Phylodynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions in France, Europe and the world during 2020

BackgroundAlthough France was one of the most affected European countries by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmissions within France, Europe and worldwide remain only partially characterized during the first year of the pandemic. MethodsHere, we analyzed GISAID deposited sequences from January to December 2020 (n = 638,706 sequences). To tackle the huge number of sequences without the bias of analyzing a single sequence subset, we produced 100 independent and randomly selected sequence datasets and related phylogenetic trees for different geographic scales (worldwide, European countries and French administrative regions) and time periods (first and second half of 2020). We applied a maximum likelihood discrete trait phylogeographic method to date transmission events and to estimate the geographic spread of SARS-CoV-2 to, from and within France, Europe and worldwide. ResultsThe results unraveled two different patterns of inter- and intra-territory transmission events between the first and second half of 2020. Throughout the year, Europe was systematically associated with most of the intercontinental transmissions, for which France has played a pivotal role. SARS-CoV-2 transmissions with France were concentrated with North America and Europe (mainly Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, Belgium and Germany) during the first wave, and were limited to neighboring countries without strong intercontinental transmission during the second one. Regarding French administrative regions, the Paris area was the main source of transmissions during the first wave. But, for the second epidemic wave, it equally contributed to virus spread with Lyon and Marseille area, the two other most densely populated cities in France. ConclusionBy enabling the inclusion of tens of thousands of viral sequences, this original phylogenetic strategy enabled us to robustly depict SARS-CoV-2 transmissions through France, Europe and worldwide in 2020.

Efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in thoracic cancer patients: a prospective study supporting a third dose in patients with minimal serologic response after two vaccine doses

HypothesisCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) resulted in a 30% mortality rate in thoracic cancer patients. Given that cancer patients were excluded from serum anti-severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) vaccine registration trials, it is still unknown whether they would develop a protective anti-spike antibody response following vaccination. This prospective vaccine monitoring study primarily aimed to assess humoral responses to SARS-CoV2 vaccine in thoracic cancer patients. MethodsSARS-CoV2-spike antibodies were measured using Abbot ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG immunoassay, prior to first injection of BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine, as well as at Week 4, and two-to-sixteen weeks after second vaccine dose. The factors associated with antibody response were analyzed. ResultsOverall, 306 patients, with a median age of 67.0 years (IQR=58-74), were vaccinated. Of these, 283 patients received two vaccine doses at 28-day intervals. After 4.7-month median follow-up, seven patients (2.3%) contracted proven symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, with rapid favorable evolution. Of 269 serological results available beyond Day 14 post-second vaccine dose, 17 (6.3%) were still negative (<50 AU/mL) (arbitrary units/mL), while 34 (11%) were <300 AU/mL (12.5th percentile). In multivariate analysis, only age and chronic corticosteroid treatment were significantly associated with a lack of immunization. Thirty patients received a third vaccine dose, with only three patients showing persistent negative serology thereafter, whereas the others demonstrated clear seroconversion. ConclusionSARS-CoV2 vaccines were shown to be efficient in thoracic cancer patients, most of them being immunized after two doses. A third shot given to 1% of patients with persistent low antibody titers resulted in a 88% immunization rate.

The 501Y.V2 SARS-CoV-2 variant has an intermediate viral load between the 501Y.V1 and the historical variants in nasopharyngeal samples from newly diagnosed COVID-19 patients

The 501Y.V2 and the 501Y.V1 SARS-CoV-2 variants emerged and spread rapidly into the world. We analysed the RT-PCR cycle threshold values of 643 nasopharyngeal samples of COVID-19 patients at diagnosis and found that the 501Y.V2 variant presented an intermediate viral load between the 501Y.V1 and the historical variants.

High-risk exposure without personal protective equipment and infection with SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers: results of the CoV-CONTACT prospective cohort

Objective: We aimed to estimate the risk of infection in Healthcare workers (HCWs) following a high-risk exposure without personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort in HCWs who had a high-risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected subject without PPE. Daily symptoms were self-reported for 30 days, nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR were performed at inclusion and at days 3, 5, 7 and 12, SARS-CoV-2 serology was assessed at inclusion and at day 30. Confirmed infection was defined by positive RT-PCR or seroconversion, and possible infection by one general and one specific symptom for two consecutive days. Results: Between February 5th and May 30th, 2020, 154 HCWs were enrolled within 14 days following one high-risk exposure to either a hospital patient (70/154; 46.1%) and/or a colleague (95/154; 62.5%). At day 30, 25.0% had a confirmed infection (37/148; 95%CI, 18.4%; 32.9%), and 43.9% (65/148; 95%CI, 35.9%; 52.3%) had a confirmed or possible infection. Factors independently associated with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection were being a pharmacist or administrative assistant rather than being from medical staff (adjusted OR (aOR)=3.8, CI95%=1.3;11.2, p=0.01), and exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected patient rather than exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected colleague (aOR=2.6, CI95%=1.2;5.9, p=0.02). Among the 26 HCWs with a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab, 7 (26.9%) had no symptom at the time of the RT-PCR positivity. Conclusions: The proportion of HCWs with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. There were less occurrences of high-risk exposure with patients than with colleagues, but those were associated with an increased risk of infection.

SARS-CoV-2 N-antigenemia: A new alternative to nucleic acid amplification techniques

Background. Molecular assays on nasopharyngeal swabs remain the cornerstone of COVID-19 diagnostic. Despite massive worldwide efforts, the high technicalities of nasopharyngeal sampling and molecular assays, as well as scarce resources of reagents, limit our testing capabilities. Several strategies failed, to date, to fully alleviate this testing process (e.g. saliva sampling or antigen testing on nasopharyngeal samples). We assessed the performances of a new ELISA microplate assay quantifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-antigen) in serum or plasma. Methods. The specificity of the assay, determined on 63 non-COVID patients, was 98.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.3 to 100). Performances were determined on 227 serum samples from 165 patients with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection included in the French COVID and CoV-CONTACT cohorts. Findings. Sensitivity was 132/142, 93.0% (95% CI, 84.7 to 100), within the first two weeks after symptoms onset. A subset of 73 COVID-19 patients had a serum collected within 24 hours following or preceding a positive nasopharyngeal swab. Among patients with high nasopharyngeal viral loads, Ct value below 30 and 33, only 1/50 and 4/67 tested negative for N-antigenemia, respectively. Among patients with a negative nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, 8/12 presented positive N-antigenemia. The lower respiratory tract was explored for 6/8 patients, showing positive PCR in 5 cases. Interpretation. This is the first demonstration of the N-antigen antigenemia during COVID-19. Its detection presented a robust sensitivity, especially within the first 14 days after symptoms onset and high nasopharyngeal viral loads. These findings have to be confirmed with higher representation of outpatients. This approach could provide a valuable new option for COVID-19 diagnosis, only requiring a blood draw and easily scalable in all clinical laboratories.