Assessing vulnerability for future Zika virus outbreaks using seroprevalence data and environmental suitability maps.

The 2015-17 Zika virus (ZIKV) epidemic in the Americas subsided faster than expected and evolving population immunity was postulated to be the main reason. Herd immunization is suggested to occur around 60-70% seroprevalence, depending on demographic density and climate suitability. However, herd immunity was only documented for a few cities in South America, meaning a substantial portion of the population might still be vulnerable to a future Zika virus outbreak. The aim of our study was to determine the vulnerability of populations to ZIKV by comparing the environmental suitability of ZIKV transmission to the observed seroprevalence, based on published studies. Using a systematic search, we collected seroprevalence and geospatial data for 119 unique locations from 37 studies. Extracting the environmental suitability at each location and converting to a hypothetical expected seroprevalence, we were able to determine the discrepancy between observed and expected. This discrepancy is an indicator of vulnerability and divided into three categories: high risk, low risk, and very low risk. The vulnerability was used to evaluate the level of risk that each location still has for a ZIKV outbreak to occur. Of the 119 unique locations, 69 locations (58%) fell within the high risk category, 47 locations (39%) fell within the low risk category, and 3 locations (3%) fell within the very low risk category. The considerable heterogeneity between environmental suitability and seroprevalence potentially leaves a large population vulnerable to future infection. Vulnerability seems to be especially pronounced at the fringes of the environmental suitability for ZIKV (e.g. Sao Paulo, Brazil). The discrepancies between observed and expected seroprevalence raise the question: "why did the ZIKV epidemic stop with large populations unaffected?". This lack of understanding also highlights that future ZIKV outbreaks currently cannot be predicted with confidence.

Cumulative Febrile, Respiratory, and Gastrointestinal Illness Among Infants in Rural Guatemala and Association With Neurodevelopmental and Growth Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Infectious disease exposures in early life are increasingly recognized as a risk factor for poor subsequent growth and neurodevelopment. We aimed to evaluate the association between cumulative illness with neurodevelopment and growth outcomes in a birth cohort of Guatemalan infants. METHODS: From June 2017 to July 2018, infants 0-3 months of age living in a resource-limited region of rural southwest Guatemala were enrolled and underwent weekly at-home surveillance for caregiver-reported cough, fever, and vomiting/diarrhea. They also underwent anthropometric assessments and neurodevelopmental testing with the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL) at enrollment, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: Of 499 enrolled infants, 430 (86.2%) completed all study procedures and were included in the analysis. At 12-15 months of age, 140 (32.6%) infants had stunting (length-for-age Z [LAZ] score < -2 SD) and 72 (16.7%) had microcephaly (occipital-frontal circumference [OFC] < -2 SD). In multivariable analysis, greater cumulative instances of reported cough illness (beta = -0.08/illness-week, P = 0.06) and febrile illness (beta = -0.36/illness-week, P < 0.001) were marginally or significantly associated with lower MSEL Early Learning Composite (ELC) Score at 12-15 months, respectively; there was no association with any illness (cough, fever, and/or vomiting/diarrhea; P = 0.27) or with cumulative instances of diarrheal/vomiting illness alone ( P = 0.66). No association was shown between cumulative instances of illness and stunting or microcephaly at 12-15 months. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the negative cumulative consequences of frequent febrile and respiratory illness on neurodevelopment during infancy. Future studies should explore pathogen-specific illnesses, host response associated with these syndromic illnesses, and their association with neurodevelopment.

COVID-19 Attitudes and Vaccine Hesitancy among an Agricultural Community in Southwest Guatemala: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Despite offering free-of-charge COVID-19 vaccines starting July 2021, Guatemala has one of the lowest vaccination rates in Latin America. From 28 September 2021 to 11 April 2022, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of community members, adapting a CDC questionnaire to evaluate COVID-19 vaccine access and hesitancy. Of 233 participants ≥ 12 years, 127 (55%) received ≥1 dose of COVID-19 and 4 (2%) reported prior COVID-19 illness. Persons ≥ 12 years old who were unvaccinated (n = 106) were more likely to be female (73% vs. 41%, p < 0.001) and homemakers (69% vs. 24%, p < 0.01) compared with vaccinated participants (n = 127). Among those ≥18 years, the main reported motivation for vaccination among vaccinated participants was to protect the health of family/friends (101/117, 86%); on the other hand, 40 (55%) unvaccinated persons reported little/no confidence in public health institutions recommending COVID-19 vaccination. Community- and/or home-based vaccination programs, including vaccination of families through the workplace, may better reach female homemakers and reduce inequities and hesitancy.

Limitations introduced by a low participation rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data.

BACKGROUND: There has been a large influx of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies, but comparability between the seroprevalence estimates has been an issue because of heterogeneities in testing platforms and study methodology. One potential source of heterogeneity is the response or participation rate. METHODS: We conducted a review of participation rates (PR) in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies collected by SeroTracker and examined their effect on the validity of study conclusions. PR was calculated as the count of participants for whom the investigators had collected a valid sample, divided by the number of people invited to participate in the study. A multivariable beta generalized linear model with logit link was fitted to determine if the PR of international household and community-based seroprevalence studies was associated with the factors of interest, from 1 December 2019 to 10 March 2021. RESULTS: We identified 90 papers based on screening and were able to calculate the PR for 35 out of 90 papers (39%), with a median PR of 70% and an interquartile range of 40.92; 61% of the studies did not report PR. CONCLUSIONS: Many SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies do not report PR. It is unclear what the median PR rate would be had a larger portion not had limitations in reporting. Low participation rates indicate limited representativeness of results. Non-probabilistic sampling frames were associated with higher participation rates but may be less representative. Standardized definitions of participation rate and data reporting necessary for the PR calculations are essential for understanding the representativeness of seroprevalence estimates in the population of interest.

Harmonization of Multiple SARS-CoV-2 Reference Materials Using the WHO IS (NIBSC 20/136): Results and Implications.

Background: There is an urgent need for harmonization between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology platforms and assays prior to defining appropriate correlates of protection and as well inform the development of new rapid diagnostic tests that can be used for serosurveillance as new variants of concern (VOC) emerge. We compared multiple SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials to the WHO International Standard (WHO IS) to determine their utility as secondary standards, using an international network of laboratories with high-throughput quantitative serology assays. This enabled the comparison of quantitative results between multiple serology platforms. Methods: Between April and December 2020, 13 well-characterized and validated SARS-CoV-2 serology reference materials were recruited from six different providers to qualify as secondary standards to the WHO IS. All the samples were tested in parallel with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control (NIBSC) 20/136 and parallel-line assays were used to calculate the relevant potency and binding antibody units. Results: All the samples saw varying levels of concordance between diagnostic methods at specific antigen-antibody combinations. Seven of the 12 candidate materials had high concordance for the spike-immunoglobulin G (IgG) analyte [percent coefficient of variation (%CV) between 5 and 44%]. Conclusion: Despite some concordance between laboratories, qualification of secondary materials to the WHO IS using arbitrary international units or binding antibody units per milliliter (BAU/ml) does not provide any benefit to the reference materials overall, due to the lack of consistent agreeable international unit (IU) or BAU/ml conversions between laboratories. Secondary standards should be qualified to well-characterized reference materials, such as the WHO IS, using serology assays that are similar to the ones used for the original characterization of the WHO IS.