Clinical Characteristics and Predictors of Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a Multiethnic London National Health Service Trust: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Detailed clinical analyses of multicultural hospitalized patient cohorts remain largely undescribed. METHODS: We performed regression, survival, and cumulative competing risk analyses to evaluate factors associated with mortality in patients admitted for COVID-19 in 3 large London hospitals between 25 February and 5 April, censored as of 1 May 2020. RESULTS: Of 614 patients (median age, 69 [interquartile range, 25] years) and 62% male), 381 (62%) were discharged alive, 178 (29%) died, and 55 (9%) remained hospitalized at censoring. Severe hypoxemia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.25 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 2.36-7.64]), leukocytosis (aOR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.35-4.11]), thrombocytopenia (aOR [1.01, 95% CI, 1.00-1.01], increase per 109 decrease), severe renal impairment (aOR, 5.14 [95% CI, 2.65-9.97]), and low albumin (aOR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.02-1.09], increase per gram decrease) were associated with death. Forty percent (n = 244) were from black, Asian, and other minority ethnic (BAME) groups, 38% (n = 235) were white, and ethnicity was unknown for 22% (n = 135). BAME patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities. Although the unadjusted odds of death did not differ by ethnicity, when adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, black patients were at higher odds of death compared to whites (aOR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.00-2.86]). This association was stronger when further adjusting for admission severity (aOR, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.06-3.24]). CONCLUSIONS: BAME patients were overrepresented in our cohort; when accounting for demographic and clinical profile of admission, black patients were at increased odds of death. Further research is needed into biologic drivers of differences in COVID-19 outcomes by ethnicity.

Prevalence of antibody positivity to SARS-CoV-2 following the first peak of infection in England: Serial cross-sectional studies of 365,000 adults.

BACKGROUND: The time-concentrated nature of the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in England in March and April 2020 provides a natural experiment to measure changes in antibody positivity at the population level before onset of the second wave and initiation of the vaccination programme. METHODS: Three cross-sectional national surveys with non-overlapping random samples of the population in England undertaken between late June and September 2020 (REACT-2 study). 365,104 adults completed questionnaires and self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests for IgG against SARS-CoV-2. FINDINGS: Overall, 17,576 people had detectable antibodies, a prevalence of 4.9% (95% confidence intervals 4.9, 5.0) when adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England. The prevalence declined from 6.0% (5.8, 6.1), to 4.8% (4.7, 5.0) and 4.4% (4.3, 4.5), over the three rounds of the study a difference of -26.5% (-29.0, -23.8). The highest prevalence and smallest overall decline in positivity was in the youngest age group (18-24 years) at -14.9% (-21.6, -8.1), and lowest prevalence and largest decline in the oldest group (>74 years) at -39.0% (-50.8, -27.2). The decline from June to September 2020 was largest in those who did not report a history of COVID-19 at -64.0% (-75.6, -52.3), compared to -22.3% (-27.0, -17.7) in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed on PCR. INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of the population remained susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in England based on naturally acquired immunity from the first wave. Widespread vaccination is needed to confer immunity and control the epidemic at population level. FUNDING: This work was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care in England.

SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for possible use in national covid-19 seroprevalence surveys (React 2): diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Sensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing. INTERVENTIONS: Laboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs. CONCLUSIONS: One new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.

REACT-2 Round 5: increasing prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies demonstrate impact of the second wave and of vaccine roll-out in England (preprint)

Abstract Background England has experienced high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic, affecting in particular minority ethnic groups and more deprived communities. A vaccination programme began in England in December 2020, with priority given to administering the first dose to the largest number of older individuals, healthcare and care home workers. Methods A cross-sectional community survey in England undertaken between 26 January and 8 February 2021 as the fifth round of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) programme. Participants completed questionnaires, including demographic details and clinical and COVID-19 vaccination histories, and self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test to detect IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. There were sufficient numbers of participants to analyse antibody positivity after 21 days from vaccination with the PfizerBioNTech but not the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine which was introduced slightly later. Results The survey comprised 172,099 people, with valid IgG antibody results from 155,172. The overall prevalence of antibodies (weighted to be representative of the population of England and adjusted for test sensitivity and specificity) in England was 13.9% (95% CI 13.7, 14.1) overall, 37.9% (37.2, 38.7) in vaccinated and 9.8% (9.6, 10.0) in unvaccinated people. The prevalence of antibodies (weighted) in unvaccinated people was highest in London at 16.9% (16.3, 17.5), and higher in people of Black (22.4%, 20.8, 24.1) and Asian (20.0%, 19.0, 21.0) ethnicity compared to white (8.5%, 8.3, 8.7) people. The uptake of vaccination by age was highest in those aged 80 years or older (93.5%). Vaccine confidence was high with 92.0% (91.9, 92.1) of people saying that they had accepted or intended to accept the offer. Vaccine confidence varied by age and ethnicity, with lower confidence in young people and those of Black ethnicity. Particular concerns were identified around pregnancy, fertility and allergies. In 971 individuals who received two doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the proportion testing positive was high across all age groups. Following a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine after 21 days or more, 84.1% (82.2, 85.9) of people under 60 years tested positive (unadjusted) with a decreasing trend with increasing age, but high responses to a single dose in those with confirmed or suspected prior COVID at 90.1% (87.2, 92.4) across all age groups. Conclusions There is uneven distribution of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population with a higher burden in key workers and some minority ethnic groups, similar to the pattern in the first wave. Confidence in the vaccine programme is high overall although it was lower in some of the higher prevalence groups which suggests the need for improved communication about specific perceived risks. Two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, or a single dose following previous infection, confers high levels of antibody positivity across all ages. Further work is needed to understand the relationship between antibody positivity, clinical outcomes such as hospitalisation, and transmission.

Characteristics and outcomes of clinically diagnosed RT-PCR swab negative COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study.

Patients with strong clinical features of COVID-19 with negative real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) SARS-CoV-2 testing are not currently included in official statistics. The scale, characteristics and clinical relevance of this group are not well described. We performed a retrospective cohort study in two large London hospitals to characterize the demographic, clinical, and hospitalization outcome characteristics of swab-negative clinical COVID-19 patients. We found 1 in 5 patients with a negative swab and clinical suspicion of COVID-19 received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 within clinical documentation, discharge summary or death certificate. We compared this group to a similar swab positive cohort and found similar demographic composition, symptomology and laboratory findings. Swab-negative clinical COVID-19 patients had better outcomes, with shorter length of hospital stay, reduced need for > 60% supplementary oxygen and reduced mortality. Patients with strong clinical features of COVID-19 that are swab-negative are a common clinical challenge. Health systems must recognize and plan for the management of swab-negative patients in their COVID-19 clinical management, infection control policies and epidemiological assessments.

In-hospital mortality is associated with inflammatory response in NAFLD patients admitted for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although metabolic risk factors are associated with more severe COVID-19, there is little evidence on outcomes in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We here describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of NAFLD patients in a cohort hospitalised for COVID-19. METHODS: This study included all consecutive patients admitted for COVID-19 between February and April 2020 at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, with either imaging of the liver available dated within one year from the admission or a known diagnosis of NAFLD. Clinical data and early weaning score (EWS) were recorded. NAFLD diagnosis was based on imaging or past medical history and patients were stratified for Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index. Clinical endpoints were admission to intensive care unit (ICU)and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 561 patients were admitted. Overall, 193 patients were included in the study. Fifty nine patients (30%) died, 9 (5%) were still in hospital, and 125 (65%) were discharged. The NAFLD cohort (n = 61) was significantly younger (60 vs 70.5 years, p = 0.046) at presentation compared to the non-NAFLD (n = 132). NAFLD diagnosis was not associated with adverse outcomes. However, the NAFLD group had higher C reactive protein (CRP) (107 vs 91.2 mg/L, p = 0.05) compared to non-NAFLD(n = 132). Among NAFLD patients, male gender (p = 0.01), ferritin (p = 0.003) and EWS (p = 0.047) were associated with in-hospital mortality, while the presence of intermediate/high risk FIB-4 or liver cirrhosis was not. CONCLUSION: The presence of NAFLD per se was not associated with worse outcomes in patients hospitalised for COVID-19. Though NAFLD patients were younger on admission, disease stage was not associated with clinical outcomes. Yet, mortality was associated with gender and a pronounced inflammatory response in the NAFLD group.

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. METHODS: Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. FINDINGS: 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). INTERPRETATION: LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.