Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 43
Filter
1.
Influenza Other Respir Viruses ; 17(5): e13150, 2023 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20236565

ABSTRACT

There are concerns that sotrovimab has reduced efficacy at reducing hospitalisation risk against the BA.2 sub-lineage of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. We performed a retrospective cohort (n = 8850) study of individuals treated with sotrovimab in the community, with the objective of assessing whether there were any differences in risk of hospitalisation of BA.2 cases compared with BA.1. We estimated that the hazard ratio of hospital admission with a length of stay of 2 days or more was 1.17 for BA.2 compared with BA.1 (95%CI 0.74-1.86). These results suggest that the risk of hospital admission was similar between the two sub-lineages.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , England/epidemiology
2.
Influenza and other respiratory viruses ; 17(4), 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2304700

ABSTRACT

Background The COVID‐19 pandemic has had disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations including those with learning disabilities. Assessing the incidence and risk of death in such settings can improve the prevention of COVID‐19. We describe individuals who tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐2 while residing in care homes for learning disabilities and/or autism and investigate the risk of death compared with individuals living in their own homes. Methods Surveillance records for COVID‐19 infections in England from 02 February 2020 to 31 March 2022 were extracted. Data on property type, variant wave, vaccination, hospitalisation and death were derived through data linkage and enrichment. Care home residents with learning disabilities and/or autism and diagnosed with COVID‐19 were identified and analysed, and logistic regression analyses compared the risk of death of individuals living in private residence. We assessed interaction parameters by post‐estimation analyses. Results A total of 3501 individuals were identified as diagnosed with SARS‐CoV‐2 whilst living in 632 care home properties for learning disabilities and/or autism. Of the 3686 episodes of infection, 80.4% were part of an outbreak. The crude case fatality rate was 2.6% and 0.6% among care home residents with autism and/or learning disabilities and their counterparts in households, respectively. The post‐estimation analyses found over eight times the odds of death among care home residents in 60 years old compared with their counterparts living in private homes. Conclusions Care home residents with learning disabilities and/or autism have a greater risk of death from COVID‐19. Optimising guidance to meet their needs is of great importance.

3.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 29(1): 127-132, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2306282

ABSTRACT

A single SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose reduces onward transmission from case-patients. We assessed the potential effects of receiving 2 doses on household transmission for case-patients in England and their household contacts. We used stratified Cox regression models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for contacts becoming secondary case-patients, comparing contacts of 2-dose vaccinated and unvaccinated index case-patients. We controlled for age, sex, and vaccination status of case-patients and contacts, as well as region, household composition, and relative socioeconomic condition based on household location. During the Alpha-dominant period, HRs were 0.19 (0.13-0.28) for contacts of 2-dose BNT162b2-vaccinated case-patients and 0.54 (0.41-0.69) for contacts of 2-dose Ch4dOx1-vaccinated case-patients; during the Delta-dominant period, HRs were higher, 0.74 (0.72-0.76) for BNT162b2 and 1.06 (1.04-1.08) for Ch4dOx1. Reduction of onward transmission was lower for index case-patients who tested positive ≥2 months after the second dose of either vaccine.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , BNT162 Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , England/epidemiology
5.
N Engl J Med ; 385(7): 585-594, 2021 08 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2251957

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to a surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against this variant has been unclear. METHODS: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain (B.1.1.7, or alpha variant) over the period that the delta variant began circulating. Variants were identified with the use of sequencing and on the basis of the spike (S) gene status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of Covid-19 in England were used to estimate the proportion of cases with either variant according to the patients' vaccination status. RESULTS: Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations. (Funded by Public Health England.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Vaccine Potency , Young Adult
6.
Epidemiol Infect ; 151: e58, 2023 03 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2249126

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) rapidly replaced Delta (B.1.617.2) to become dominant in England. Our study assessed differences in transmission between Omicron and Delta using two independent data sources and methods. Omicron and Delta cases were identified through genomic sequencing, genotyping and S-gene target failure in England from 5-11 December 2021. Secondary attack rates for named contacts were calculated in household and non-household settings using contact tracing data, while household clustering was identified using national surveillance data. Logistic regression models were applied to control for factors associated with transmission for both methods. For contact tracing data, higher secondary attack rates for Omicron vs. Delta were identified in households (15.0% vs. 10.8%) and non-households (8.2% vs. 3.7%). For both variants, in household settings, onward transmission was reduced from cases and named contacts who had three doses of vaccine compared to two, but this effect was less pronounced for Omicron (adjusted risk ratio, aRR 0.78 and 0.88) than Delta (aRR 0.62 and 0.68). In non-household settings, a similar reduction was observed only in contacts who had three doses vs. two doses for both Delta (aRR 0.51) and Omicron (aRR 0.76). For national surveillance data, the risk of household clustering, was increased 3.5-fold for Omicron compared to Delta (aRR 3.54 (3.29-3.81)). Our study identified increased risk of onward transmission of Omicron, consistent with its successful global displacement of Delta. We identified a reduced effectiveness of vaccination in lowering risk of transmission, a likely contributor for the rapid propagation of Omicron.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , England/epidemiology
7.
Epidemiol Infect ; 151: e51, 2023 02 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2253725

ABSTRACT

Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) or rough sleeping are a vulnerable population, likely to be disproportionately affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 infection on this population is yet to be fully described in England. We present a novel method to identify COVID-19 cases in this population and describe its findings. A phenotype was developed and validated to identify PEH or rough sleeping in a national surveillance system. Confirmed COVID-19 cases in England from March 2020 to March 2022 were address-matched to known homelessness accommodations and shelters. Further cases were identified using address-based indicators, such as NHS pseudo postcodes. In total, 1835 cases were identified by the phenotype. Most were <39 years of age (66.8%) and male (62.8%). The proportion of cases was highest in London (29.8%). The proportion of cases of a minority ethnic background and deaths were disproportionality greater in this population, compared to all COVID-19 cases in England. This methodology provides an approach to track the impact of COVID-19 on a subset of this population and will be relevant to policy making. Future surveillance systems and studies may benefit from this approach to further investigate the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases on select populations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ill-Housed Persons , Male , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , England/epidemiology , London
8.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 1915, 2022 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2079405

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: From 12th March 2020, individuals in England were advised to quarantine in their home if a household member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A mandatory isolation period of 10 days was introduced on 28th September 2020 and applied to all individuals with COVID-19. We assessed the frequency, timing, and characteristics of recovered COVID-19 cases requiring subsequent quarantine episodes due to household re-exposure. METHODS: In this case cohort study, all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases notified in England (29th June to 28th December 2020) were analysed to identify consecutive household case(s). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associations between case characteristics and need to quarantine following recent infection (within 28 days of diagnosis). RESULTS: Among 1,651,550 cases resident in private dwellings and Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs), 744,548 (45.1%) were the only case in their home and 56,179 (3.4%) were succeeded by further household cases diagnosed within 11-28 days of their diagnosis. Of 1,641,412 cases arising in private homes, the likelihood of further household cases was highest for Bangladeshi (aOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 2.10-2.31) and Pakistani (aOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 2.08-2.22) individuals compared to White British, as well as among young people (17-24y vs. 25-64y; aOR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.16-1.22), men (vs. women; aOR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.04-1.08), London residents (vs. Yorkshire and Humber; aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.52-1.63) and areas of high deprivation (IMD 1 vs. 10; aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.19). CONCLUSION: Policies requiring quarantine on re-exposure differentially impact some of the most disadvantaged populations. Quarantine exemption for recently recovered individuals could mitigate the socioeconomic impact of responses to COVID-19 or similar infectious disease outbreaks.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Quarantine , Adolescent , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Policy , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Nature ; 610(7930): 154-160, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1991629

ABSTRACT

The SARS-CoV-2 Delta (Pango lineage B.1.617.2) variant of concern spread globally, causing resurgences of COVID-19 worldwide1,2. The emergence of the Delta variant in the UK occurred on the background of a heterogeneous landscape of immunity and relaxation of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Here we analyse 52,992 SARS-CoV-2 genomes from England together with 93,649 genomes from the rest of the world to reconstruct the emergence of Delta and quantify its introduction to and regional dissemination across England in the context of changing travel and social restrictions. Using analysis of human movement, contact tracing and virus genomic data, we find that the geographic focus of the expansion of Delta shifted from India to a more global pattern in early May 2021. In England, Delta lineages were introduced more than 1,000 times and spread nationally as non-pharmaceutical interventions were relaxed. We find that hotel quarantine for travellers reduced onward transmission from importations; however, the transmission chains that later dominated the Delta wave in England were seeded before travel restrictions were introduced. Increasing inter-regional travel within England drove the nationwide dissemination of Delta, with some cities receiving more than 2,000 observable lineage introductions from elsewhere. Subsequently, increased levels of local population mixing-and not the number of importations-were associated with the faster relative spread of Delta. The invasion dynamics of Delta depended on spatial heterogeneity in contact patterns, and our findings will inform optimal spatial interventions to reduce the transmission of current and future variants of concern, such as Omicron (Pango lineage B.1.1.529).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Cities/epidemiology , Contact Tracing , England/epidemiology , Genome, Viral/genetics , Humans , Quarantine/legislation & jurisprudence , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/growth & development , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Travel/legislation & jurisprudence
11.
Epidemiology ; 33(4): 465-469, 2022 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1886469

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The emergence of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) B.1.1.7 variant in England in 2020 and subsequent global spread emphasized the need to understand epidemiologic characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 variants. A diagnostic proxy for this variant, referred to as S-gene target failure, provided a rich dataset to assess transmissibility of the variant in an analysis of clustering in residential settings. METHODS: We used a pair-matched case-control study design to estimate odds of onward transmission within households with S-gene target failure index cases versus nontarget failure index cases. We defined cases as the index in a household cluster (clustered case) and controls as a case with no subsequent household cluster (sporadic). We matched clustered and sporadic cases one-to-one on specimen week, geography, and property type. We used conditional logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, and symptom status, to assess odds of residential clustering. RESULTS: Our study population comprised 57,244 individuals with specimen dates from 23 November 2020 to 4 January 2021. Crude analysis yielded 54% increased odds (odds ratio [OR] = 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5, 1.6) of residential clustering associated with S-gene target failure; the association remained in the fully adjusted model (OR = 1.6, 95% CI = 1.5, 1.6). Stratified analyses by region showed increased odds of residential clustering associated with target failure in all regions apart from the Southwest, where we observed lower precision. Similar adjusted odds ratios with precise confidence intervals remained in stratified analyses by property category. CONCLUSION: We observed increased odds in all property types, consistent with greater transmissibility of the B.1.1.7 variant in this high-risk setting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Case-Control Studies , Cluster Analysis , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
12.
Emerg Infect Dis ; 28(7): 1366-1374, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1875359

ABSTRACT

Each September in England, ≈1 million students relocate to study at universities. To determine COVID-19 cases and outbreaks among university students after their return to university during the COVID pandemic in September 2020, we identified students with COVID-19 (student case-patients) by reviewing contact tracing records identifying attendance at university and residence in student accommodations identified by matching case-patients' residential addresses with national property databases. We determined COVID-19 rates in towns/cities with and without a university campus. We identified 53,430 student case-patients during September 1-December 31, 2020, which accounted for 2.7% of all cases during this period. Student case-patients increased rapidly after the start of the term, driven initially by cases and outbreaks in student accommodations. Case rates among students 18-23 years of age doubled at the start of term in towns with universities. Our findings highlight the need for face-to-face and control measures to reduce virus transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Students , Universities
13.
Euro Surveill ; 27(15)2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1869325

ABSTRACT

BackgroundHouseholds appear to be the highest risk setting for COVID-19 transmission. Large household transmission studies in the early stages of the pandemic in Asia reported secondary attack rates ranging from 5 to 30%.AimWe aimed to investigate the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in household and community settings in the UK.MethodsA prospective case-ascertained study design based on the World Health Organization FFX protocol was undertaken in the UK following the detection of the first case in late January 2020. Household contacts of cases were followed using enhanced surveillance forms to establish whether they developed symptoms of COVID-19, became confirmed cases and their outcomes. We estimated household secondary attack rates (SAR), serial intervals and individual and household basic reproduction numbers. The incubation period was estimated using known point source exposures that resulted in secondary cases.ResultsWe included 233 households with two or more people with 472 contacts. The overall household SAR was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%) with a mean serial interval of 4.67 days, an R0 of 1.85 and a household reproduction number of 2.33. SAR were lower in larger households and highest when the primary case was younger than 18 years. We estimated a mean incubation period of around 4.5 days.ConclusionsRates of COVID-19 household transmission were high in the UK for ages above and under 18 years, emphasising the need for preventative measures in this setting. This study highlights the importance of the FFX protocol in providing early insights on transmission dynamics.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Family Characteristics , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
14.
Euro Surveill ; 27(20)2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862539

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant in England coincided with a rapid increase in the number of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases in areas where the variant was concentrated.AimOur aim was to assess whether infection with Alpha was associated with more severe clinical outcomes than the wild type.MethodsLaboratory-confirmed infections with genomically sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and wild type between October and December 2020 were linked to routine healthcare and surveillance datasets. We conducted two statistical analyses to compare the risk of hospital admission and death within 28 days of testing between Alpha and wild-type infections: a matched cohort study and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. We assessed differences in disease severity by comparing hospital admission and mortality, including length of hospitalisation and time to death.ResultsOf 63,609 COVID-19 cases sequenced in England between October and December 2020, 6,038 had the Alpha variant. In the matched cohort analysis, we matched 2,821 cases with Alpha to 2,821 to cases with wild type. In the time-to-event analysis, we observed a 34% increased risk in hospitalisation associated with Alpha compared with wild type, but no significant difference in the risk of mortality.ConclusionWe found evidence of increased risk of hospitalisation after adjusting for key confounders, suggesting increased infection severity associated with the Alpha variant. Rapid assessments of the relative morbidity in terms of clinical outcomes and mortality associated with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants compared with dominant variants are required to assess overall impact of SARS-CoV-2 mutations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , England/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
15.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e962-e973, 2022 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1852990

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to quantify the unknown losses in health-related quality of life of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases using quality-adjusted lifedays (QALDs) and the recommended EQ-5D instrument in England. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of nonhospitalized, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive (SARS-CoV-2-positive) cases aged 12-85 years and followed up for 6 months from 1 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. Main outcomes were QALD losses; physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analyzed results using multivariable regressions with post hoc weighting by age and sex, and conditional logistic regressions for the association of each symptom and EQ-5D limitation on cases and controls. RESULTS: Of 548 cases (mean age 41.1 years; 61.5% female), 16.8% reported physical symptoms at month 6 (most frequently extreme tiredness, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, and shortness of breath). Cases reported more limitations with doing usual activities than controls. Almost half of cases spent a mean of £18.1 on nonprescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7, 17.7) QALDs, whereas those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 32.9 (95% CI: 24.5, 37.6) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 18% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in the England. CONCLUSIONS: One in 6 cases report ongoing symptoms at 6 months, and 10% report prolonged loss of function compared to pre-COVID-19 baselines. A marked health burden was observed among older COVID-19 cases and those with persistent physical symptoms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life
16.
Lancet Child Adolesc Health ; 6(5): e16-e17, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764068
17.
J Infect Dis ; 226(5): 808-811, 2022 09 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1758754

ABSTRACT

To investigate if the AY.4.2 sublineage of the SARS-CoV-2 delta variant is associated with hospitalization and mortality risks that differ from non-AY.4.2 delta risks, we performed a retrospective cohort study of sequencing-confirmed COVID-19 cases in England based on linkage of routine health care datasets. Using stratified Cox regression, we estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of hospital admission (aHR = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], .77-.94), hospital admission or emergency care attendance (aHR = 0.87; 95% CI, .81-.94), and COVID-19 mortality (aHR = 0.85; 95% CI, .71-1.03). The results indicate that the risks of hospitalization and mortality are similar or lower for AY.4.2 compared to cases with other delta sublineages.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitalization , Humans , Retrospective Studies
18.
Lancet ; 399(10332): 1303-1312, 2022 04 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1740323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort. METHODS: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases). FINDINGS: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54-0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39-0·43) and 0·31 (0·26-0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85-1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21-0·30) in 60-69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40-0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32-0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06-0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88-1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48-0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28-0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20-0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , England/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
19.
N Engl J Med ; 386(16): 1532-1546, 2022 04 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1730372

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases due to the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in highly vaccinated populations has aroused concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines. METHODS: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and after a booster dose of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273. RESULTS: Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67.8) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency.).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Vaccine Efficacy , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273/therapeutic use , BNT162 Vaccine/therapeutic use , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Case-Control Studies , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/therapeutic use , Humans , Immunization, Secondary/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
20.
N Engl J Med ; 386(4): 340-350, 2022 01 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621313

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have been used since December 2020 in the United Kingdom. Real-world data have shown the vaccines to be highly effective against Covid-19 and related severe disease and death. Vaccine effectiveness may wane over time since the receipt of the second dose of the ChAdOx1-S (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and BNT162b2 vaccines. METHODS: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 and related hospitalization and death in England. Effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines was assessed according to participant age and status with regard to coexisting conditions and over time since receipt of the second vaccine dose to investigate waning of effectiveness separately for the B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants. RESULTS: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 with the delta variant peaked in the early weeks after receipt of the second dose and then decreased by 20 weeks to 44.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.2 to 45.4) with the ChAdOx1-S vaccine and to 66.3% (95% CI, 65.7 to 66.9) with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was greater in persons 65 years of age or older than in those 40 to 64 years of age. At 20 weeks or more after vaccination, vaccine effectiveness decreased less against both hospitalization, to 80.0% (95% CI, 76.8 to 82.7) with the ChAdOx1-S vaccine and 91.7% (95% CI, 90.2 to 93.0) with the BNT162b2 vaccine, and death, to 84.8% (95% CI, 76.2 to 90.3) and 91.9% (95% CI, 88.5 to 94.3), respectively. Greater waning in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was observed in persons 65 years of age or older in a clinically extremely vulnerable group and in persons 40 to 64 years of age with underlying medical conditions than in healthy adults. CONCLUSIONS: We observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19-related hospitalization and death at 20 weeks or more after vaccination with two doses of the ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2 vaccine. Waning was greater in older adults and in those in a clinical risk group.


Subject(s)
BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Vaccine Efficacy , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/virology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Immunization, Secondary , Immunogenicity, Vaccine , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acuity , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Time Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL