1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Using serological data to understand unobserved SARS-CoV-2 risk in health-care settings

      discussion
      a , b
      The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
      Elsevier Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          During past outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, many infections occurred within health-care settings. 1 Since the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), growing evidence of nosocomial transmission has been observed, but tracking such outbreaks is challenging because a substantial proportion of infected individuals might exhibit mild or no symptoms. 2 In The Lancet Infectious Diseases, Kasper Iversen and colleagues 3 report results from a large seroprevalence survey of almost 30 000 hospital employees in Denmark. 3 The authors found that 1163 (4·04%) of 28 792 staff were seropositive overall, which was slightly higher than the 3·04% (142 of 4672) prevalence observed among local blood donors (risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12–1·58]). Seroprevalence was also higher among frontline health-care workers than among staff in other hospital roles (1·38 [1·22–1·56]; p<0·001). Staff working in dedicated COVID-19 wards showed substantially higher rates of seropositivity (1·65 [1·34–2·03]; p<0·001) than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals, reflecting increased risk for this group, a pattern that has also been reported in neighbouring Sweden. 4 Although Iversen and colleagues used a point-of-care lateral flow immunoassay, which is generally considered less conclusive than enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays or similar laboratory-based methods, 5 the authors did a comprehensive pre-study test assessment and estimated a sensitivity of 82·5–90·6% and specificity of 99·2–99·5%. High specificity is essential to minimise high rates of false positives when used in low-prevalence populations, such as the one studied. The results highlight the risk that SARS-CoV-2 can pose to health-care workers, particularly those in regular contact with patients with COVID-19, and the importance of understanding possible routes of exposure in hospitals. Given the potential for nosocomial transmission to amplify outbreaks, particularly when incidence is otherwise low in the community, 6 serological surveillance is a crucial tool. Serological surveillance can help investigate the dynamics of infections that often go unobserved in the early stages of epidemics or when a large fraction of cases is asymptomatic or with mild symptoms. Among the Danish hospital staff who were seropositive, one in five reported no COVID-19 compatible symptoms at all in the 6 weeks before sample collection. The study also shows the challenge of identifying a specific and sensitive clinical case definition for COVID-19, with around half of seronegative participants reporting at least one COVID-19-like symptom. This finding suggests that symptoms reported by seropositive individuals were not necessarily all linked to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The analysis found that loss of taste or smell—a symptom that was omitted from many early clinical definitions 7 —was strongly associated with seropositivity (RR 11·38 [95% CI 10·22–12·68]). However, the prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19-like symptoms among seronegative staff illustrates the limitations of relying on symptom-based surveillance alone. This finding also shows the importance of developing screening tests that are easily done and sufficiently rapid to enable frequent and accurate detection of acute infection among at-risk staff. As well as indicating the degree of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, seroprevalence might provide an insight into the possible extent of antibody-mediated immunity. Important questions remain about the precise role of humoral and cellular immunity following SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and whether seropositivity or antibody titres can be considered a proxy measure of protective immunity. 8 If the seroprevalence estimated in the Danish hospital staff does indeed reflect the extent of immunity that would prevent infection, this would be substantially below the level required to generate localised herd immunity that could stop future nosocomial transmission. Although seroprevalence studies provide a useful indication of existing antibody levels within a population, we still need to know more about the medium-term and long-term persistence of such responses, particularly among individuals who have had mild or asymptomatic infections. If antibody kinetics against SARS-CoV-2 reflect those against seasonal coronaviruses, as appears increasingly likely, 9 we would anticipate rapid antibody decay and seroreversion (from seropositive to seronegative) within several months to a year. 10 Characterising antibody dynamics and how these vary within and between populations will be crucial for the interpretation of ongoing serological studies and might provide insight into population-level protection and prospects for future vaccine-induced immunity. Faced with the possibility of second epidemic waves, large-scale studies of serological dynamics in at-risk populations, ideally capturing longitudinal trends, will be essential to inform our knowledge of future SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics and accompanying COVID-19 risks, and how these risks can be reduced. © 2020 Flickr - Francois Phillipp 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Targets of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in humans with COVID-19 disease and unexposed individuals

          Summary Understanding adaptive immunity to SARS-CoV-2 is important for vaccine development, interpreting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis, and calibration of pandemic control measures. Using HLA class I and II predicted peptide ‘megapools’, circulating SARS-CoV-2−specific CD8+ and CD4+ T cells were identified in ∼70% and 100% of COVID-19 convalescent patients, respectively. CD4+ T cell responses to spike, the main target of most vaccine efforts, were robust and correlated with the magnitude of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA titers. The M, spike and N proteins each accounted for 11-27% of the total CD4+ response, with additional responses commonly targeting nsp3, nsp4, ORF3a and ORF8, among others. For CD8+ T cells, spike and M were recognized, with at least eight SARS-CoV-2 ORFs targeted. Importantly, we detected SARS-CoV-2−reactive CD4+ T cells in ∼40-60% of unexposed individuals, suggesting cross-reactive T cell recognition between circulating ‘common cold’ coronaviruses and SARS-CoV-2.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections

            The clinical features and immune responses of asymptomatic individuals infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have not been well described. We studied 37 asymptomatic individuals in the Wanzhou District who were diagnosed with RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections but without any relevant clinical symptoms in the preceding 14 d and during hospitalization. Asymptomatic individuals were admitted to the government-designated Wanzhou People's Hospital for centralized isolation in accordance with policy1. The median duration of viral shedding in the asymptomatic group was 19 d (interquartile range (IQR), 15-26 d). The asymptomatic group had a significantly longer duration of viral shedding than the symptomatic group (log-rank P = 0.028). The virus-specific IgG levels in the asymptomatic group (median S/CO, 3.4; IQR, 1.6-10.7) were significantly lower (P = 0.005) relative to the symptomatic group (median S/CO, 20.5; IQR, 5.8-38.2) in the acute phase. Of asymptomatic individuals, 93.3% (28/30) and 81.1% (30/37) had reduction in IgG and neutralizing antibody levels, respectively, during the early convalescent phase, as compared to 96.8% (30/31) and 62.2% (23/37) of symptomatic patients. Forty percent of asymptomatic individuals became seronegative and 12.9% of the symptomatic group became negative for IgG in the early convalescent phase. In addition, asymptomatic individuals exhibited lower levels of 18 pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines. These data suggest that asymptomatic individuals had a weaker immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The reduction in IgG and neutralizing antibody levels in the early convalescent phase might have implications for immunity strategy and serological surveys.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Real-time tracking of self-reported symptoms to predict potential COVID-19

              A total of 2,618,862 participants reported their potential symptoms of COVID-19 on a smartphone-based app. Among the 18,401 who had undergone a SARS-CoV-2 test, the proportion of participants who reported loss of smell and taste was higher in those with a positive test result (4,668 of 7,178 individuals; 65.03%) than in those with a negative test result (2,436 of 11,223 participants; 21.71%) (odds ratio = 6.74; 95% confidence interval = 6.31–7.21). A model combining symptoms to predict probable infection was applied to the data from all app users who reported symptoms (805,753) and predicted that 140,312 (17.42%) participants are likely to have COVID-19.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Infect Dis
                Lancet Infect Dis
                The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
                Elsevier Ltd.
                1473-3099
                1474-4457
                3 August 2020
                3 August 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, UK
                [b ]Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Boston, MA, USA
                Article
                S1473-3099(20)30579-X
                10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30579-X
                7398653
                32758436
                a2e94a94-3aa3-4efd-b8eb-8c244c15245a
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article