Background Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. Methods A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2–4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. Findings From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. Interpretation A previous histo...

Background BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. MethodsThe SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing.Findings 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46•1 years (IQR 36•0-54•1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infecti...

No abstract

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) is one of the most common techniques for quantification of nucleic acid molecules in biological and environmental samples. Although the methodology is perceived to be relatively simple, there are a number of steps and reagents that require optimization and validation to ensure reproducible data that accurately reflect the biological question(s) being posed. This review article describes and illustrates the critical pitfalls and sources of error in qPCR experiments, along with a rigorous, stepwise process to minimize variability, time, and cost in generating reproducible, publication quality data every time. Finally, an approach to make an informed choice between qPCR and digital PCR technologies is described.qPCR Technique: The Perception and Reality qPCR (see Glossary) is generally viewed by researchers as a powerful technique that can provide precise and quantitative data reflecting the biology of the tested experimental parameters. However, without following strict guidelines, validation and data analysis procedures, the results can be far from valid [1,2]. Unfortunately, the adoption and transfer of inadequate and varied protocols between individual laboratory members and laboratories throughout the scientific community have led to frustration in reproducing data [3][4][5]. This has driven the production of the minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments (MIQE) guidelines and related methodology articles to help the scientific community in augmenting experimental rigor and uniformity to produce more reliable and consistent data [6][7][8]. Nevertheless, there remain concerns regarding the quality of qPCR results in the published literature [1,2].When designing experiments for qPCR, all protocols, such as sample handling, harvesting, nucleic acid extraction, reverse transcription, and qPCR should be described and vetted in detail. Mistakes or assumptions can be made in the planning process, resulting in a flawed experimental design with results and conclusions based on artefacts of pre and/or post sample handling procedures as opposed to the true effect of the tested experimental parameters [7]. Poorly optimized reactions can result in data that are consequent to a combination of sample contaminants and/or poor annealing temperature, leading to misinterpreted results and conclusions that are difficult or even impossible to reproduce [9,10].Despite the MIQE guidelines and other methodology articles, the variability and reproducibility pitfalls associated with qPCR remain elusive for many laboratories [7,11]. This review article describes the major sources of error associated with a qPCR experiment and strategies for their Highlights qPCR is more complex than perceived by many scientists.

Quantitative PCR (qPCR) has become the gold standard technique to measure cDNA and gDNA levels but the resulting data can be highly variable, artifactual and non-reproducible without appropriate verification and validation of both samples and primers. The root cause of poor quality data is typically associated with inadequate dilution of residual protein and chemical contaminants that variably inhibit Taq polymerase and primer annealing. The most susceptible, frustrating and often most interesting samples are those containing low abundant targets with small expression differences of 2-fold or lower. Here, Droplet Digital PCR (ddPCR) and qPCR platforms were directly compared for gene expression analysis using low amounts of purified, synthetic DNA in well characterized samples under identical reaction conditions. We conclude that for sample/target combinations with low levels of nucleic acids (Cq ≥ 29) and/or variable amounts of chemical and protein contaminants, ddPCR technology will produce more precise, reproducible and statistically significant results required for publication quality data. A stepwise methodology is also described to choose between these complimentary technologies to obtain the best results for any experiment.