How public health authorities can use pathogen genomics in health protection practice: a consensus-building Delphi study conducted in the United Kingdom.

Pathogen sequencing guided understanding of SARS-CoV-2 evolution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many health systems developed pathogen genomics services to monitor SARS-CoV-2. There are no agreed guidelines about how pathogen genomic information should be used in public health practice. We undertook a modified Delphi study in three rounds to develop expert consensus statements about how genomic information should be used. Our aim was to inform health protection policy, planning and practice. Participants were from organisations that produced or used pathogen genomics information in the United Kingdom. The first round posed questions derived from a rapid literature review. Responses informed statements for the subsequent rounds. Consensus was accepted when 70 % or more of the responses were strongly agree/agree, or 70 % were disagree/strongly disagree on the five-point Likert scale. Consensus was achieved in 26 (96 %) of 27 statements. We grouped the statements into six categories: monitoring the emergence of new variants; understanding the epidemiological context of genomic data; using genomic data in outbreak risk assessment and risk management; prioritising the use of limited sequencing capacity; sequencing service performance; and sequencing service capability. The expert consensus statements will help guide public health authorities and policymakers to integrate pathogen genomics in health protection practice.

Waning of first- and second-dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations: a pooled target trial study of 12.9 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been shown to provide protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and death. However, some evidence suggests that notable waning in effectiveness against these outcomes occurs within months of vaccination. We undertook a pooled analysis across the four nations of the UK to investigate waning in vaccine effectiveness (VE) and relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against severe COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a target trial design for first/second doses of ChAdOx1(Oxford-AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) with a composite outcome of COVID-19 hospitalization or death over the period 8 December 2020 to 30 June 2021. Exposure groups were matched by age, local authority area and propensity for vaccination. We pooled event counts across the four UK nations. RESULTS: For Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1 and Dose 1 of BNT162b2, VE/rVE reached zero by approximately Days 60-80 and then went negative. By Day 70, VE/rVE was -25% (95% CI: -80 to 14) and 10% (95% CI: -32 to 39) for Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1, respectively, and 42% (95% CI: 9 to 64) and 53% (95% CI: 26 to 70) for Doses 1 and 2 of BNT162b2, respectively. rVE for Dose 2 of BNT162b2 remained above zero throughout and reached 46% (95% CI: 13 to 67) after 98 days of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence of waning in VE/rVE for Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1, as well as Dose 1 of BNT162b2. This evidence may be used to inform policies on timings of additional doses of vaccine.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic disorders following COVID-19 vaccination and positive test: a self-controlled case series analysis in Wales.

There is a need for better understanding of the risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic disorders following first, second and booster vaccination doses and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Self-controlled cases series analysis of 2.1 million linked patient records in Wales between 7th December 2020 and 31st December 2021. Outcomes were the first diagnosis of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in primary or secondary care datasets, exposure was defined as 0-28 days post-vaccination or a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. 36,136 individuals experienced either a thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic or thromboembolic event during the study period. Relative to baseline, our observations show greater risk of outcomes in the periods post-first dose of BNT162b2 for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.47, 95%CI: 1.04-2.08) and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (IRR 2.80, 95%CI: 1.21-6.49) events; post-second dose of ChAdOx1 for arterial thrombosis (IRR 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.29); post-booster greater risk of venous thromboembolic (VTE) (IRR-Moderna 3.62, 95%CI: 0.99-13.17) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.39, 95%CI: 1.04-1.87) and arterial thrombosis (IRR-Moderna 3.14, 95%CI: 1.14-8.64) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.34, 95%CI: 1.15-1.58). Similarly, post SARS-CoV-2 infection the risk was increased for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15-1.92), VTE (IRR 5.63, 95%CI: 4.91, 6.4), arterial thrombosis (IRR 2.46, 95%CI: 2.22-2.71). We found that there was a measurable risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and infection.

Hepatitis of unknown aetiology in children - epidemiological overview of cases reported in Europe, 1 January to 16 June 2022.

Following the report of an excess in paediatric cases of severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology by the United Kingdom (UK) on 5 April 2022, 427 cases were reported from 20 countries in the World Health Organization European Region to the European Surveillance System TESSy from 1 January 2022 to 16 June 2022. Here, we analysed demographic, epidemiological, clinical and microbiological data available in TESSy. Of the reported cases, 77.3% were 5 years or younger and 53.5% had a positive test for adenovirus, 10.4% had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 10.3% were coinfected with both pathogens. Cases with adenovirus infections were significantly more likely to be admitted to intensive care or high-dependency units (OR = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.18-3.74) and transplanted (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.19-9.55) than cases with a negative test result for adenovirus, but this was no longer observed when looking at this association separately between the UK and other countries. Aetiological studies are needed to ascertain if adenovirus plays a role in this possible emergence of hepatitis cases in children and, if confirmed, the mechanisms that could be involved.

Variations in COVID-19 vaccination uptake among people in receipt of psychotropic drugs: cross-sectional analysis of a national population-based prospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has disproportionately affected people with mental health conditions. AIMS: We investigated the association between receiving psychotropic drugs, as an indicator of mental health conditions, and COVID-19 vaccine uptake. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort of the Northern Ireland adult population using national linked primary care registration, vaccination, secondary care and pharmacy dispensing data. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses investigated the association between anxiolytic, antidepressant, antipsychotic, and hypnotic use and COVID-19 vaccination status, accounting for age, gender, deprivation and comorbidities. Receiving any COVID-19 vaccine was the primary outcome. RESULTS: There were 1 433 814 individuals, of whom 1 166 917 received a COVID-19 vaccination. Psychotropic medications were dispensed to 267 049 people. In univariable analysis, people who received any psychotropic medication had greater odds of receiving COVID-19 vaccination: odds ratio (OR) = 1.42 (95% CI 1.41-1.44). However, after adjustment, psychotropic medication use was associated with reduced odds of vaccination (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.89-0.91). People who received anxiolytics (ORadj = 0.63, 95% CI 0.61-0.65), antipsychotics (ORadj = 0.75, 95% CI 0.73-0.78) and hypnotics (ORadj = 0.90, 95% CI 0.87-0.93) had reduced odds of being vaccinated. Antidepressant use was not associated with vaccination (ORadj = 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.03). CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly lower odds of vaccination in people who were receiving treatment with anxiolytic and antipsychotic medications. There is an urgent need for evidence-based, tailored vaccine support for people with mental health conditions.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake, effectiveness, and waning in 82,959 health care workers: A national prospective cohort study in Wales.

BACKGROUND: While population estimates suggest high vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, the protection for health care workers, who are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, is less understood. METHODS: We conducted a national cohort study of health care workers in Wales (UK) from 7 December 2020 to 30 September 2021. We examined uptake of any COVID-19 vaccine, and the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used linked and routinely collected national-scale data within the SAIL Databank. Data were available on 82,959 health care workers in Wales, with exposure extending to 26 weeks after second doses. RESULTS: Overall vaccine uptake was high (90%), with most health care workers receiving theBNT162b2 vaccine (79%). Vaccine uptake differed by age, staff role, socioeconomic status; those aged 50-59 and 60+ years old were 1.6 times more likely to get vaccinated than those aged 16-29. Medical and dental staff, and Allied Health Practitioners were 1.5 and 1.1 times more likely to get vaccinated, compared to nursing and midwifery staff. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was found to be strong and consistent across the characteristics considered; 52% three to six weeks after first dose, 86% from two weeks after second dose, though this declined to 53% from 22 weeks after the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: With some variation in rate of uptake, those who were vaccinated had a reduced risk of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those unvaccinated. Second dose has provided stronger protection for longer than first dose but our study is consistent with waning from seven weeks onwards.

Determinants of health behaviours intended to prevent spread of respiratory pathogens that have pandemic potential: A rapid review

Effective public health messages to encourage behaviours to reduce the spread of COVID-19 should be informed by existing research that identifies the factors that are associated with these preventive behaviours. This rapid review summarises the existing research on the determinants of behaviours that aim to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The review focuses on the body of research (excluding research conducted with health care workers) that was produced in the context of viruses other than SARS CoV-2 that cause severe respiratory illness and are transmitted in a similar way. A total of 58 published peer-reviewed studies included in the review were identified through searches of Medline, Embase, PsychInfo and CINAHL. Most were conducted in the context of the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in 2009. Most studies examined the determinants of wearing a face covering, handwashing and social or physical distancing. The findings suggest that public health messages to encourage preventive behaviours should emphasise the potential seriousness of COVID-19 to elicit appropriate concern, strengthen perceptions of risk or threat from COVID-19, enhance self-efficacy about preventive behaviours, and improve knowledge about SARS-CoV-2, how it is transmitted, and how preventive behaviours can reduce the risk of transmission.

The role of viral genomics in understanding COVID-19 outbreaks in long-term care facilities.

We reviewed all genomic epidemiology studies on COVID-19 in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) that had been published to date. We found that staff and residents were usually infected with identical, or near identical, SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Outbreaks usually involved one predominant cluster, and the same lineages persisted in LTCFs despite infection control measures. Outbreaks were most commonly due to single or few introductions followed by a spread rather than a series of seeding events from the community into LTCFs. The sequencing of samples taken consecutively from the same individuals at the same facilities showed the persistence of the same genome sequence, indicating that the sequencing technique was robust over time. When combined with local epidemiology, genomics allowed probable transmission sources to be better characterised. The transmission between LTCFs was detected in multiple studies. The mortality rate among residents was high in all facilities, regardless of the lineage. Bioinformatics methods were inadequate in a third of the studies reviewed, and reproducing the analyses was difficult because sequencing data were not available in many facilities.

Association between community-based self-reported COVID-19 symptoms and social deprivation explored using symptom tracker apps: a repeated cross-sectional study in Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the spatial and temporal relationships between the prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms in the community-level and area-level social deprivation. DESIGN: Spatial mapping, generalised linear models, using time as a factor and spatial-lag models were used to explore the relationship between self-reported COVID-19 symptom prevalence as recorded through two smartphone symptom tracker apps and a range of socioeconomic factors using a repeated cross-sectional study design. SETTING: In the community in Northern Ireland, UK. The analysis period included the earliest stages of non-pharmaceutical interventions and societal restrictions or 'lockdown' in 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Users of two smartphone symptom tracker apps recording self-reported health information who recorded their location as Northern Ireland, UK. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Population standardised self-reported COVID-19 symptoms and correlation between population standardised self-reported COVID-19 symptoms and area-level characteristics from measures of multiple deprivation including employment levels and population housing density, derived as the mean number of residents per household for each census super output area. RESULTS: Higher self-reported prevalence of COVID-19 symptoms was associated with the most deprived areas (p<0.001) and with those areas with the lowest employment levels (p<0.001). Higher rates of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms within the age groups, 18-24 and 25-34 years were found within the most deprived areas during the earliest stages of non-pharmaceutical interventions and societal restrictions ('lockdown'). CONCLUSIONS: Through spatial regression of self-reporting COVID-19 smartphone data in the community, this research shows how a lens of social deprivation can deepen our understanding of COVID-19 transmission and prevention. Our findings indicate that social inequality, as measured by area-level deprivation, is associated with disparities in potential COVID-19 infection, with higher prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 symptoms in urban areas associated with area-level social deprivation, housing density and age.

Role of systems science in preventing and controlling emerging infectious diseases: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: In recent history, many new infectious diseases have affected humans for the first time or have appeared in previously unaffected areas of the world; these diseases are known as emerging infectious diseases (EIDs). Examples of EIDs include COVID-19, Middle East respiratory syndrome and Ebola virus disease. EIDs are known for their complexity. Multiple factors play a role in their spread, including increases in human population, conflicts, urbanisation, air travel, global trade and inequalities in wealth distribution and access to healthcare. In order to gain a better understanding of such complexity, we aim to explore the role of systems science, which allows us to view EIDs in the context of complex adaptive systems rather than simple causes and effects. The objectives of this scoping review are to explore and map the theoretical concepts and key characteristics of studies that use systems methods in controlling EIDs, to identify the gaps in knowledge and disseminate the results. METHODS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for this scoping review, comprising the following stages: formulating the research question and subquestions, scanning the literature for available data, selecting relevant publications, charting the data by two independent reviewers, aggregating the findings, reporting, summarising and disseminating the results. We will review peer-reviewed articles, preprints and grey literature available in all languages. DISCUSSION: We intend that this scoping review will contribute to a better understanding of the use of systems methods to inform policymakers about how to prevent and control EIDs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval is not required for a scoping review because it is based on reviewing and collecting data from publicly available sources. To disseminate the findings, results will be shared through academic publications, seminars and conferences.

Development of a core outcome set for clinical trials aimed at improving antimicrobial stewardship in care homes.

BACKGROUND: Diverse outcomes reported in clinical trials of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions in care homes have hindered evidence synthesis. Our main objective was to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes. METHODS: A refined inventory of outcomes for AMS interventions in care homes, compiled from a previous study, was rated in a three-round international Delphi survey with 82 participants, using a nine-point Likert scale (from 1, unimportant, to 9, critical). This was followed by an online consensus exercise with 12 participants from Northern Ireland to finalise the COS content. Subsequently, a suitable outcome measurement instrument (OMI) was selected for each outcome in the COS by: identifying existing OMIs through a literature search and experts' suggestions, assessing the quality of OMIs, and selecting one OMI for each core outcome via a two-round international Delphi survey with 59 participants. RESULTS: Of 14 outcomes initially presented, consensus was reached for inclusion of five outcomes in the COS after the three-round Delphi survey and the online consensus exercise, comprising the total number of antimicrobial courses prescribed, appropriateness of antimicrobial prescribing, days of therapy per 1000 resident-days, rate of antimicrobial resistance, and mortality related to infection. Of 17 potential OMIs identified, three were selected for the two-round Delphi exercise after the quality assessment. Consensus was reached for selection of two OMIs for the COS. CONCLUSION: This COS is recommended to be used in clinical trials aimed at improving AMS in care homes.