Duration of vaccine protection against breakthrough infections during five COVID-19 waves among healthcare workers primarily vaccinated with CoronaVac.

We aimed to characterise vaccine-induced protection against COVID-19 during five waves caused by Variants of Concern (VOCs). This is a nested case-control study of 3,972 HCW primarily vaccinated with CoronaVac (98%) that evaluated symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections (BI) in almost two-years follow-up until the 3rd Omicron wave. Predictors of protection against SARS-CoV-2 BI were analysed using conditional logistic regression models. We included 1,491 SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough cases, mostly mild, and 2,962 controls. Most participants (90%) had received at least one booster before the onset of the Omicron waves, mainly BNT162b2. A multivariate logistic regression showed that vaccine-induced protection against BI wanes after six months regardless of the number of monovalent booster doses. Additionally, booster dose with BNT162b2 showed a trend for higher protection compared to CoronaVac during the Omicron waves. In conclusion, immunity of monovalent booster doses against SARS-CoV-2 is short-lasting. Individuals previously vaccinated with an inactivated vaccine should receive a BNT162B2 booster dose.

Multicenter Diagnostic Evaluation of OnSite COVID-19 Rapid Test (CTK Biotech) among Symptomatic Individuals in Brazil and the United Kingdom.

The COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to numerous commercially available antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). To generate and to share accurate and independent data with the global community requires multisite prospective diagnostic evaluations of Ag-RDTs. This report describes the clinical evaluation of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test (CTK Biotech, CA, USA) in Brazil and the United Kingdom. A total of 496 paired nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs were collected from symptomatic health care workers at Hospital das Clínicas in São Paulo, Brazil, and 211 NP swabs were collected from symptomatic participants at a COVID-19 drive-through testing site in Liverpool, United Kingdom. Swabs were analyzed by Ag-RDT, and results were compared to quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-qPCR). The clinical sensitivity of the OnSite COVID-19 rapid test in Brazil was 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 75.1 to 96.7%) and in the United Kingdom was 75.3% (95% CI, 64.6 to 83.6%). The clinical specificity in Brazil was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.1 to 99.8%) and in the United Kingdom was 95.5% (95% CI, 90.6 to 97.9%). Concurrently, analytical evaluation of the Ag-RDT was assessed using direct culture supernatant of SARS-CoV-2 strains from wild-type (WT), Alpha, Delta, Gamma, and Omicron lineages. This study provides comparative performance of an Ag-RDT across two different settings, geographical areas, and populations. Overall, the OnSite Ag-RDT demonstrated a lower clinical sensitivity than claimed by the manufacturer. The sensitivity and specificity from the Brazil study fulfilled the performance criteria determined by the World Health Organization, but the performance obtained from the UK study failed to do. Further evaluation of Ag-RDTs should include harmonized protocols between laboratories to facilitate comparison between settings. IMPORTANCE Evaluating rapid diagnostic tests in diverse populations is essential to improving diagnostic responses as it gives an indication of the accuracy in real-world scenarios. In the case of rapid diagnostic testing within this pandemic, lateral flow tests that meet the minimum requirements for sensitivity and specificity can play a key role in increasing testing capacity, allowing timely clinical management of those infected, and protecting health care systems. This is particularly valuable in settings where access to the test gold standard is often restricted.