None.

The development of rotavirus vaccines that are based on heterotypic or serotype-specific immunity has prompted many countries to establish programs to assess the disease burden associated with rotavirus infection and the distribution of rotavirus strains. Strain surveillance helps to determine whether the most prevalent local strains are likely to be covered by the serotype antigens found in current vaccines. After introduction of a vaccine, this surveillance could detect which strains might not be covered by the vaccine. Almost 2 decades ago, studies demonstrated that 4 globally common rotavirus serotypes (G1-G4) represent >90% of the rotavirus strains in circulation. Subsequently, these 4 serotypes were used in the development of reassortant vaccines predicated on serotype-specific immunity. More recently, the application of reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction genotyping, nucleotide sequencing, and antigenic characterization methods has confirmed the importance of the 4 globally common types, but a much greater strain diversity has also been identified (we now recognize strains with at least 42 P-G combinations). These studies also identified globally (G9) or regionally (G5, G8, and P2A[6]) common serotype antigens not covered by the reassortant vaccines that have undergone efficacy trials. The enormous diversity and capacity of human rotaviruses for change suggest that rotavirus vaccines must provide good heterotypic protection to be optimally effective.

Summary Background Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19. Methods In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period. Findings Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82–4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12–1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31–1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22–1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34–2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22–12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04346186 . Interpretation The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19. Funding Lundbeck Foundation.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Enteroviruses (EV) can cause severe neurological and respiratory infections, and occasionally lead to devastating outbreaks as previously demonstrated with EV-A71 and EV-D68 in Europe. However, these infections are still often underdiagnosed and EV typing data is not currently collected at European level. In order to improve EV diagnostics, collate data on severe EV infections and monitor the circulation of EV types, we have established European non-polio enterovirus network (ENPEN). First task of this cross-border network has been to ensure prompt and adequate diagnosis of these infections in Europe, and hence we present recommendations for non-polio EV detection and typing based on the consensus view of this multidisciplinary team including experts from over 20 European countries. We recommend that respiratory and stool samples in addition to cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood samples are submitted for EV testing from patients with suspected neurological infections. This is vital since viruses like EV-D68 are rarely detectable in CSF or stool samples. Furthermore, reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) targeting the 5'noncoding regions (5'NCR) should be used for diagnosis of EVs due to their sensitivity, specificity and short turnaround time. Sequencing of the VP1 capsid protein gene is recommended for EV typing; EV typing cannot be based on the 5'NCR sequences due to frequent recombination events and should not rely on virus isolation. Effective and standardized laboratory diagnostics and characterisation of circulating virus strains are the first step towards effective and continuous surveillance activities, which in turn will be used to provide better estimation on EV disease burden.