Seroprevalence of Ehrlichia canis, Ehrlichia chaffeensis and Ehrlichia ewingii in dogs in North America

Background: This study evaluated the exposure of dogs to three different Ehrlichia spp. in the south and central regions of the United States where vector-borne disease prevalence has been previously difficult to ascertain, particularly beyond the metropolitan areas. Methods: Dog blood samples (n = 8,662) were submitted from 14 veterinary colleges, 6 private veterinary practices and 4 diagnostic laboratories across this region. Samples were tested for E. canis, E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii specific antibodies using peptide microtiter ELISAs. Results: Overall, E. canis, E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii seroprevalence was 0.8%, 2.8%, and 5.1%, respectively. The highest E. canis seroprevalence (2.3%) was found in a region encompassing Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas. E. chaffeensis seroreactivity was 6.6% in the central region (Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma) and 4.6% in the southeast region (Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia). Seroreactivity to E. ewingii was also highest in the central region (14.6%) followed by the southeast region (5.9%). The geospatial pattern derived from E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii seropositive samples was similar to previous reports based on E. chaffeensis seroreactivity in white-tailed deer and the distribution of human monocytic ehrlichiosis (HME) cases reported by the CDC. Conclusions: The results of this study provide the first large scale regional documentation of exposure to E. canis, E. chaffeensis and E. ewingii in pet dogs, highlighting regional differences in seroprevalence and providing the basis for heightened awareness of these emerging vector-borne pathogens by veterinarians and public health agencies

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health