Hybrid Immunity and SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies: Results of the HEROES-RECOVER Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on whether hybrid immunity differs by count and order of immunity-conferring events (infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] or vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]). From a multi-site cohort of frontline workers, we examined the heterogeneity of the effect of hybrid immunity on SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. METHODS: Exposures included event count and event order, categorized into 7 permutations. Outcome was level of serum antibodies against receptor-binding domain (RBD) of the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (total RBD-binding immunoglobulin). Means were examined up to 365 days after each of the first to seventh events. RESULTS: Analysis included 5793 participants measured from 7 August 2020 to 15 April 2023. Hybrid immunity from infection before 1 or 2 vaccine doses elicited modestly superior antibody responses after the second and third events (compared with infections or vaccine doses alone). This superiority was not repeated after additional events. Among adults infected before vaccination, adjusted geometric mean ratios (95% confidence interval [CI]) of anti-RBD early response (versus vaccinated only) were 1.23 (1.14-1.33), 1.09 (1.03-1.14), 0.87 (.81-.94), and 0.99 (.85-1.15) after the second to fifth events, respectively. Post-vaccination infections elicited superior responses; adjusted geometric mean ratios (95% CI) of anti-RBD early response (versus vaccinated only) were 0.93 (.75-1.17), 1.11 (1.06-1.16), 1.17 (1.11-1.24), and 1.20 (1.07-1.34) after the second to fifth events, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence of heterogeneity in antibody levels by permutations of infection and vaccination history could inform COVID-19 vaccination policy.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection History and Antibody Response to 3 Coronavirus Disease 2019 Messenger RNA Vaccine Doses.

BACKGROUND: Data on antibody kinetics are limited among individuals previously infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). From a cohort of healthcare personnel and other frontline workers in 6 US states, we assessed antibody waning after messenger RNA (mRNA) dose 2 and response to dose 3 according to SARS-CoV-2 infection history. METHODS: Participants submitted sera every 3 months, after SARS-CoV-2 infection, and after each mRNA vaccine dose. Sera were tested for antibodies and reported as area under the serial dilution curve (AUC). Changes in AUC values over time were compared using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Analysis included 388 participants who received dose 3 by November 2021. There were 3 comparison groups: vaccine only with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 224); infection prior to dose 1 (n = 123); and infection after dose 2 and before dose 3 (n = 41). The interval from dose 2 and dose 3 was approximately 8 months. After dose 3, antibody levels rose 2.5-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.2-3.0) in group 2 and 2.9-fold (95% CI = 2.6-3.3) in group 1. Those infected within 90 days before dose 3 (and median 233 days [interquartile range, 213-246] after dose 2) did not increase significantly after dose 3. CONCLUSIONS: A third dose of mRNA vaccine typically elicited a robust humoral immune response among those with primary vaccination regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection >3 months prior to boosting. Those with infection <3 months prior to boosting did not have a significant increase in antibody concentrations in response to a booster.

Risk Factors for Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variant among Previously Infected Frontline Workers.

In a cohort of essential workers in the United States previously infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for reinfection included being unvaccinated, infrequent mask use, time since first infection, and being non-Hispanic Black. Protecting workers from reinfection requires a multipronged approach including up-to-date vaccination, mask use as recommended, and reduction in underlying health disparities.

Interim Estimate of Vaccine Effectiveness of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) Vaccine in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Adolescents Aged 12-17 Years - Arizona, July-December 2021.

The BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA COVID-19 vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy in preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19) in randomized placebo-controlled Phase III trials in persons aged 12-17 years (referred to as adolescents in this report) (1); however, data on real-word vaccine effectiveness (VE) among adolescents are limited (1-3). As of December 2021, the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adolescents aged 16-17 years and under FDA emergency use authorization for those aged 12-15 years. In a prospective cohort in Arizona, 243 adolescents aged 12-17 years were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) each week, irrespective of symptoms, and upon onset of COVID-19-like illness during July 25-December 4, 2021; the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant was the predominant strain during this study period. During the study, 190 adolescents contributed fully vaccinated person-time (≥14 days after receiving 2 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine), 30 contributed partially vaccinated person-time (receipt of 1 dose or receipt of 2 doses but with the second dose completed <14 days earlier), and 66 contributed unvaccinated person-time. Using the Cox proportional-hazards model, the estimated VE of full Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination for preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection was 92% (95% CI = 79%-97%), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics, health information, frequency of social contact, mask use, location, and local virus circulation. These findings from a real-world setting indicate that 2 doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine are highly effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among Arizona adolescents. CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for all eligible persons in the United States, including persons aged 12-17 years.

Hearing Difficulties Among Farmworkers in the México-US Southwest Border Region.

Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are a vulnerable population with a potentially high risk for hearing loss due to farm-related noise exposures. Occupational noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is permanent, and it is associated with an increased risk for injuries on the job, as well as communication difficulties, isolation, and depression. The México/US border region is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country, however, no known studies have explored hearing loss among farmworkers in this area. This pilot study was a first step toward measuring and addressing hearing loss and noise exposure among this region's farmworkers. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to estimate the prevalence of subjective hearing difficulties among Yuma County, Arizona farmworkers. Survey interviews took place during a late-night farmworker health fair from 2 am to 6 am to accommodate local farms' labor schedules. Multivariable regression adjusted for demographic and work covariates estimated subjective hearing loss prevalence ratios. Among 132 farmworker participants, 36% reported they have or might have hearing loss, and 62% reported no hearing loss. Subjective hearing loss prevalence was lower in farmworkers who report not working in noise compared to prevalence in farmworkers who work in noise [prevalence ratio, 0.44 (95% CI 0.23-0.82)]. This report contributes to understanding the perception of hearing-related health and occupational exposures among farmworkers in the México-US Southwest border region. The information from this line of research will inform appropriate safety measures known to lower the risk of experiencing occupational NIHL.

The Complex Epidemiological Relationship between Flooding Events and Human Outbreaks of Mosquito-Borne Diseases: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of flooding events. Although rainfall is highly correlated with mosquito-borne diseases (MBD) in humans, less research focuses on understanding the impact of flooding events on disease incidence. This lack of research presents a significant gap in climate change-driven disease forecasting. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a scoping review to assess the strength of evidence regarding the potential relationship between flooding and MBD and to determine knowledge gaps. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched through 31 December 2020 and supplemented with review of citations in relevant publications. Studies on rainfall were included only if the operationalization allowed for distinction of unusually heavy rainfall events. Data were abstracted by disease (dengue, malaria, or other) and stratified by post-event timing of disease assessment. Studies that conducted statistical testing were summarized in detail. RESULTS: From 3,008 initial results, we included 131 relevant studies (dengue n=45, malaria n=61, other MBD n=49). Dengue studies indicated short-term (<1 month) decreases and subsequent (1-4 month) increases in incidence. Malaria studies indicated post-event incidence increases, but the results were mixed, and the temporal pattern was less clear. Statistical evidence was limited for other MBD, though findings suggest that human outbreaks of Murray Valley encephalitis, Ross River virus, Barmah Forest virus, Rift Valley fever, and Japanese encephalitis may follow flooding. DISCUSSION: Flooding is generally associated with increased incidence of MBD, potentially following a brief decrease in incidence for some diseases. Methodological inconsistencies significantly limit direct comparison and generalizability of study results. Regions with established MBD and weather surveillance should be leveraged to conduct multisite research to a) standardize the quantification of relevant flooding, b) study nonlinear relationships between rainfall and disease, c) report outcomes at multiple lag periods, and d) investigate interacting factors that modify the likelihood and severity of outbreaks across different settings. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP8887.

User Participation and Engagement With the See Me Smoke-Free mHealth App: Prospective Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: The See Me Smoke-Free (SMSF) mobile health (mHealth) app was developed to help women quit smoking by targeting concerns about body weight, body image, and self-efficacy through cognitive behavioral techniques and guided imagery audio files addressing smoking, diet, and physical activity. A feasibility trial found associations between SMSF usage and positive treatment outcomes. This paper reports a detailed exploration of program use among eligible individuals consenting to study participation and completing the baseline survey (participants) and ineligible or nonconsenting app installers (nonparticipants), as well as the relationship between program use and treatment outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether (1) participants were more likely to set quit dates, be current smokers, and report higher levels of smoking at baseline than nonparticipants; (2) participants opened the app and listened to audio files more frequently than nonparticipants; and (3) participants with more app usage had a higher likelihood of self-reported smoking abstinence at follow up. METHODS: The SMSF feasibility trial was a single arm, within-subjects, prospective cohort study with assessments at baseline and 30 and 90 days post enrollment. The SMSF app was deployed on the Google Play Store for download, and basic profile characteristics were obtained for all app installers. Additional variables were assessed for study participants. Participants were prompted to use the app daily during study participation. Crude differences in baseline characteristics between trial participants and nonparticipants were evaluated using t tests (continuous variables) and Fisher exact tests (categorical variables). Exact Poisson tests were used to assess group-level differences in mean usage rates over the full study period using aggregate Google Analytics data on participation and usage. Negative binomial regression models were used to estimate associations of app usage with participant baseline characteristics after adjustment for putative confounders. Associations between app usage and self-reported smoking abstinence were assessed using separate logistic regression models for each outcome measure. RESULTS: Participants (n=151) were more likely than nonparticipants (n=96) to report female gender (P<.02) and smoking in the 30 days before enrollment (P<.001). Participants and nonparticipants opened the app and updated quit dates at the same average rate (rate ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI 0.92-1.04; P=.43), but participants started audio files (RR 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.13; P<.04) and completed audio files (RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.18; P<.003) at significantly higher rates than nonparticipants. Higher app usage among participants was positively associated with some smoking cessation outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests potential efficacy of the SMSF app, as increased usage was generally associated with higher self-reported smoking abstinence. A planned randomized controlled trial will assess the SMSF app's efficacy as an intervention tool to help women quit smoking.