ABSTRACT
Background The protection of fourth dose mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is relevant to current global policy decisions regarding ongoing booster roll-out. We estimate the effect of fourth dose vaccination, prior infection, and duration of PCR positivity in a highly-vaccinated and largely prior-COVID-19 infected cohort of UK healthcare workers. Methods Participants underwent fortnightly PCR and regular antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 and completed symptoms questionnaires. A multi-state model was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection from a fourth dose compared to a waned third dose, with protection from prior infection and duration of PCR positivity jointly estimated. Results 1,298 infections were detected among 9,560 individuals under active follow-up between September 2022 and March 2023. Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose VE was 13.1% (95%CI 0.9 to 23.8) overall; 24.0% (95%CI 8.5 to 36.8) in the first two months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% (95%CI -11.4 to 27.8) and 1.7% (95%CI -17.0 to 17.4) at 2-4 and 4-6 months, respectively. Relative to an infection >2 years ago and controlling for vaccination, 63.6% (95%CI 46.9 to 75.0) and 29.1% (95%CI 3.8 to 43.1) greater protection against infection was estimated for an infection within the past 0-6, and 6-12 months, respectively. A fourth dose was associated with greater protection against asymptomatic infection than symptomatic infection, whilst prior infection independently provided more protection against symptomatic infection, particularly if the infection had occurred within the previous 6 months. Duration of PCR positivity was significantly lower for asymptomatic compared to symptomatic infection. Conclusions Despite rapid waning of protection, vaccine boosters remain an important tool in responding to the dynamic COVID-19 landscape; boosting population immunity in advance of periods of anticipated pressure, such as surging infection rates or emerging variants of concern. Funding UK Health Security Agency, Medical Research Council, NIHR HPRU Oxford, and others.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
IntroductionDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, extensive research was conducted on SARS-CoV-2, however important questions about other respiratory pathogens remain unanswered. A severe influenza season in 2022-2023 with simultaneous circulation of SARS-CoV2 and Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) is anticipated. This sub-study aims to determine the incidence and impact of these respiratory viruses on healthcare workers (HCW), the symptoms they experienced, the effectiveness of both COVID-19 and influenza vaccination and the burden of these infections on the National Health Service (NHS) workforce. Methods and analysisThis is a longitudinal prospective cohort sub-study, utilising the population and infrastructure of SIREN, which focuses on hospital staff in the UK. Participants undergo fortnightly Nucleic Acid Amplification Testing (NAAT) on a multiplex assay including SARS-CoV-2, Influenza A&B and RSV, regardless of symptoms. Questionnaires are completed every two weeks, capturing symptoms, sick days, exposures, and vaccination records. Serum samples are collected monthly or quarterly from participants associated with a SIREN site. This sub-study commenced on 28/11/22 to align with the predicted influenza season and participants influenza vaccine status. The SIREN Participant Involvement Panel (PIP) shaped the aims and methods for the study, highlighting its acceptability. UK Devolved Administrations were supported to develop local protocols. Analysis plans include incidence of asymptomatic and symptomatic infection, comparisons of vaccination coverage; assessment of sick day burden, and effectiveness of seasonal influenza against infection and time off work. Data are also integrated into UKHSA nosocomial modelling. Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID 284460, REC Reference 20SC0230) on 14/11/2022. Participants were informed in advance. As the frequency and method of sampling remained the same, implied consent processes were approved by the committee. Participants returning to the study give informed consent. Regular reports to advisory groups and peer-reviewed publications are planned to disseminate findings and inform decision making. Trial registration number: ISRCTN11041050. Strengths and limitations of this study- The positioning of this sub-study, led by public health agencies in collaboration with a network of NHS sites, facilitates horizon scanning enabling rapid adaptation of the study protocol and deployment to conduct relevant scientific research in a cohort of healthcare workers - To achieve target recruitment, deployment of a new postal pathway is underway, allowing for more direct communication between the central research team and participants - The multi-disciplinary partnerships including a network of academic centres established and embedded by SIREN can now be leveraged and extended to explore Flu and RSV - Decentralised study delivery, with testing at a network of NHS sites has both strengths and limitations. This includes enabling more in-depth relationships and communications between participants and their local research teams, however, introduce additional communication, governance, and data sharing requirements. - Some demographics are over-represented such as female staff, nurses and doctors, and some are under-represented such as staff from ethnic minorities, porters and estates. This is partly the consequence of a rapid recruitment drive at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Syncytial Virus InfectionsABSTRACT
Third doses of COVID-19 vaccines were widely deployed following primary vaccine course waning and emergence of the Omicron-variant. We investigated protection from third-dose vaccines and previous infection against SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta-variant and Omicron-variant (BA.1 & BA.2) waves in our frequently PCR-tested cohort of healthcare-workers. Relative effectiveness of BNT162b2 third doses and infection-acquired immunity was assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in boosted participants with those with waned dose-2 protection ([≥]254 days after dose-2). Follow-up time was divided by dominant circulating variant: Delta 07 September 2021 to 30 November 2021, Omicron 13 December 2021 to 28 February 2022. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment/stratification for demographic characteristics and staff-type. We explored protection associated with vaccination, infection and both. We included 19,614 participants, 29% previously infected. There were 278 primary infections (4 per 10,000 person-days of follow-up) and 85 reinfections (0.8/10,000 person-days) during the Delta period and 2467 primary infections (43/10,000 person-days) and 881 reinfections (33/10,000) during the Omicron period. Relative Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) 0-2 months post-3rd dose (V3) (3-doses BNT162b2) in the previously uninfected cohort against Delta infections was 63% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 40%-77%) and was lower (35%) against Omicron infection (95% CI 21%-47%). For primary course ChAdOX1 recipients, BNT162b2 heterologous third doses were especially effective, with VE 0-2 months post-V3 over [≥]68% higher for both variants. Third-dose protection waned rapidly against Omicron, with no significant difference between two and three BNT162b2 doses observed after 4-months. Previous infection continued to provide additional protection against Omicron (67% (CI 56%-75%) 3-6 months post-infection), but this waned to about 25% after 9-months, approximately three times lower than against Delta. Infection rates surged with Omicron emergence. Third doses of BNT162b2 vaccine provided short-term protection, with rapid waning against Omicron infections. Protection associated with infections incurred before Omicron was markedly diminished against the Omicron wave. Our findings demonstrate the complexity of an evolving pandemic with potential emergence of immune-escape variants and the importance of continued monitoring.
Subject(s)
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population but risk factors for HCW infection are not well described.Methods: We conducted a prospective sero-epidemiological study of HCWs at a UK teaching hospital using a SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Risk factors for seropositivity were analysed using multivariate logistic regression.Findings: 410/5,698 (7·2%) staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence was higher in those working in designated COVID-19 areas compared with other areas (9·47% versus 6·16%) Healthcare assistants (aOR 2·06 [95%CI 1·14-3·71]; p =0·016) and domestic and portering staff (aOR 3·45 [95% CI 1·07-11·42]; p =0·039) had significantly higher seroprevalence than other staff groups after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 working location. Staff working in acute medicine and medical sub-specialities were also at higher risk (aOR 2·07 [95% CI 1·31-3·25]; p <0·002). Staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds had an aOR of 1·65 (95% CI 1·32 – 2·07; p <0·001) compared to white staff; this increased risk was independent of COVID-19 area working. The only symptoms significantly associated with seropositivity in a multivariable model were loss of sense of taste or smell, fever and myalgia; 31% of staff testing positive reported no prior symptoms.Interpretation: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is heterogeneous and influenced by COVID-19 working location, role, age and ethnicity. Increased risk amongst BAME staff cannot be accounted for solely by occupational factors.Funding: Wellcome Trust, Addenbrookes Charitable Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Academy of Medical Sciences, the Health Foundation and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.Declaration of Interests: None to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for this study was granted by the East of England – Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 220277).
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fever , Musculoskeletal PainABSTRACT
Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population but risk factors for HCW infection are not well described. Methods We conducted a prospective sero-epidemiological study of HCWs at a UK teaching hospital using a SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Risk factors for seropositivity were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Findings 410/5,698 (7.2%) staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence was higher in those working in designated COVID-19 areas compared with other areas (9.47% versus 6.16%) Healthcare assistants (aOR 2.06 [95%CI 1.14-3.71]; p=0.016) and domestic and portering staff (aOR 3.45 [95% CI 1.07-11.42]; p=0.039) had significantly higher seroprevalence than other staff groups after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 working location. Staff working in acute medicine and medical sub-specialities were also at higher risk (aOR 2.07 [95% CI 1.31-3.25]; p=0.002). Staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds had an aOR of 1.65 (95% CI 1.32-2.07; p<0.0001) compared to white staff; this increased risk was independent of COVID-19 area working. The only symptoms significantly associated with seropositivity in a multivariable model were loss of sense of taste or smell, fever and myalgia; 31% of staff testing positive reported no prior symptoms. Interpretation Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is heterogeneous and influenced by COVID-19 working location, role, age and ethnicity. Increased risk amongst BAME staff cannot be accounted for solely by occupational factors. Funding Wellcome Trust, Addenbrookes Charitable Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Academy of Medical Sciences, the Health Foundation and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Fever , Myalgia , InfectionsABSTRACT
Identifying linked cases of infection is a key part of the public health response to viral infectious disease. Viral genome sequence data is of great value in this task, but requires careful analysis, and may need to be complemented by additional types of data. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for analytical methods which bring together sources of data to inform epidemiological investigations. We here describe A2B-COVID, an approach for the rapid identification of linked cases of coronavirus infection. Our method combines knowledge about infection dynamics, data describing the movements of individuals, and novel approaches to genome sequence data to assess whether or not cases of infection are consistent or inconsistent with linkage via transmission. We apply our method to analyse and compare data collected from two wards at Cambridge University Hospitals, showing qualitatively different patterns of linkage between cases on designated Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 wards. Our method is suitable for the rapid analysis of data from clinical or other potential outbreak settings.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Communicable DiseasesABSTRACT
BackgroundThere is urgent need for safe and efficient triage protocols for hospitalized COVID-19 suspects to appropriate isolation wards. A major barrier to timely discharge of patients from the emergency room and hospital is the turnaround time for many SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid tests. We validated a point of care nucleic acid amplification based platform SAMBA II for diagnosis of COVID-19 and performed an implementation study to assess its impact on patient disposition at a major academic hospital. MethodsWe prospectively recruited COVID-19 suspects admitted to hospital (NCT04326387). In an initial pilot phase, individuals were tested using a nasal/throat swab with the SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 rapid diagnostic platform in parallel with a combined nasal/throat swab for standard central laboratory RT-PCR testing. In the second implementation phase, we examined the utility of adding the SAMBA platform to routine care. In the pilot phase, we measured concordance and assay validity using the central laboratory as the reference standard and assessed assay turnaround time. In the implementation phase, we assessed 1) time to definitive bed placement from admission, 2) time spent on COVID-19 holding wards, 3) proportion of patients in isolation versus COVID negative areas following a test, comparing the implementation phase with the 10 days prior to implementation. ResultsIn phase I, 149 participants were included in the pilot. By central laboratory RT-PCR testing, 32 (21.5%) tested positive and 117 (78.5%). Sensitivity and specificity of the SAMBA assay compared to RT-PCR lab test were 96.9% (95% CI 0.838-0.999) and 99.1% (0.953-0.999), respectively. Median time to result was 2.6 hours (IQR 2.3 to 4.8) for SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 test and 26.4 hours (IQR 21.4 to 31.4) for the standard lab RT-PCR test (p<0.001). In the first 10 days of the SAMBA implementation phase, we conducted 992 tests, with the majority (59.8%) used for hospital admission, and the remainder for pre-operative screening (11.3%), discharge planning (10%), in-hospital screening of new symptoms (9.7%). Comparing the pre-implementation (n=599) with the implementation phase, median time to definitive bed placement from admission was reduced from 23.4 hours (8.6-41.9) to 17.1 hours (9.0-28.8), P=0.02 in Cox analysis, adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities and clinical severity at presentation. Mean length of stay on a COVID-19 holding ward decreased from 58.5 hours to 29.9 hours (P<0.001). Use of single occupancy rooms amongst those tested fell from 30.8% before to 21.2% (P=0.03) and 11 hospital bay closures (on average 6 beds each) were avoided after implementation of the POC assay. ConclusionsThe SAMBA II SARS-CoV-2 rapid assay performed well compared to a centralized laboratory RT-PCR platform and demonstrated shorter time to result both in trial and real-world settings. It was also associated with faster time to definitive bed placement from the emergency room, greater availability of isolation rooms, avoidance of hospital bay closures, and greater movement of patients to COVID negative open "green" category wards. Rapid testing in hospitals has the potential to transform ability to deal with the COVID-19 epidemic.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Significant differences exist in the availability of healthcare worker (HCW) SARS-CoV-2 testing between countries, and existing programmes focus on screening symptomatic rather than asymptomatic staff. Over a 3-week period (April 2020), 1,032 asymptomatic HCWs were screened for SARS-CoV-2 in a large UK teaching hospital. Symptomatic staff and symptomatic household contacts were additionally tested. Real-time RT-PCR was used to detect viral RNA from a throat+nose self-swab. 3% of HCWs in the asymptomatic screening group tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. 17/30 (57%) were truly asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic. 12/30 (40%) had experienced symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) >7 days prior to testing, most self-isolating, returning well. Clusters of HCW infection were discovered on two independent wards. Viral genome sequencing showed that the majority of HCWs had the dominant lineage B{middle dot}1. Our data demonstrates the utility of comprehensive screening of HCWs with minimal or no symptoms. This approach will be critical for protecting patients and hospital staff.