Association between adverse events after COVID-19 vaccination and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody concentrations, the Netherlands, May 2021 to November 2022: a population-based prospective cohort study.

BackgroundNon-severe adverse events (AE) including pain at injection site or fever are common after COVID-19 vaccination.AimTo describe determinants of AE after COVID-19 vaccination and investigate the association between AE and pre- and post-vaccination antibody concentrations.MethodsParticipants of an ongoing prospective cohort study (VASCO) completed a questionnaire on AE within 2 months after vaccination and provided 6 monthly serum samples during May 2021-November 2022. Logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate AE determinants after mRNA vaccination, including pre-vaccination Ig antibody concentrations against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain. Multivariable linear regression was performed in SARS-CoV-2-naive participants to assess the association between AE and log-transformed antibody concentrations 3-8 weeks after mRNA vaccination.ResultsWe received 47,947 completed AE questionnaires by 28,032 participants. In 42% and 34% of questionnaires, injection site and systemic AE were reported, respectively. In 2.2% of questionnaires, participants sought medical attention. AE were reported more frequently by women, younger participants (< 60 years), participants with medical risk conditions and Spikevax recipients (vs Comirnaty). Higher pre-vaccination antibody concentrations were associated with higher incidence of systemic AE after the second and third dose, but not with injection site AE or AE for which medical attention was sought. Any AE after the third dose was associated with higher post-vaccination antibody concentrations (geometric mean concentration ratio: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.23-1.54).ConclusionsOur study suggests that high pre-vaccination antibody levels are associated with AE, and experiencing AE may be a marker for higher antibody response to vaccination.

Early COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness of XBB.1.5 vaccine against hospitalisation and admission to intensive care, the Netherlands, 9 October to 5 December 2023.

We present early vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates of the 2023 seasonal COVID-19 XBB.1.5 vaccine against COVID-19 hospitalisation and admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) in previously vaccinated adults ≥ 60 years in the Netherlands. We compared vaccination status of 2,050 hospitalisations including 92 ICU admissions with age group-, sex-, region- and date-specific population vaccination coverage between 9 October and 5 December 2023. VE against hospitalisation was 70.7% (95% CI: 66.6-74.3), VE against ICU admission was 73.3% (95% CI: 42.2-87.6).

Effectiveness of Omicron XBB.1.5 vaccine against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB and JN.1 variants, prospective cohort study, the Netherlands, October 2023 to January 2024.

We estimated vaccine effectiveness (VE) of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron XBB.1.5 vaccination against self-reported infection between 9 October 2023 and 9 January 2024 in 23,895 XBB.1.5 vaccine-eligible adults who had previously received at least one booster. VE was 41% (95% CI: 23-55) in 18-59-year-olds and 50% (95% CI: 44-56) in 60-85-year-olds. Sequencing data suggest lower protection against the BA.2.86 (including JN.1) variant from recent prior infection (OR = 2.8; 95% CI:1.2-6.5) and, not statistically significant, from XBB.1.5 vaccination (OR = 1.5; 95% CI:0.8-2.6).

Vaccine Effectiveness Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Delta and Omicron Infection and Infectiousness Within Households in the Netherlands Between July 2021 and August 2022.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to estimate vaccine effectiveness against infection (VE-infection) and against further transmission (VE-infectiousness) in a household setting during Delta and Omicron. Knowing these effects can aid policy makers in deciding which groups to prioritize for vaccination. METHODS: Participants with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test were asked about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination status and SARS-CoV-2 testing of their household members 1 month later. VE-infection and VE-infectiousness were estimated using generalized estimating equation logistic regression adjusting for age, vaccination status, calendar week, and household size. RESULTS: A total of 3399 questionnaires concerning 4105 household members were included. During the Delta period, VE-infection and VE-infectiousness of primary series were 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], -27% to 78%) and 70% (95% CI, 28% to 87%), respectively. During the Omicron period, VE-infection was -36% (95% CI, -88% to 1%) for primary series and -28% (95% CI, -77% to 7%) for booster vaccination. VE-infectiousness was 45% (95% CI, -14% to 74%) for primary series and 64% (95% CI, 31% to 82%) for booster vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that COVID-19 vaccination is effective against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Delta and against infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 Delta and Omicron. Estimation of VE against infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron was limited by several factors. Our results support booster vaccination for those in close contact with vulnerable people to prevent transmission.

Higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.4/5 infection than of BA.2 infection after previous BA.1 infection, the Netherlands, 2 May to 24 July 2022.

BackgroundIn summer 2022, SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.5 became dominant in Europe. In vitro studies have shown a large reduction of antibody neutralisation for this variant.AimWe aimed to investigate differences in protection from previous infection and/or vaccination against infection with Omicron BA.4/5 vs BA.2.MethodsWe employed a case-only approach including positive PCR tests from community testing between 2 May and 24 July 2022 that were tested for S gene target failure (SGTF), which distinguishes BA.4/5 from BA.2 infection. Previous infections were categorised by variant using whole genome sequencing or SGTF. We estimated by logistic regression the association of SGTF with vaccination and/or previous infection, and of SGTF of the current infection with the variant of the previous infection, adjusting for testing week, age group and sex.ResultsThe percentage of registered previous SARS-CoV-2 infections was higher among 19,836 persons infected with Omicron BA.4/5 than among 7,052 persons infected with BA.2 (31.3% vs 20.0%). Adjusting for testing week, age group and sex, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 1.4 (95% CI: 1.3-1.5). The distribution of vaccination status did not differ for BA.4/5 vs BA.2 infections (aOR = 1.1 for primary and booster vaccination). Among persons with a previous infection, those currently infected with BA4/5 had a shorter interval between infections, and the previous infection was more often caused by BA.1, compared with those currently infected with BA.2 (aOR = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.5-2.6).ConclusionOur results suggest immunity induced by BA.1 is less effective against BA.4/5 infection than against BA.2 infection.

Effectiveness of bivalent mRNA booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection, the Netherlands, September to December 2022.

We used data of 32,542 prospective cohort study participants who previously received primary and one or two monovalent booster COVID-19 vaccinations. Between 26 September and 19 December 2022, relative effectiveness of bivalent original/Omicron BA.1 vaccination against self-reported Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was 31% in 18-59-year-olds and 14% in 60-85-year-olds. Protection of Omicron infection was higher than of bivalent vaccination without prior infection. Although bivalent booster vaccination increases protection against COVID-19 hospitalisations, we found limited added benefit in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection.

High Infection Secondary Attack Rates of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Dutch Households Revealed by Dense Sampling.

BACKGROUND: Indoor environments are considered one of the main settings for transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Households in particular represent a close-contact environment with high probability of transmission between persons of different ages and roles in society. METHODS: Households with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 positive case in the Netherlands (March-May 2020) were included. At least 3 home visits were performed during 4-6 weeks of follow-up, collecting naso- and oropharyngeal swabs, oral fluid, feces and blood samples from all household members for molecular and serological analyses. Symptoms were recorded from 2 weeks before the first visit through to the final visit. Infection secondary attack rates (SAR) were estimated with logistic regression. A transmission model was used to assess household transmission routes. RESULTS: A total of 55 households with 187 household contacts were included. In 17 households no transmission took place; in 11 households all persons were infected. Estimated infection SARs were high, ranging from 35% (95% confidence interval [CI], 24%-46%) in children to 51% (95% CI, 39%-63%) in adults. Estimated transmission rates in the household were high, with reduced susceptibility of children compared with adolescents and adults (0.67; 95% CI, .40-1.1). CONCLUSION: Estimated infection SARs were higher than reported in earlier household studies, presumably owing to our dense sampling protocol. Children were shown to be less susceptible than adults, but the estimated infection SAR in children was still high. Our results reinforce the role of households as one of the main multipliers of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population.

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population by three prevailing rapid antigen tests: cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are the most widely used point-of-care tests for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the accuracy may have altered by changes in SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology, indications for testing, sampling and testing procedures, and roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination, we evaluated the performance of three prevailing SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we consecutively enrolled individuals aged >16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three Dutch public health service COVID-19 test sites. In the first phase, participants underwent either BD-Veritor System (Becton Dickinson), PanBio (Abbott), or SD-Biosensor (Roche Diagnostics) testing with routine sampling procedures. In a subsequent phase, participants underwent SD-Biosensor testing with a less invasive sampling method (combined oropharyngeal-nasal [OP-N] swab). Diagnostic accuracies were assessed against molecular testing. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred fifty-five of 7005 participants (99%) with results from both an Ag-RDT and a molecular reference test were analysed. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and overall sensitivities were 13% (188/1441) and 69% (129/188, 95% CI 62-75) for BD-Veritor, 8% (173/2056) and 69% (119/173, 61-76) for PanBio, and 12% (215/1769) and 74% (160/215, 68-80) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 10% (164/1689) and 75% (123/164, 68-81) for SD-Biosensor with OP-N sampling. In those symptomatic or asymptomatic at sampling, sensitivities were 72-83% and 54-56%, respectively. Above a viral load cut-off (≥5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL), sensitivities were 86% (125/146, 79-91) for BD-Veritor, 89% (108/121, 82-94) for PanBio, and 88% (160/182, 82-92) for SD-Biosensor with routine sampling and 84% (118/141, 77-89) with OP-N sampling. Specificities were >99% for all tests in most analyses. Sixty-one per cent of false-negative Ag-RDT participants returned for testing within 14 days (median: 3 days, interquartile range 3) of whom 90% tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: Overall sensitivities of three SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDTs were 69-75%, increasing to ≥86% above a viral load cut-off. The decreased sensitivity among asymptomatic participants and high positivity rate during follow-up in false-negative Ag-RDT participants emphasise the need for education of the public about the importance of re-testing after an initial negative Ag-RDT should symptoms develop. For SD-Biosensor, the diagnostic accuracy with OP-N and deep nasopharyngeal sampling was similar; adopting the more convenient sampling method might reduce the threshold for professional testing.

Head-to-head comparison of the accuracy of saliva and nasal rapid antigen SARS-CoV-2 self-testing: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic accuracy of unsupervised self-testing with rapid antigen diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) is mostly unknown. We studied the diagnostic accuracy of a self-performed SARS-CoV-2 saliva and nasal Ag-RDT in the general population. METHODS: This large cross-sectional study consecutively included unselected individuals aged ≥ 16 years presenting for SARS-CoV-2 testing at three public health service test sites. Participants underwent molecular test sampling and received two self-tests (the Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self-test and the SD Biosensor nasal self-test by Roche Diagnostics) to perform themselves at home. Diagnostic accuracy of both self-tests was assessed with molecular testing as reference. RESULTS: Out of 2819 participants, 6.5% had a positive molecular test. Overall sensitivities were 46.7% (39.3-54.2%) for the saliva Ag-RDT and 68.9% (61.6-75.6%) for the nasal Ag-RDT. With a viral load cut-off (≥ 5.2 log10 SARS-CoV-2 E-gene copies/mL) as a proxy of infectiousness, these sensitivities increased to 54.9% (46.4-63.3%) and 83.9% (76.9-89.5%), respectively. For the nasal Ag-RDT, sensitivities were 78.5% (71.1-84.8%) and 22.6% (9.6-41.1%) in those symptomatic and asymptomatic at the time of sampling, which increased to 90.4% (83.8-94.9%) and 38.9% (17.3-64.3%) after applying the viral load cut-off. In those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, sensitivities were 36.8% (16.3-61.6%) and 72.7% (65.1-79.4%). Specificities were > 99% and > 99%, positive predictive values > 70% and > 90%, and negative predictive values > 95% and > 95%, for the saliva and nasal Ag-RDT, respectively, in most analyses. Most participants considered the self-performing and result interpretation (very) easy for both self-tests. CONCLUSIONS: The Hangzhou AllTest Biotech saliva self Ag-RDT is not reliable for SARS-CoV-2 detection, overall, and in all studied subgroups. The SD Biosensor nasal self Ag-RDT had high sensitivity in individuals with symptoms and in those without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection but low sensitivity in asymptomatic individuals and those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection which warrants further investigation.

Epidemiological evaluation of mass testing in a small municipality in the Netherlands during the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic.

During 6 weeks in February-March 2021, the Dutch municipal health service Utrecht studied the epidemiological effects on test incidence and the detection of acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) with mass testing (MT). During MT, inhabitants of Bunschoten could repeatedly test regardless of symptoms and as often as desired at the close-by test facilities in the municipality. Data from the regular COVID-19 registration was used for analysis. In Bunschoten, MT caused a significant increase in test incidence and an immediate increase in the number of detected active infections, in contrast to a stabilisation in the rest of the province of Utrecht. Age distribution of test incidence shifted to the older population in Bunschoten during MT. During MT, there was a 6.8 percentage point increase in detected asymptomatic cases, a 0.4 percentage point increase in pre-symptomatic cases and a decrease of 0.5 days between onset of symptoms and test date. This study has shown that MT increases test incidence and helps to obtain a more complete view of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 in a community, which can be useful in specific situations with a defined target group or goal. However, the question remains open whether the use of MT is proportionate to the overall gain.

Annual Tuberculosis Preventive Therapy for Persons With HIV Infection : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis preventive therapy for persons with HIV infection is effective, but its durability is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment completion rates of weekly isoniazid-rifapentine for 3 months versus daily isoniazid for 6 months as well as the effectiveness of the 3-month rifapentine-isoniazid regimen given annually for 2 years versus once. DESIGN: Randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980016). SETTING: South Africa, Ethiopia, and Mozambique. PARTICIPANTS: Persons with HIV infection who were receiving antiretroviral therapy, were aged 2 years or older, and did not have active tuberculosis. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive weekly rifapentine-isoniazid for 3 months, given either annually for 2 years or once, or daily isoniazid for 6 months. Participants were screened for tuberculosis symptoms at months 0 to 3 and 12 of each study year and at months 12 and 24 using chest radiography and sputum culture. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment completion was assessed using pill counts. Tuberculosis incidence was measured over 24 months. RESULTS: Between November 2016 and November 2017, 4027 participants were enrolled; 4014 were included in the analyses (median age, 41 years; 69.5% women; all using antiretroviral therapy). Treatment completion in the first year for the combined rifapentine-isoniazid groups (n = 3610) was 90.4% versus 50.5% for the isoniazid group (n = 404) (risk ratio, 1.78 [95% CI, 1.61 to 1.95]). Tuberculosis incidence among participants receiving the rifapentine-isoniazid regimen twice (n = 1808) or once (n = 1802) was similar (hazard ratio, 0.96 [CI, 0.61 to 1.50]). LIMITATION: If rifapentine-isoniazid is effective in curing subclinical tuberculosis, then the intensive tuberculosis screening at month 12 may have reduced its effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Treatment completion was higher with rifapentine-isoniazid for 3 months compared with isoniazid for 6 months. In settings with high tuberculosis transmission, a second round of preventive therapy did not provide additional benefit to persons receiving antiretroviral therapy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The U.S. Agency for International Development through the CHALLENGE TB grant to the KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation.

Estimated incubation period for monkeypox cases confirmed in the Netherlands, May 2022.

In May 2022, monkeypox outbreaks have been reported in countries not endemic for monkeypox. We estimated the monkeypox incubation period, using reported exposure and symptom-onset times for 18 cases detected and confirmed in the Netherlands up to 31 May 2022. Mean incubation period was 9.0 [corrected] days (5th-95th percentiles: 4.2-17.3), underpinning the current recommendation to monitor or isolate/quarantine case contacts for 21 days. However, as the incubation period may differ between different transmission routes, further epidemiological investigations are needed.

Shorter serial intervals in SARS-CoV-2 cases with Omicron BA.1 variant compared with Delta variant, the Netherlands, 13 to 26 December 2021.

The SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has a growth advantage over the Delta variant because of higher transmissibility, immune evasion or shorter serial interval. Using S gene target failure (SGTF) as indication for Omicron BA.1, we identified 908 SGTF and 1,621 non-SGTF serial intervals in the same period. Within households, the mean serial interval for SGTF cases was 0.2-0.6 days shorter than for non-SGTF cases. This suggests that the growth advantage of Omicron is partly due to a shorter serial interval.

Increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 compared with Delta in vaccinated and previously infected individuals, the Netherlands, 22 November 2021 to 19 January 2022.

Infections with the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant are rapidly increasing worldwide. Among 174,349 SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (≥ 12 years), we observed an increased risk of S gene target failure, predictive of the Omicron variant, in vaccinated (odds ratio (OR): 3.6; 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.4-3.7) and previously infected individuals (OR: 4.2; 95% CI: 3.8-4.7) compared with infected naïve individuals. This suggests vaccine- or infection-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infections is less effective against the Omicron than the Delta variant.

Dynamic Public Perceptions of the Coronavirus Disease Crisis, the Netherlands, 2020.

A key component of outbreak control is monitoring public perceptions and public response. To determine public perceptions and public responses during the first 3 months of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in the Netherlands, we conducted 6 repeated surveys of ≈3,000 persons. Generalized estimating equations analyses revealed changes over time as well as differences between groups at low and high risk. Overall, respondents perceived the risks associated with COVID-19 to be considerable, were positive about the mitigation measures, trusted the information and the measures from authorities, and adopted protective measures. Substantial increases were observed in risk perceptions and self-reported protective behavior in the first weeks of the outbreak. Individual differences were based mainly on participants' age and health condition. We recommend that authorities constantly adjust their COVID-19 communication and mitigation strategies to fit public perceptions and public responses and that they tailor the information for different groups.

Excess Deaths during Influenza and Coronavirus Disease and Infection-Fatality Rate for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, the Netherlands.

Since the 2009 influenza pandemic, the Netherlands has used a weekly death monitoring system to estimate deaths in excess of expectations. We present estimates of excess deaths during the ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic and 10 previous influenza epidemics. Excess deaths per influenza epidemic averaged 4,000. The estimated 9,554 excess deaths (41% in excess) during the COVID-19 epidemic weeks 12-19 of 2020 appeared comparable to the 9,373 excess deaths (18%) during the severe influenza epidemic of 2017-18. However, these deaths occurred in a shorter time, had a higher peak, and were mitigated by nonpharmaceutical control measures. Excess deaths were 1.8-fold higher than reported laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 deaths (5,449). Based on excess deaths and preliminary results from seroepidemiologic studies, we estimated the infection-fatality rate to be 1%. Monitoring of excess deaths is crucial for timely estimates of disease burden for influenza and COVID-19. Our data complement laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 death reports and enable comparisons between epidemics.

Risk factors associated with the incidence of self-reported COVID-19-like illness: data from a web-based syndromic surveillance system in the Netherlands.

During the first wave of the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 epidemic in the Netherlands, notifications consisted mostly of patients with relatively severe disease. To enable real-time monitoring of the incidence of mild coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) - for which medical consultation might not be required - the Infectieradar web-based syndromic surveillance system was launched in mid-March 2020. Our aim was to quantify associations between Infectieradar participant characteristics and the incidence of self-reported COVID-19-like illness. Recruitment for this cohort study was via a web announcement. After registering, participants completed weekly questionnaires, reporting the occurrence of a set of symptoms. The incidence rate of COVID-19-like illness was estimated and multivariable Poisson regression used to estimate the relative risks associated with sociodemographic variables, lifestyle factors and pre-existing medical conditions. Between 17 March and 24 May 2020, 25 663 active participants were identified, who reported 7060 episodes of COVID-19-like illness over 131 404 person-weeks of follow-up. The incidence rate declined over the analysis period, consistent with the decline in notified cases. Male sex, age 65+ years and higher education were associated with a significantly lower COVID-19-like illness incidence rate (adjusted rate ratios (RRs) of 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84), 0.77 (0.70-0.85), 0.84 (0.80-0.88), respectively) and the baseline characteristics ever-smoker, asthma, allergies, diabetes, chronic lung disease, cardiovascular disease and children in the household were associated with a higher incidence (RRs of 1.11 (1.04-1.19) to 1.69 (1.50-1.90)). Web-based syndromic surveillance has proven useful for monitoring the temporal trends in, and risk factors associated with, the incidence of mild disease. Increased relative risks observed for several patient factors could reflect a combination of exposure risk, susceptibility to infection and propensity to report symptoms.

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission to household contacts during dominance of Delta variant (B.1.617.2), the Netherlands, August to September 2021.

We estimated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against onward transmission by comparing secondary attack rates among household members for vaccinated and unvaccinated index cases, based on source and contact tracing data collected when the Delta variant was dominant. Effectiveness of full vaccination of the index case against transmission to unvaccinated and fully vaccinated household contacts, respectively, was 63% (95% confidence interval (CI): 46-75) and 40% (95% CI: 20-54), in addition to the direct protection of vaccination of contacts against infection.

Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 transmission and infections among household and other close contacts of confirmed cases, the Netherlands, February to May 2021.

Several studies report high effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and severe disease, however an important knowledge gap is the vaccine effectiveness against transmission (VET). We present estimates of the VET to household and other close contacts in the Netherlands, from February to May 2021, using contact monitoring data. The secondary attack rate among household contacts was lower for fully vaccinated than unvaccinated index cases (11% vs 31%), with an adjusted VET of 71% (95% confidence interval: 63-77).

Impact of physical distancing measures against COVID-19 on contacts and mixing patterns: repeated cross-sectional surveys, the Netherlands, 2016-17, April 2020 and June 2020.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries have implemented physical distancing measures to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2.AimTo measure the actual reduction of contacts when physical distancing measures are implemented.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was carried out in the Netherlands in 2016-17, in which participants reported the number and age of their contacts the previous day. The survey was repeated among a subsample of the participants in April 2020, after strict physical distancing measures were implemented, and in an extended sample in June 2020, after some measures were relaxed.ResultsThe average number of community contacts per day was reduced from 14.9 (interquartile range (IQR): 4-20) in the 2016-17 survey to 3.5 (IQR: 0-4) after strict physical distancing measures were implemented, and rebounded to 8.8 (IQR: 1-10) after some measures were relaxed. All age groups restricted their community contacts to at most 5, on average, after strict physical distancing measures were implemented. In children, the number of community contacts reverted to baseline levels after measures were eased, while individuals aged 70 years and older had less than half their baseline levels.ConclusionStrict physical distancing measures greatly reduced overall contact numbers, which likely contributed to curbing the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in the Netherlands. However, age groups reacted differently when measures were relaxed, with children reverting to normal contact numbers and elderly individuals maintaining restricted contact numbers. These findings offer guidance for age-targeted measures in future waves of the pandemic.