and optimise study designs for the further development of a systematic, evidence-based, SARS-CoV-2 variant risk assessment tool.

Objectives: We compared age-stratified SARS-CoV-2 symptomatology of wild-type/Alpha vs Omicron BA.1/BA.2 variant infected individuals and the impact of COVID-19 booster vaccination on Omicron symptom burden. Methods: Data from three European prospective household cohorts were used (April 2020 to April 2021 and January to March 2022). Standardized outbreak protocols included (repeated) polymerase chain reaction testing, paired serology, and daily symptom scoring for all household members. Comparative analyses were performed on 346 secondary household cases from both periods. Results: Children <12 years (all unvaccinated) experienced more symptoms and higher severity scores during Omicron compared with wild-type/Alpha period (P ≤0.01). In adults, Omicron disease duration and severity were reduced (P ≤ 0.095). Omicron was associated with lower odds for loss of smell or taste (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.50) and higher but non-significant odds for upper respiratory symptoms, fever, and fatigue (aORs: 1.85-2.23). No differences were observed in disease severity or duration between primary vs booster series vaccinated adults (P ≥0.12). Conclusion: The Omicron variant causes higher symptom burden in children compared with wild-type/Alpha and lower in adults, possibly due to previous vaccination. A shift in symptoms occurred with reduction in loss of smell/taste for Omicron. No additional effect of booster vaccination on Omicron symptom burden was observed.

Household transmission studies are useful to quantify SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics. We conducted a remote prospective household study to quantify transmission, and the effects of subject characteristics, household characteristics, and implemented infection control measures on transmission. Households with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case were enrolled < 48 h following test result. Follow-up included digitally daily symptom recording, regular nose-throat self-sampling and paired dried blood spots from all household members. Samples were tested for virus detection and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Secondary attack rates (SARs) and associated factors were estimated using logistic regression. In 276 households with 920 participants (276 index cases and 644 household members) daily symptom diaries and questionnaires were completed by 95%, and > 85% completed sample collection. 200 secondary SARS-CoV-2 infections were detected, yielding a household SAR of 45.7% (95% CI 39.7–51.7%) and per-person SAR of 32.6% (95%CI: 28.1-37.4%). 126 (63%) secondary cases were detected at enrollment. Mild (aRR = 0.57) and asymptomatic index cases (aRR = 0.29) were less likely to transmit SARS-CoV-2, compared to index cases with an acute respiratory illness (p = 0.03 for trend), and child index cases (< 12 years aRR = 0.60 and 12-18 years aRR = 0.85) compared to adults (p = 0.03 for trend). Infection control interventions in households had no significant effect on transmission. We found high SARs with the majority of transmissions occuring early after SARS-CoV-2 introduction into the household. This may explain the futile effect of implemented household measures. Age and symptom status of the index case influence secondary transmission. Remote, digitally-supported study designs with self-sampling are feasible for studying transmission under pandemic restrictions.

Background: High incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and low testing uptake were reported in low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam. We aimed to improve willingness and access to testing by introducing community-based test facilities, and to evaluate the effectiveness of a rapid antigen detection test (RDT). Methods: Two to eleven test facilities operated consecutively in three low-income neighbourhoods in Rotterdam, offering the options of walk-in or appointments. Background characteristics were collected at intake and one nasopharyngeal swab was taken and processed using both RDT and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Visitors were asked to join a survey for evaluation purposes. Results: In total, 19 773 visitors were tested - 9662 (48.9%) without an appointment. Walk-in visitors were older, lived more often in the proximity of the test facilities, and reported coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related symptoms less often than by-appointment visitors. For 67.7% of the visitors, this was the first time they got tested. A total of 1211 (6.1%) tested SARS-CoV-2-positive with RT-PCR, of whom 309 (25.5%) were asymptomatic. Test uptake increased among residents of the pilot neighbourhoods, especially in the older age groups, compared to people living in comparable neighbourhoods without community-based testing facilities. RDT detected asymptomatic individuals with 71.8% sensitivity, which was acceptable in this high prevalence setting. Visitors reported positive attitudes towards the test facilities and welcomed the easy access. Conclusions: Offering community-based SARS-CoV-2 testing seems a promising approach for increasing testing uptake among specific populations in low-income neighbourhoods.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays are more sensitive than rapid antigen detection assays (RDT) and can detect viral RNA even after an individual is no longer infectious. RDT can reduce the time to test and the results might better correlate with infectiousness. Aim: We assessed the ability of five RDT to identify infectious COVID-19 cases and systematically recorded the turnaround time of RT-PCR testing. Methods: Sensitivity of RDT was determined using a serially diluted SARS-CoV-2 stock with known viral RNA concentration. The probability of detecting infectious virus at a given viral load was calculated using logistic regression of viral RNA concentration and matched culture results of 78 specimens from randomly selected non-hospitalised cases. The probability of each RDT to detect infectious cases was calculated as the sum of the projected probabilities for viral isolation success for every viral RNA load found at the time of diagnosis in 1,739 confirmed non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases. Results: The distribution of quantification cycle values and estimated RNA loads for patients reporting to drive-through testing was skewed to high RNA loads. With the most sensitive RDT (Abbott and SD Biosensor), 97.30% (range: 88.65-99.77) of infectious individuals would be detected. This decreased to 92.73% (range: 60.30-99.77) for Coris BioConcept and GenBody, and 75.53% (range: 17.55-99.77) for RapiGEN. Only 32.9% of RT-PCR results were available on the same day as specimen collection. Conclusion: The most sensitive RDT detected infectious COVID-19 cases with high sensitivity and may considerably improve containment through more rapid isolation and contact tracing.

An outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (Pango lineage B.1.1.7) was detected at a primary school (School X) in Lansingerland, the Netherlands, in December 2020. The outbreak was studied retrospectively, and population-based screening was used to assess the extent of virus circulation and decelerate transmission. Cases were SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmed and were residents of Lansingerland (November 16th 2020 until February 22th 2021), or had an epidemiological link with School X or neighbouring schools. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was determined using variant PCR or whole genome sequencing. A questionnaire primarily assessed clinical symptoms. A total of 77 Alpha variant cases were found with an epidemiological link to School X, 16 Alpha variant cases linked to the neighbouring schools, and 146 Alpha variant cases among residents of Lansingerland without a link to the schools. The mean number of self-reported symptoms was not significantly different among Alpha variant infected individuals compared to non-Alpha infected individuals. The secondary attack rate (SAR) among Alpha variant exposed individuals in households was 52% higher compared to non-Alpha variant exposed individuals (p = 0.010), with the mean household age, and mean number of children and adults per household as confounders. Sequence analysis of 60 Alpha variant sequences obtained from cases confirmed virus transmission between School X and neighbouring schools, and showed that multiple introductions of the Alpha variant had already taken place in Lansingerland at the time of the study. The alpha variant caused a large outbreak at both locations of School X, and subsequently spread to neighbouring schools, and households. Population-based screening (together with other public health measures) nearly stopped transmission of the outbreak strain, but did not prevent variant replacement in the Lansingerland municipality., Sanitary Engineering

An outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant (Pango lineage B.1.1.7) was detected at a primary school (School X) in Lansingerland, the Netherlands, in December 2020. The outbreak was studied retrospectively, and population-based screening was used to assess the extent of virus circulation and decelerate transmission. Cases were SARS-CoV-2 laboratory confirmed and were residents of Lansingerland (November 16th 2020 until February 22th 2021), or had an epidemiological link with School X or neighbouring schools. The SARS-CoV-2 variant was determined using variant PCR or whole genome sequencing. A questionnaire primarily assessed clinical symptoms. A total of 77 Alpha variant cases were found with an epidemiological link to School X, 16 Alpha variant cases linked to the neighbouring schools, and 146 Alpha variant cases among residents of Lansingerland without a link to the schools. The mean number of self-reported symptoms was not significantly different among Alpha variant infected individuals compared to non-Alpha infected individuals. The secondary attack rate (SAR) among Alpha variant exposed individuals in households was 52% higher compared to non-Alpha variant exposed individuals (p = 0.010), with the mean household age, and mean number of children and adults per household as confounders. Sequence analysis of 60 Alpha variant sequences obtained from cases confirmed virus transmission between School X and neighbouring schools, and showed that multiple introductions of the Alpha variant had already taken place in Lansingerland at the time of the study. The alpha variant caused a large outbreak at both locations of School X, and subsequently spread to neighbouring schools, and households. Population-based screening (together with other public health measures) nearly stopped transmission of the outbreak strain, but did not prevent variant replacement in the Lansingerland municipality.

Background Performance of the SD Biosensor saliva antigen rapid test was evaluated at a large designated testing site in non-hospitalized patients, with or without symptoms. Method All eligible people over 18 years of age presenting for a booked appointment at the designated SARS-CoV-2 testing site were approached for inclusion and enrolled following verbal informed consent. One nasopharyngeal swab was taken to carry out the default antigen rapid test from which the results were reported back to the patient and one saliva sample was self-taken according to verbal instruction on site. This was used for the saliva antigen rapid test, the RT-PCR and for virus culture. Sensitivity of the saliva antigen rapid test was analyzed in two ways: I, compared to saliva RT-PCR; and ii, compared to virus culture of the saliva samples. Study participants were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire stating age, sex, date of symptom onset. Recommended time of ≥30mins since last meal, drink or cigarette if applicable was also recorded. The study was carried out in February-March 2021 for 4 weeks. Results We could include 789 people with complete records and results. Compared to saliva RTPCR, overall sensitivity and specificity of the saliva antigen rapid test was 66.1% and 99.6% which increased to 88.6% with Ct ≤30 cutoff. Analysis by days post onset did not result in higher sensitivities because the large majority of people were in the very early phase of disease ie <3 days post onset. When breaking down the data for symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, sensitivity ranged from 69.2% to 50% respectively, however the total number of RT-PCR positive asymptomatic participants was very low (n = 5). Importantly, almost all culture positive samples were detected by the rapid test. Conclusion Overall, the potential benefits of saliva antigen rapid test, could outweigh the lower sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal antigen rapid test in a comprehensive testing strategy, espe