Characteristics and predictors of persistent symptoms post-COVID-19 in children and young people: a large community cross-sectional study in England.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of, and associated risk factors for, persistent symptoms post-COVID-19 among children aged 5-17 years in England. DESIGN: Serial cross-sectional study. SETTING: Rounds 10-19 (March 2021 to March 2022) of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 study (monthly cross-sectional surveys of random samples of the population in England). STUDY POPULATION: Children aged 5-17 years in the community. PREDICTORS: Age, sex, ethnicity, presence of a pre-existing health condition, index of multiple deprivation, COVID-19 vaccination status and dominant UK circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant at time of symptom onset. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of persistent symptoms, reported as those lasting ≥3 months post-COVID-19. RESULTS: Overall, 4.4% (95% CI 3.7 to 5.1) of 3173 5-11 year-olds and 13.3% (95% CI 12.5 to 14.1) of 6886 12-17 year-olds with prior symptomatic infection reported at least one symptom lasting ≥3 months post-COVID-19, of whom 13.5% (95% CI 8.4 to 20.9) and 10.9% (95% CI 9.0 to 13.2), respectively, reported their ability to carry out day-to-day activities was reduced 'a lot' due to their symptoms. The most common symptoms among participants with persistent symptoms were persistent coughing (27.4%) and headaches (25.4%) in children aged 5-11 years and loss or change of sense of smell (52.2%) and taste (40.7%) in participants aged 12-17 years. Higher age and having a pre-existing health condition were associated with higher odds of reporting persistent symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: One in 23 5-11 year-olds and one in eight 12-17 year-olds post-COVID-19 report persistent symptoms lasting ≥3 months, of which one in nine report a large impact on performing day-to-day activities.

Validity of self-testing at home with rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection by lateral flow immunoassay.

BACKGROUND: We explore SARS-CoV-2 antibody lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) performance under field conditions compared to laboratory-based electrochemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA) and live virus neutralisation. METHODS: In July 2021, 3758 participants performed, at home, a self-administered Fortress LFIA on finger-prick blood, reported and submitted a photograph of the result, and provided a self-collected capillary blood sample for assessment of IgG antibodies using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ECLIA. We compared the self-reported LFIA result to the quantitative ECLIA and checked the reading of the LFIA result with an automated image analysis (ALFA). In a subsample of 250 participants, we compared the results to live virus neutralisation. RESULTS: Almost all participants (3593/3758, 95.6%) had been vaccinated or reported prior infection. Overall, 2777/3758 (73.9%) were positive on self-reported LFIA, 2811/3457 (81.3%) positive by LFIA when ALFA-reported, and 3622/3758 (96.4%) positive on ECLIA (using the manufacturer reference standard threshold for positivity of 0.8 U ml-1). Live virus neutralisation was detected in 169 of 250 randomly selected samples (67.6%); 133/169 were positive with self-reported LFIA (sensitivity 78.7%; 95% CI 71.8, 84.6), 142/155 (91.6%; 86.1, 95.5) with ALFA, and 169 (100%; 97.8, 100.0) with ECLIA. There were 81 samples with no detectable virus neutralisation; 47/81 were negative with self-reported LFIA (specificity 58.0%; 95% CI 46.5, 68.9), 34/75 (45.3%; 33.8, 57.3) with ALFA, and 0/81 (0%; 0.0, 4.5) with ECLIA. CONCLUSIONS: Self-administered LFIA is less sensitive than a quantitative antibody test, but the positivity in LFIA correlates better than the quantitative ECLIA with virus neutralisation.

Awareness and perceptions of Long COVID among people in the REACT programme: Early insights from a pilot interview study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID is a patient-made term describing new or persistent symptoms experienced following SARS-CoV-2 infection. The Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission-Long COVID (REACT-LC) study aims to understand variation in experiences following infection, and to identify biological, social, and environmental factors associated with Long COVID. We undertook a pilot interview study to inform the design, recruitment approach, and topic guide for the REACT-LC qualitative study. We sought to gain initial insights into the experience and attribution of new or persistent symptoms and the awareness or perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. METHODS: People were invited to REACT-LC assessment centres if they had taken part in REACT, a random community-based prevalence study, and had a documented history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We invited people from REACT-LC assessment centres who had reported experiencing persistent symptoms for more than 12 weeks to take part in an interview. We conducted face to face and online semi-structured interviews which were transcribed and analysed using Thematic Analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 13 participants (6 female, 7 male, median age 31). Participants reported a wide variation in both new and persistent symptoms which were often fluctuating or unpredictable in nature. Some participants were confident about the link between their persistent symptoms and COVID-19; however, others were unclear about the underlying cause of symptoms or felt that the impact of public health measures (such as lockdowns) played a role. We found differences in awareness and perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. CONCLUSION: This pilot has informed the design, recruitment approach and topic guide for our qualitative study. It offers preliminary insights into the varied experiences of people living with persistent symptoms including differences in symptom attribution and perceived applicability of the term Long COVID. This variation shows the value of recruiting from a nationally representative sample of participants who are experiencing persistent symptoms.

Machine learning to support visual auditing of home-based lateral flow immunoassay self-test results for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Background: Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) are being used worldwide for COVID-19 mass testing and antibody prevalence studies. Relatively simple to use and low cost, these tests can be self-administered at home, but rely on subjective interpretation of a test line by eye, risking false positives and false negatives. Here, we report on the development of ALFA (Automated Lateral Flow Analysis) to improve reported sensitivity and specificity. Methods: Our computational pipeline uses machine learning, computer vision techniques and signal processing algorithms to analyse images of the Fortress LFIA SARS-CoV-2 antibody self-test, and subsequently classify results as invalid, IgG negative and IgG positive. A large image library of 595,339 participant-submitted test photographs was created as part of the REACT-2 community SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence study in England, UK. Alongside ALFA, we developed an analysis toolkit which could also detect device blood leakage issues. Results: Automated analysis showed substantial agreement with human experts (Cohen's kappa 0.90-0.97) and performed consistently better than study participants, particularly for weak positive IgG results. Specificity (98.7-99.4%) and sensitivity (90.1-97.1%) were high compared with visual interpretation by human experts (ranges due to the varying prevalence of weak positive IgG tests in datasets). Conclusions: Given the potential for LFIAs to be used at scale in the COVID-19 response (for both antibody and antigen testing), even a small improvement in the accuracy of the algorithms could impact the lives of millions of people by reducing the risk of false-positive and false-negative result read-outs by members of the public. Our findings support the use of machine learning-enabled automated reading of at-home antibody lateral flow tests as a tool for improved accuracy for population-level community surveillance.

Risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome after COVID-19 vaccination prior to the recognition of vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia and thrombosis: A self-controlled case series study in England.

Background: Several studies have found increased risks of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) following the ChAdOx1 vaccination. However, case ascertainment is often incomplete in large electronic health record (EHR)-based studies. Objectives: To assess for an association between clinically validated TTS and COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: We used the self-controlled case series method to assess the risks of clinically validated acute TTS after a first COVID-19 vaccine dose (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Case ascertainment was performed uninformed of vaccination status via a retrospective clinical review of hospital EHR systems, including active ascertainment of thrombocytopenia. Results: One hundred seventy individuals were admitted to the hospital for a TTS event at the study sites between January 1 and March 31, 2021. A significant increased risk (relative incidence [RI], 5.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-31.38) of TTS 4 to 27 days after ChAdOx1 was observed in the youngest age group (18- to 39-year-olds). No other period had a significant increase, although for ChAdOx1 for all ages combined the RI was >1 in the 4- to 27- and 28- to 41-day periods (RI, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.88-2.63; and (RI, 1.70; 95% CI, 0.73-3.8, respectively). There was no significant increased risk of TTS after BNT162b2 in any period. Increased risks of TTS following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test occurred across all age groups and exposure periods. Conclusions: We demonstrate an increased risk of TTS in the 4 to 27 days following COVID-19 vaccination, particularly for ChAdOx1. These risks were lower than following SARS-CoV-2 infection. An alternative vaccine may be preferable in younger age groups in whom the risk of postvaccine TTS is greatest.