Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

As record cases of Omicron variant were registered in Europe in early 2022, schools remained a vulnerable setting undergoing large disruption.

Through mathematical modelling, we compared school protocols of reactive screening, regular screening, and reactive class closure implemented in France, in Baselland (Switzerland), and in Italy, respectively, and assessed them in terms of case prevention, testing resource demand, and schooldays lost.

We used a stochastic agent-based model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools accounting for within- and across-class contacts from empirical contact data. We parameterised it to the Omicron BA.1 variant to reproduce the French Omicron wave in January 2022. We simulated the three protocols to assess their costs and effectiveness for varying peak incidence rates in the range experienced by European countries.

We estimated that at the high incidence rates registered in France during the Omicron BA.1 wave in January 2022, the reactive screening protocol applied in France required higher test resources compared with the weekly screening applied in Baselland (0.50 vs 0.45 tests per student-week), but achieved considerably lower control (8% vs 21% reduction of peak incidence). The reactive class closure implemented in Italy was predicted to be very costly, leading to > 20% student-days lost.

At high incidence conditions, reactive screening protocols generate a large and unplanned demand in testing resources, for marginal control of school transmissions. Comparable or lower resources could be more efficiently used through weekly screening. Our findings can help define incidence levels triggering school protocols and optimise their cost-effectiveness.

The PCR quantification cycle (Cq) is a proxy measure of the viral load of a SARS-CoV-2-infected individual.

To investigate if Cq values vary according to different population characteristics, in particular demographic ones, and within the COVID-19 pandemic context, notably the SARS-CoV-2 type/variant individuals get infected with.

We considered all positive PCR results from Cheshire and Merseyside, England, between 6 November 2020 and 8 September 2021. Cq distributions were inspected with Kernel density estimates. Multivariable quantile regression models assessed associations between people’s features and Cq.

We report Cq values for 188,821 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Median Cqs increased with decreasing age for suspected wild-type virus and Alpha variant infections, but less so, if not, for Delta. For example, compared to 30–39-year-olds (median age group), 5–11-year-olds exhibited 1.8 (95% CI: 1.5 to 2.1), 2.2 (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.6) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.9) higher median Cqs for suspected wild-type, Alpha and Delta positives, respectively, in multivariable analysis. 12–18-year-olds also had higher Cqs for wild-type and Alpha positives, however, not for Delta. Overall, in univariable analysis, suspected Delta positives reported 2.8 lower median Cqs than wild-type positives (95% CI: 2.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Suspected Alpha positives had 1.5 (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5; p < 0.001) lower median Cqs than wild type.

Wild-type- or Alpha-infected school-aged children (5–11-year-olds) might transmit less than adults (> 18 years old), but have greater mixing exposures. Smaller differences in viral loads with age occurred in suspected Delta infections. Suspected-Alpha- or Delta-infections involved higher viral loads than wild type, suggesting increased transmission risk. COVID-19 control strategies should consider age and dominant variant.

Post-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.

To estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.

We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.

Within 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3–7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91–0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94–0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95–0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28–1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97–1.78).

COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Differential SARS-CoV-2 exposure between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals may confound vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates.

We conducted a test-negative case–control study to determine VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection and the presence of confounding by SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

We included adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 at community facilities between 4 July and 8 December 2021 (circulation period of the Delta variant). The VE against SARS-CoV-2 infection after primary vaccination with an mRNA (Comirnaty or Spikevax) or vector-based vaccine (Vaxzevria or Janssen) was calculated using logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar week (Model 1). We additionally adjusted for comorbidity and education level (Model 2) and SARS-CoV-2 exposure (number of close contacts, visiting busy locations, household size, face mask wearing, contact with SARS-CoV-2 case; Model 3). We stratified by age, vaccine type and time since vaccination.

VE against infection (Model 3) was 64% (95% CI: 50–73), only slightly lower than in Models 1 (68%; 95% CI: 58–76) and 2 (67%; 95% CI: 56–75). Estimates stratified by age group, vaccine and time since vaccination remained similar: mRNA VE (Model 3) among people ≥ 50 years decreased significantly (p = 0.01) from 81% (95% CI: 66–91) at < 120 days to 61% (95% CI: 22–80) at ≥ 120 days after vaccination. It decreased from 83% to 59% in Model 1 and from 81% to 56% in Model 2.

SARS-CoV-2 exposure did not majorly confound the estimated COVID-19 VE against infection, suggesting that VE can be estimated accurately using routinely collected data without exposure information.

Since the roll-out of COVID-19 vaccines in late 2020 and throughout 2021, European governments have relied on mathematical modelling to inform policy decisions about COVID-19 vaccination.

We present a scenario-based modelling analysis in the Netherlands during summer 2021, to inform whether to extend vaccination to adolescents (12–17-year-olds) and children (5–11-year-olds).

We developed a deterministic, age-structured susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered (SEIR) model and compared modelled incidences of infections, hospital and intensive care admissions, and deaths per 100,000 people across vaccination scenarios, before the emergence of the Omicron variant.

Our model projections showed that, on average, upon the release of all non-pharmaceutical control measures on 1 November 2021, a large COVID-19 wave may occur in winter 2021/22, followed by a smaller, second wave in spring 2022, regardless of the vaccination scenario. The model projected reductions in infections/severe disease outcomes when vaccination was extended to adolescents and further reductions when vaccination was extended to all people over 5 years-old. When examining projected disease outcomes by age group, individuals benefitting most from extending vaccination were adolescents and children themselves. We also observed reductions in disease outcomes in older age groups, particularly of parent age (30–49 years), when children and adolescents were vaccinated, suggesting some prevention of onward transmission from younger to older age groups.

While our scenarios could not anticipate the emergence/consequences of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant, we illustrate how our approach can assist decision making. This could be useful when considering to provide booster doses or intervening against future infection waves.

Countries worldwide are focusing to mitigate the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by employing public health measures. Laboratories have a key role in the control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Serology for SARS-CoV-2 is of critical importance to support diagnosis, define the epidemiological framework and evaluate immune responses to natural infection and vaccine administration.

The aim of this study was the assessment of the actual capability among laboratories involved in sero-epidemiological studies on COVID-19 in EU/EEA and EU enlargement countries to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies through an external quality assessment (EQA) based on proficiency testing.

The EQA panels were composed of eight different, pooled human serum samples (all collected in 2020 before the vaccine roll-out), addressing sensitivity and specificity of detection. The panels and two EU human SARS-CoV-2 serological standards were sent to 56 laboratories in 30 countries.

The overall performance of laboratories within this EQA indicated a robust ability to establish past SARS-CoV-2 infections via detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with 53 of 55 laboratories using at least one test that characterised all EQA samples correctly. IgM-specific test methods provided most incorrect sample characterisations (24/208), while test methods detecting total immunoglobulin (0/119) and neutralising antibodies (2/230) performed the best. The semiquantitative assays used by the EQA participants also showed a robust performance in relation to the standards.

Our EQA showed a high capability across European reference laboratories for reliable diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses. Serological tests that provide robust and reliable detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are available.

Underlying conditions are risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes but evidence is limited about how risks differ with age.

We sought to estimate age-specific associations between underlying conditions and hospitalisation, death and in-hospital death among COVID-19 cases.

We analysed case-based COVID-19 data submitted to The European Surveillance System between 2 June and 13 December 2020 by nine European countries. Eleven underlying conditions among cases with only one condition and the number of underlying conditions among multimorbid cases were used as exposures. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were estimated using 39 different age-adjusted and age-interaction multivariable logistic regression models, with marginal means from the latter used to estimate probabilities of severe outcome for each condition–age group combination.

Cancer, cardiac disorder, diabetes, immunodeficiency, kidney, liver and lung disease, neurological disorders and obesity were associated with elevated risk (aOR: 1.5–5.6) of hospitalisation and death, after controlling for age, sex, reporting period and country. As age increased, age-specific aOR were lower and predicted probabilities higher. However, for some conditions, predicted probabilities were at least as high in younger individuals with the condition as in older cases without it. In multimorbid patients, the aOR for severe disease increased with number of conditions for all outcomes and in all age groups.

While supporting age-based vaccine roll-out, our findings could inform a more nuanced, age- and condition-specific approach to vaccine prioritisation. This is relevant as countries consider vaccination of younger people, boosters and dosing intervals in response to vaccine escape variants.

Analyses of diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (AG-RDTs) based on long-term data, population subgroups and many AG-RDT types are scarce.

We aimed to analyse sensitivity and specificity of AG-RDTs for subgroups based on age, incidence, sample type, reason for test, symptoms, vaccination status and the AG-RDT’s presence on approved lists.

We included AG-RDT results registered in Czechia’s Information System for Infectious Diseases between August and November 2021. Subpopulations were analysed based on 346,000 test results for which a confirmatory PCR test was recorded ≤ 3 days after the AG-RDT; 38 AG-RDTs with more than 100 PCR-positive and 300 PCR-negative samples were individually evaluated.

Average sensitivity and specificity were 72.4% and 96.7%, respectively. We recorded lower sensitivity for age groups 0–12 (65.5%) and 13–18 years (65.3%). The sensitivity level rose with increasing SARS-CoV-2 incidence from 66.0% to 76.7%. Nasopharyngeal samples had the highest sensitivity and saliva the lowest. Sensitivity for preventive reasons was 63.6% vs 86.1% when testing for suspected infection. Sensitivity was 84.8% when one or more symptoms were reported compared with 57.1% for no symptoms. Vaccination was associated with a 4.2% higher sensitivity. Significantly higher sensitivity levels pertained to AG-RDTs on the World Health Organization Emergency Use List (WHO EUL), European Union Common List and the list of the United Kingdom’s Department of Health and Social Care.

AG-RDTs from approved lists should be considered, especially in situations associated with lower viral load. Results are limited to SARS-CoV-2 delta variant.