COVID-19 contact tracing at work in Belgium - how tracers tweak guidelines for the better

Abstract Background When conducting COVID-19 contact tracing, pre-defined criteria allow differentiating high-risk contacts (HRC) from low-risk contacts (LRC). Our study aimed to evaluate whether contact tracers in Belgium followed these criteria in practice and whether their deviations improved the infection risk assessment. Method We conducted a retrospective cohort study in Belgium, through an anonymous online survey, sent to 111,763 workers by email. First, we evaluated the concordance between the guideline-based classification of HRC or LRC and the tracer’s classification. We computed positive and negative agreements between both. Second, we used a multivariate Poisson regression to calculate the risk ratio (RR) of testing positive depending on the risk classification by the contact tracer and by the guideline-based risk classification. Results For our first research question, we included 1105 participants. The positive agreement between the guideline-based classification in HRC or LRC and the tracer’s classification was 0.53 (95% CI 0.49–0.57) and the negative agreement 0.70 (95% CI: 0.67–0.72). The type of contact tracer (occupational doctors, internal tracer, general practitioner, other) did not significantly influence the results. For the second research question, we included 589 participants. The RR of testing positive after an HRC compared to an LRC was 3.10 (95% CI: 2.71–3.56) when classified by the contact tracer and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.94–2.60) when classified by the guideline-based criteria. Conclusion Our study indicates that contact tracers did not apply pre-defined criteria for classifying high and low risk contacts. Risk stratification by contact tracers predicts who is at risk of infection better than guidelines only. This result indicates that a knowledgeable tracer can target testing better than a general guideline, asking for a debate on how to adapt the guidelines

Additional file 1 of Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in student residences: a case-ascertained study

Additional file 1: S1. Statistical analysis – secondary attack rate. Supplementary 2. Sensitivity analysis. Supplementary Figure 1. Timing of outbreaks in student residences. Supplementary Figure 2. Google mobility data between October 30th 2020 and May 25st 2021 for the region of Flemish Brabant, Belgium

Additional file 2 of Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 transmission in student residences: a case-ascertained study

Additional file 2

Development of an integrated breath analysis technology for on-chip aerosol capture and molecular analysis

As proven early on in the pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 is mainly transmitted by aerosols. This urged us to develop a silicon impactor that collects the virus particles directly from breath. Performing PCR on these breath samples proved equally sensitive as nasopharyngeal swabs during the first week of an infection [Stakenborg et al., 2022], yet it remained a mostly manual process and PCR turn-around-time was still long. To overcome these drawbacks, we developed a fast and sensitive, fully integrated point-of-need breath test, comprising a novel breath sampler device and PCR instrument. The breath sampler combines virus collection and in-situ RNA amplification. The PCR instrument performs very fast amplification of the released viral RNA. Sample-to-result time was reduced to <20 min with an equal performance as the original manual procedure

Considerable escape of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron to antibody neutralization

International audienceThe SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was first identified in November 2021 in Botswana and South Africa1-3. It has since spread to many countries and is expected to rapidly become dominant worldwide. The lineage is characterized by the presence of around 32 mutations in spike-located mostly in the N-terminal domain and the receptor-binding domain-that may enhance viral fitness and enable antibody evasion. Here we isolated an infectious Omicron virus in Belgium from a traveller returning from Egypt. We examined its sensitivity to nine monoclonal antibodies that have been clinically approved or are in development4, and to antibodies present in 115 serum samples from COVID-19 vaccine recipients or individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. Omicron was completely or partially resistant to neutralization by all monoclonal antibodies tested. Sera from recipients of the Pfizer or AstraZeneca vaccine, sampled five months after complete vaccination, barely inhibited Omicron. Sera from COVID-19-convalescent patients collected 6 or 12 months after symptoms displayed low or no neutralizing activity against Omicron. Administration of a booster Pfizer dose as well as vaccination of previously infected individuals generated an anti-Omicron neutralizing response, with titres 6-fold to 23-fold lower against Omicron compared with those against Delta. Thus, Omicron escapes most therapeutic monoclonal antibodies and, to a large extent, vaccine-elicited antibodies. However, Omicron is neutralized by antibodies generated by a booster vaccine dose

Molecular detection of SARS-COV-2 in exhaled breath at the point-of-need

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the need for improved technologies to help control the spread of contagious pathogens. While rapid point-of-need testing plays a key role in strategies to rapidly identify and isolate infectious patients, current test approaches have significant shortcomings related to assay limitations and sample type. Direct quantification of viral shedding in exhaled particles may offer a better rapid testing approach, since SARS-CoV-2 is believed to spread mainly by aerosols. It assesses contagiousness directly, the sample is easy and comfortable to obtain, sampling can be standardized, and the limited sample volume lends itself to a fast and sensitive analysis. In view of these benefits, we developed and tested an approach where exhaled particles are efficiently sampled using inertial impaction in a micromachined silicon chip, followed by an RT-qPCR molecular assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 shedding. Our portable, silicon impactor allowed for the efficient capture (>85%) of respiratory particles down to 300 nm without the need for additional equipment. We demonstrate using both conventional off-chip and in-situ PCR directly on the silicon chip that sampling subjects' breath in less than a minute yields sufficient viral RNA to detect infections as early as standard sampling methods. A longitudinal study revealed clear differences in the temporal dynamics of viral load for nasopharyngeal swab, saliva, breath, and antigen tests. Overall, after an infection, the breath-based test remains positive during the first week but is the first to consistently report a negative result, putatively signalling the end of contagiousness and further emphasizing the potential of this tool to help manage the spread of airborne respiratory infections