Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

Serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 aim to estimate the proportion of the population that has been infected.

This observational study assesses the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Ontario, Canada during the first pandemic wave.

Using an orthogonal approach, we tested 8,902 residual specimens from the Public Health Ontario laboratory over three time periods during March–June 2020 and stratified results by age group, sex and region. We adjusted for antibody test sensitivity/specificity and compared with reported PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases.

Adjusted seroprevalence was 0.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.1–1.5) from 27 March–30 April, 1.5% (95% CI: 0.7–2.2) from 26–31 May, and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.8–1.3) from 5–30 June 2020. Adjusted estimates were highest in individuals aged ≥ 60 years in March–April (1.3%; 95% CI: 0.2–4.6), in those aged 20–59 years in May (2.1%; 95% CI: 0.8–3.4) and in those aged ≥ 60 years in June (1.6%; 95% CI: 1.1–2.1). Regional seroprevalence varied, and was highest for Toronto in March–April (0.9%; 95% CI: 0.1–3.1), for Toronto in May (3.2%; 95% CI: 1.0–5.3) and for Toronto (1.5%; 95% CI: 0.9–2.1) and Central East in June (1.5%; 95% CI: 1.0–2.0). We estimate that COVID-19 cases detected by PCR in Ontario underestimated SARS-CoV-2 infections by a factor of 4.9.

Our results indicate low population seroprevalence in Ontario, suggesting that public health measures were effective at limiting the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during the first pandemic wave.

The SARS-CoV-2 lineages carrying the amino acid change D614G have become the dominant variants in the global COVID-19 pandemic. By June 2021, all the emerging variants of concern carried the D614G mutation. The rapid spread of the G614 mutant suggests that it may have a transmission advantage over the D614 wildtype.

Our objective was to estimate the transmission advantage of D614G by integrating phylogenetic and epidemiological analysis.

We assume that the mutation D614G was the only site of interest which characterised the two cocirculating virus strains by June 2020, but their differential transmissibility might be attributable to a combination of D614G and other mutations. We define the fitness of G614 as the ratio of the basic reproduction number of the strain with G614 to the strain with D614 and applied an epidemiological framework for fitness inference to analyse SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and sequence data.

Using this framework, we estimated that the G614 mutant is 31% (95% credible interval: 28–34) more transmissible than the D614 wildtype. Therefore, interventions that were previously effective in containing or mitigating the D614 wildtype (e.g. in China, Vietnam and Thailand) may be less effective against the G614 mutant.

Our framework can be readily integrated into current SARS-CoV-2 surveillance to monitor the emergence and fitness of mutant strains such that pandemic surveillance, disease control and development of treatment and vaccines can be adjusted dynamically.

COVID-19-related mortality in Belgium has drawn attention for two reasons: its high level, and a good completeness in reporting of deaths. An ad hoc surveillance was established to register COVID-19 death numbers in hospitals, long-term care facilities (LTCF) and the community. Belgium adopted broad inclusion criteria for the COVID-19 death notifications, also including possible cases, resulting in a robust correlation between COVID-19 and all-cause mortality.

To document and assess the COVID-19 mortality surveillance in Belgium.

We described the content and data flows of the registration and we assessed the situation as of 21 June 2020, 103 days after the first death attributable to COVID-19 in Belgium. We calculated the participation rate, the notification delay, the percentage of error detected, and the results of additional investigations.

The participation rate was 100% for hospitals and 83% for nursing homes. Of all deaths, 85% were recorded within 2 calendar days: 11% within the same day, 41% after 1 day and 33% after 2 days, with a quicker notification in hospitals than in LTCF. Corrections of detected errors reduced the death toll by 5%.

Belgium implemented a rather complete surveillance of COVID-19 mortality, on account of a rapid investment of the hospitals and LTCF. LTCF could build on past experience of previous surveys and surveillance activities. The adoption of an extended definition of ‘COVID-19-related deaths’ in a context of limited testing capacity has provided timely information about the severity of the epidemic.

Many countries implemented national lockdowns to contain the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and avoid overburdening healthcare capacity.

We aimed to quantify how the French lockdown impacted population mixing, contact patterns and behaviours.

We conducted an online survey using convenience sampling and collected information from participants aged 18 years and older between 10 April and 28 April 2020.

Among the 42,036 survey participants, 72% normally worked outside their home, and of these, 68% changed to telework during lockdown and 17% reported being unemployed during lockdown. A decrease in public transport use was reported from 37% to 2%. Participants reported increased frequency of hand washing and changes in greeting behaviour. Wearing masks in public was generally limited. A total of 138,934 contacts were reported, with an average of 3.3 contacts per individual per day; 1.7 in the participants aged 65 years and older compared with 3.6 for younger age groups. This represented a 70% reduction compared with previous surveys, consistent with SARS-CoV2 transmission reduction measured during the lockdown. For those who maintained a professional activity outside home, the frequency of contacts at work dropped by 79%.

The lockdown affected the population's behaviour, work, risk perception and contact patterns. The frequency and heterogeneity of contacts, both of which are critical factors in determining how viruses spread, were affected. Such surveys are essential to evaluate the impact of lockdowns more accurately and anticipate epidemic dynamics in these conditions.

Reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is key for the management of the COVID-19 pandemic.

We estimate diagnostic accuracy for nucleic acid and antibody tests 5 months into the COVID-19 pandemic, and compare with manufacturer-reported accuracy.

We reviewed the clinical performance of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid and antibody tests based on 93,757 test results from 151 published studies and 20,205 new test results from 12 countries in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA).

Pooling the results and considering only results with 95% confidence interval width ≤ 5%, we found four nucleic acid tests, including one point-of-care test and three antibody tests, with a clinical sensitivity ≥ 95% for at least one target population (hospitalised, mild or asymptomatic, or unknown). Nine nucleic acid tests and 25 antibody tests, 12 of them point-of-care tests, had a clinical specificity of ≥ 98%. Three antibody tests achieved both thresholds. Evidence for nucleic acid point-of-care tests remains scarce at present, and sensitivity varied substantially. Study heterogeneity was low for eight of 14 sensitivity and 68 of 84 specificity results with confidence interval width ≤ 5%, and lower for nucleic acid tests than antibody tests. Manufacturer-reported clinical performance was significantly higher than independently assessed in 11 of 32 and four of 34 cases, respectively, for sensitivity and specificity, indicating a need for improvement in this area.

Continuous monitoring of clinical performance within more clearly defined target populations is needed.

The detection of SARS-CoV-2 with rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) has become an important tool to identify infected people and break infection chains. These RDT are usually based on antigen detection in a lateral flow approach.

We aimed to establish a comprehensive specimen panel for the decentralised technical evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests.

While for PCR diagnostics the validation of a PCR assay is well established, there is no common validation strategy for antigen tests, including RDT. In this proof-of-principle study we present the establishment of a panel of 50 pooled clinical specimens that cover a SARS-CoV-2 concentration range from 1.1 × 10⁹ to 420 genome copies per mL of specimen. The panel was used to evaluate 31 RDT in up to six laboratories.

Our results show that there is considerable variation in the detection limits and the clinical sensitivity of different RDT. We show that the best RDT can be applied to reliably identify infectious individuals who present with SARS-CoV-2 loads down to 10⁶ genome copies per mL of specimen. For the identification of infected individuals with SARS-CoV-2 loads corresponding to less than 10⁶ genome copies per mL, only three RDT showed a clinical sensitivity of more than 60%.

Sensitive RDT can be applied to identify infectious individuals with high viral loads but not to identify all infected individuals.