Comparison of new and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant transmissibility through active contact testing. A comparative cross-sectional household seroprevalence study.

Historically SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rates (SAR) have been based on PCR positivity on screening symptomatic contacts; this misses transmission events and identifies only symptomatic contacts who are PCR positive at the time of sampling. We used serology to detect the relative transmissibility of Alpha Variant of Concern (VOC) to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 to calculate household secondary attack rates. We identified index patients diagnosed with Alpha and non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 across two London Hospitals between November 2020 and January 2021 during a prolonged and well adhered national lockdown. We completed a household seroprevalence survey and found that 61.8% of non-VOC exposed household contacts were seropositive compared to 82.1% of Alpha exposed household contacts. The odds of infection doubled with exposure to an index diagnosed with Alpha. There was evidence of transmission events in almost all households. Our data strongly support that estimates of SAR should include serological data to improve accuracy and understanding.

Booster Vaccination Against SARS-CoV-2 Induces Potent Immune Responses in People With Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

BACKGROUND: People with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) with good CD4 T-cell counts make effective immune responses following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There are few data on longer term responses and the impact of a booster dose. METHODS: Adults with HIV were enrolled into a single arm open label study. Two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were followed 12 months later by a third heterologous vaccine dose. Participants had undetectable viraemia on ART and CD4 counts >350 cells/µL. Immune responses to the ancestral strain and variants of concern were measured by anti-spike immunoglobulin G (IgG) enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), MesoScale Discovery (MSD) anti-spike platform, ACE-2 inhibition, activation induced marker (AIM) assay, and T-cell proliferation. FINDINGS: In total, 54 participants received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. 43 received a third dose (42 with BNT162b2; 1 with mRNA-1273) 1 year after the first dose. After the third dose, total anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG titers (MSD), ACE-2 inhibition, and IgG ELISA results were significantly higher compared to Day 182 titers (P < .0001 for all 3). SARS-CoV-2 specific CD4+ T-cell responses measured by AIM against SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 peptide pools were significantly increased after a third vaccine compared to 6 months after a first dose, with significant increases in proliferative CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 and S2 after boosting. Responses to Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Delta variants were boosted, although to a lesser extent for Omicron. CONCLUSIONS: In PWH receiving a third vaccine dose, there were significant increases in B- and T-cell immunity, including to known variants of concern (VOCs).

Non-contact infrared thermometers compared with current approaches in primary care for children aged 5 years and under: a method comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Current options for temperature measurement in children presenting to primary care include either electronic axillary or infrared tympanic thermometers. Non-contact infrared thermometers could reduce both the distress of the child and the risk of cross-infection. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the use of non-contact thermometers with the use of electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers in children presenting to primary care. DESIGN: Method comparison study with a nested qualitative study. SETTING: Primary care in Oxfordshire. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged ≤ 5 years attending with an acute illness. INTERVENTIONS: Two types of non-contact infrared thermometers [i.e. Thermofocus (Tecnimed, Varese, Italy) and Firhealth (Firhealth, Shenzhen, China)] were compared with an electronic axillary thermometer and an infrared tympanic thermometer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was agreement between the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer and the axillary thermometer. Secondary outcomes included agreement between all other sets of thermometers, diagnostic accuracy for detecting fever, parental and child ratings of acceptability and discomfort, and themes arising from our qualitative interviews with parents. RESULTS: A total of 401 children (203 boys) were recruited, with a median age of 1.6 years (interquartile range 0.79-3.38 years). The readings of the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer differed from those of the axillary thermometer by -0.14 °C (95% confidence interval -0.21 to -0.06 °C) on average with the lower limit of agreement being -1.57 °C (95% confidence interval -1.69 to -1.44 °C) and the upper limit being 1.29 °C (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.42 °C). The readings of the Firhealth non-contact infrared thermometer differed from those of the axillary thermometer by -0.16 °C (95% confidence interval -0.23 to -0.09 °C) on average, with the lower limit of agreement being -1.54 °C (95% confidence interval -1.66 to -1.41 °C) and the upper limit being 1.22 °C (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.34 °C). The difference between the first and second readings of the Thermofocus was -0.04 °C (95% confidence interval -0.07 to -0.01 °C); the lower limit was -0.56 °C (95% confidence interval -0.60 to -0.51 °C) and the upper limit was 0.47 °C (95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.52 °C). The difference between the first and second readings of the Firhealth thermometer was 0.01 °C (95% confidence interval -0.02 to 0.04 °C); the lower limit was -0.60 °C (95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.54 °C) and the upper limit was 0.61 °C (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.67 °C). Sensitivity and specificity for the Thermofocus non-contact infrared thermometer were 66.7% (95% confidence interval 38.4% to 88.2%) and 98.0% (95% confidence interval 96.0% to 99.2%), respectively. For the Firhealth non-contact infrared thermometer, sensitivity was 12.5% (95% confidence interval 1.6% to 38.3%) and specificity was 99.4% (95% confidence interval 98.0% to 99.9%). The majority of parents found all methods to be acceptable, although discomfort ratings were highest for the axillary thermometer. The non-contact thermometers required fewer readings than the comparator thermometers. LIMITATIONS: A method comparison study does not compare new methods against a reference standard, which in this case would be central thermometry requiring the placement of a central line, which is not feasible or acceptable in primary care. Electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers have been found to have moderate agreement themselves with central temperature measurements. CONCLUSIONS: The 95% limits of agreement are > 1 °C for both non-contact infrared thermometers compared with electronic axillary and infrared tympanic thermometers, which could affect clinical decision-making. Sensitivity for fever was low to moderate for both non-contact thermometers. FUTURE WORK: Better methods for peripheral temperature measurement that agree well with central thermometry are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15413321. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 53. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

General practitioners commonly measure children's temperature using a thermometer placed in the armpit or ear canal. New 'non-contact' thermometers use infrared light to measure temperature without touching the child. They are easy to use and there is no risk of passing on infections. However, we do not know how well they measure temperature compared with thermometers that use the armpit or the ear. This study aimed to compare two non-contact thermometers with current thermometers. We measured children's temperature with all thermometer types, and asked children and their parents about their views. The study was performed in general practices in Oxfordshire with children aged ≤ 5 years who had come to see their general practitioner because they had recently become unwell. Both the cheaper and more expensive non-contact thermometers gave slightly lower temperature readings on average than current thermometers. The vast majority of readings ranged from 1.6 °C lower to 1.3 °C higher than current thermometers. The detection of fever of at least 38 °C was low to moderate for both non-contact thermometers. Most parents did not think that their child was distressed by having their temperature taken using any of the thermometers, but the armpit thermometer was rated as the least comfortable. When interviewed, parents were more negative about the armpit thermometers, although still willing to use them if they were recommended by doctors. Although we found that the readings from the different thermometers did not match, we do not know whether the non-contact or the current thermometers were giving readings that were closer to the real temperature of the child. To understand this, we would need to do a study that included a more invasive procedure for temperature assessment.