Background In 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. Aim We aimed to investigate differences in protection from previous infection and/or vaccination against infection with Omicron BA.4/5 vs BA.2. Methods We 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. Results The 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). Conclusion Our results suggest immunity induced by BA.1 is less effective against BA.4/5 infection than against BA.2 infection.
We investigate differences in protection from previous infection and/or vaccination against infection with Omicron BA.4/5 or BA.2. We observed a higher percentage of registered previous SARS-CoV-2 infections among 19836 persons infected with Omicron BA.4/5 compared to 7052 persons infected with BA.2 (31.3% vs. 20.0%) between 2 May and 24 July 2022 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for testing week, age group and sex: 1.4 (95%CI: 1.3-1.5)). No difference was observed in the distribution of vaccination status between BA.2 and BA.4/5 cases (aOR: 1.1 for primary and booster vaccination). Among reinfections, those newly infected with BA4/5 had a shorter interval between infections and the previous infection was more often caused by BA.1, compared to those newly infected with BA.2 (aOR: 1.9 (1.5-2.6). This suggests immunity induced by BA.1 is less effective against a BA.4/5 infection than against a BA.2 infection.
Selection and spread of Extended Spectrum Beta-Lactamase (ESBL) -producing Enterobacteriaceae within animal production systems and potential spillover to humans is a major concern. Intramammary treatment of dairy cows with first-generation cephalosporins is a common practice and potentially selects for ESBL-producing Enterobacteriaceae, although it is unknown whether this really occurs in the bovine fecal environment. We aimed to study the potential effects of intramammary application of cephapirin (CP) and cefalonium (CL) to select for ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in the intestinal content of treated dairy cows and in manure slurry, using in vitro competition experiments with ESBL and non-ESBL E. coli isolates. No selection of ESBL-producing E. coli was observed at or below concentrations of 0.8 µg/ml and 4.0 µg/ml in bovine feces for CP and CL, respectively, and at or below 8.0 µg/ml and 4.0 µg/ml, respectively, in manure slurry. We calculated that the maximum concentration of CP and CL after intramammary treatment with commercial products will not exceed 0.29 µg/ml in feces and 0.03 µg/ml in manure slurry. Therefore, the results of this study did not find evidence supporting the selection of ESBL-producing E. coli in bovine feces or in manure slurry after intramammary use of commercial CP or CL-containing products.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.