An external validation of the QCOVID3 risk prediction algorithm for risk of hospitalisation and death from COVID-19: An observational, prospective cohort study of 1.66m vaccinated adults in Wales, UK.

INTRODUCTION: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic there was an urgent need to identify individuals at highest risk of severe outcomes, such as hospitalisation and death following infection. The QCOVID risk prediction algorithms emerged as key tools in facilitating this which were further developed during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to identify groups of people at highest risk of severe COVID-19 related outcomes following one or two doses of vaccine. OBJECTIVES: To externally validate the QCOVID3 algorithm based on primary and secondary care records for Wales, UK. METHODS: We conducted an observational, prospective cohort based on electronic health care records for 1.66m vaccinated adults living in Wales on 8th December 2020, with follow-up until 15th June 2021. Follow-up started from day 14 post vaccination to allow the full effect of the vaccine. RESULTS: The scores produced by the QCOVID3 risk algorithm showed high levels of discrimination for both COVID-19 related deaths and hospital admissions and good calibration (Harrell C statistic: ≥ 0.828). CONCLUSION: This validation of the updated QCOVID3 risk algorithms in the adult vaccinated Welsh population has shown that the algorithms are valid for use in the Welsh population, and applicable on a population independent of the original study, which has not been previously reported. This study provides further evidence that the QCOVID algorithms can help inform public health risk management on the ongoing surveillance and intervention to manage COVID-19 related risks.

Household transmission of seasonal coronavirus infections: Results from the Flu Watch cohort study.

Background: In the context of the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, understanding household transmission of seasonal coronaviruses may inform pandemic control. We aimed to investigate what proportion of seasonal coronavirus transmission occurred within households, measure the risk of transmission in households, and describe the impact of household-related factors of risk of transmission. Methods: Using data from three winter seasons of the UK Flu Watch cohort study, we measured the proportion of symptomatic infections acquired outside and within the home, the household transmission risk and the household secondary attack risk for PCR-confirmed seasonal coronaviruses. We present transmission risk stratified by demographic features of households. Results: We estimated that the proportion of cases acquired outside the home, weighted by age and region, was 90.7% (95% CI 84.6- 94.5, n=173/195) and within the home was 9.3% (5.5-15.4, 22/195). Following a symptomatic coronavirus index case, 14.9% (9.8 - 22.1, 20/134) of households experienced symptomatic transmission to at least one other household member. Onward transmission risk ranged from 11.90% (4.84-26.36, 5/42) to 19.44% (9.21-36.49, 7/36) by strain. The overall household secondary attack risk for symptomatic cases was 8.00% (5.31-11.88, 22/275), ranging across strains from 5.10 (2.11-11.84, 5/98) to 10.14 (4.82- 20.11, 7/69). Median clinical onset serial interval was 7 days (IQR= 6-9.5). Households including older adults, 3+ children, current smokers, contacts with chronic health conditions, and those in relatively deprived areas had the highest transmission risks. Child index cases and male index cases demonstrated the highest transmission risks. Conclusion: Most seasonal coronaviruses appear to be acquired outside the household, with relatively modest risk of onward transmission within households. Transmission risk following an index case appears to vary by demographic household features, with potential overlap between those demonstrating the highest point estimates for seasonal coronavirus transmission risk and COVID-19 susceptibility and poor illness outcomes.

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups in England are at increased risk of death from COVID-19: indirect standardisation of NHS mortality data.

Background: International and UK data suggest that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups are at increased risk of infection and death from COVID-19. We aimed to explore the risk of death in minority ethnic groups in England using data reported by NHS England. Methods: We used NHS data on patients with a positive COVID-19 test who died in hospitals in England published on 28th April, with deaths by ethnicity available from 1st March 2020 up to 5pm on 21 April 2020. We undertook indirect standardisation of these data (using the whole population of England as the reference) to produce ethnic specific standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) adjusted for age and geographical region. Results: The largest total number of deaths in minority ethnic groups were Indian (492 deaths) and Black Caribbean (460 deaths) groups. Adjusting for region we found a lower risk of death for White Irish (SMR 0.52; 95%CIs 0.45-0.60) and White British ethnic groups (0.88; 95%CIs 0.86-0.0.89), but increased risk of death for Black African (3.24; 95%CIs 2.90-3.62), Black Caribbean (2.21; 95%CIs 2.02-2.41), Pakistani (3.29; 95%CIs 2.96-3.64), Bangladeshi (2.41; 95%CIs 1.98-2.91) and Indian (1.70; 95%CIs 1.56-1.85) minority ethnic groups. Conclusion: Our analysis adds to the evidence that BAME people are at increased risk of death from COVID-19 even after adjusting for geographical region, but was limited by the lack of data on deaths outside of NHS settings and ethnicity denominator data being based on the 2011 census. Despite these limitations, we believe there is an urgent need to take action to reduce the risk of death for BAME groups and better understand why some ethnic groups experience greater risk. Actions that are likely to reduce these inequities include ensuring adequate income protection, reducing occupational risks, reducing barriers in accessing healthcare and providing culturally and linguistically appropriate public health communications.

Novel intervention to promote COVID-19 protective behaviours among Black and South Asian communities in the UK: protocol for a mixed-methods pilot evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Culturally appropriate interventions to promote COVID-19 health protective measures among Black and South Asian communities in the UK are needed. We aim to carry out a preliminary evaluation of an intervention to reduce risk of COVID-19 comprising a short film and electronic leaflet. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed methods study comprises (1) a focus group to understand how people from the relevant communities interpret and understand the intervention's messages, (2) a before-and-after questionnaire study examining the extent to which the intervention changes intentions and confidence to carry out COVID-19 protective behaviours and (3) a further qualitative study exploring the views of Black and South Asian people of the intervention and the experiences of health professionals offering the intervention. Participants will be recruited through general practices. Data collection will be carried out in the community. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received Health Research Authority approval in June 2021 (Research Ethics Committee Reference 21/LO/0452). All participants provided informed consent. As well as publishing the findings in peer-reviewed journals, we will disseminate the findings through the UK Health Security Agency, NHS England and the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and ensure culturally appropriate messaging for participants and other members of the target groups.

Between-occupation differences in work-related COVID-19 mitigation strategies over time: Analysis of the Virus Watch Cohort in England and Wales.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparisons of how work-related mitigations were applied are limited. This study aimed to investigate (i) occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time and (ii) workers' perceptions of these mitigations. METHODS: Employed/self-employed Virus Watch study participants (N=6279) responded to a mitigation-related online survey covering the periods of December 2020-February 2022. Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Participants' perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions. RESULTS: Usage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including reporting frequent hand hygiene [predicted probability across all survey periods 0.61 (95% CI 0.56-0.66)] and always wearing face coverings [predicted probability range 0.71 (95% CI 0.66-0.75) - 0.80 (95% CI 0.76-0.84) across survey periods]. There were significant cross-occupational trends towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of participants across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile even after the relaxation of national restrictions; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%). CONCLUSIONS: While usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

Synthesis of evidence from the PROTECT UK national core study: exploring occupational risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality

IntroductionThe PROTECT National Core Study was funded by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to investigate how SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted from person to person, and how this varies in different settings.One area of research aimed to compare relative differences between occupational groups and sectors in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality over time and explore the likely reasons.MethodsWe brought together evidence from nine published epidemiological studies supported by PROTECT relating to four data sets, plus new analyses relating to the Omicron period. We organised these studies into the following categories: those that specifically compared risks of infection mortality;and those that looked at risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 mortality. We extracted descriptive study level data and results. We investigated risk across four pandemic waves using forest plots for key occupational groups by time. A workshop was organised in Oct 2022 with authors from each study to discuss and document key strengths and expected biases.ResultsHealthcare and social care sectors saw elevated risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 mortality early in the pandemic but thereafter these declined and varied by specific occupational subgroup. The education sector saw sustained elevated risks of infection after the initial lockdown period with little evidence of elevated mortality. Results were largely consistent across different studies with differing expected biases, although unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out.ConclusionDifferences between occupations and sectors in the UK in terms of COVID-19 risks that were observed in the early stages of the pandemic largely dissipated over time. Studies investigating risk factors suggest that reasons could include vaccination roll out, introduction of risk mitigation within high risk sectors, changes in patterns of home-working and lifting of restriction on social mixing (thereby reducing the relative effect of work).

Settings for non-household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the second lockdown in England and Wales – analysis of the Virus Watch household community cohort study [version 1, peer review: 2 approved]

Background: "Lockdowns” to control serious respiratory virus pandemics were widely used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, there is limited information to understand the settings in which most transmission occurs during lockdowns, to support refinement of similar policies for future pandemics. Methods: Among Virus Watch household cohort participants we identified those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outside the household. Using survey activity data, we undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution of activities on non-household infection risk. We calculated adjusted population attributable fractions (APAF) to estimate which activity accounted for the greatest proportion of non-household infections during the pandemic's second wave. Results: Among 10,858 adults, 18% of cases were likely due to household transmission. Among 10,475 participants (household-acquired cases excluded), including 874 non-household-acquired infections, infection was associated with: leaving home for work or education (AOR 1.20 (1.02 – 1.42), APAF 6.9%);public transport (more than once per week AOR 1.82 (1.49 – 2.23), public transport APAF 12.42%);and shopping (more than once per week AOR 1.69 (1.29 – 2.21), shopping APAF 34.56%). Other non-household activities were rare and not significantly associated with infection. Conclusions: During lockdown, going to work and using public or shared transport independently increased infection risk, however only a minority did these activities. Most participants visited shops, accounting for one-third of non-household transmission. Transmission in restricted hospitality and leisure settings was minimal suggesting these restrictions were effective. If future respiratory infection pandemics emerge these findings highlight the value of working from home, using forms of transport that minimise exposure to others, minimising exposure to shops and restricting non-essential activities.

Settings for non-household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 during the second lockdown in England and Wales - analysis of the Virus Watch household community cohort study.

Background: "Lockdowns" to control serious respiratory virus pandemics were widely used during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.  However, there is limited information to understand the settings in which most transmission occurs during lockdowns, to support refinement of similar policies for future pandemics.  Methods: Among Virus Watch household cohort participants we identified those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outside the household.  Using survey activity data, we undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution of activities on non-household infection risk.  We calculated adjusted population attributable fractions (APAF) to estimate which activity accounted for the greatest proportion of non-household infections during the pandemic's second wave. Results: Among 10,858 adults, 18% of cases were likely due to household transmission.  Among 10,475 participants (household-acquired cases excluded), including 874 non-household-acquired infections, infection was associated with: leaving home for work or education (AOR 1.20 (1.02 - 1.42), APAF 6.9%); public transport (more than once per week AOR 1.82 (1.49 - 2.23), public transport APAF 12.42%); and shopping (more than once per week AOR 1.69 (1.29 - 2.21), shopping APAF 34.56%).  Other non-household activities were rare and not significantly associated with infection. Conclusions: During lockdown, going to work and using public or shared transport independently increased infection risk, however only a minority did these activities.  Most participants visited shops, accounting for one-third of non-household transmission.  Transmission in restricted hospitality and leisure settings was minimal suggesting these restrictions were effective.   If future respiratory infection pandemics emerge these findings highlight the value of working from home, using forms of transport that minimise exposure to others, minimising exposure to shops and restricting non-essential activities.

Exploring the relationship between job characteristics and infection: Application of a COVID-19 job exposure matrix to SARS-CoV-2 infection data in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess whether workplace exposures as estimated via a COVID-19 job exposure matrix (JEM) are associated with SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. METHODS: Data on 244 470 participants were available from the Office for National Statistics Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS) and 16 801 participants from the Virus Watch Cohort, restricted to workers aged 20-64 years. Analysis used logistic regression models with SARS-CoV-2 as the dependent variable for eight individual JEM domains (number of workers, nature of contacts, contact via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance, use of face covering, job insecurity, and migrant workers) with adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), region, household size, urban versus rural area, and health conditions. Analyses were repeated for three time periods (i) February 2020 (Virus Watch)/April 2020 (CIS) to May 2021), (ii) June 2021 to November 2021, and (iii) December 2021 to January 2022. RESULTS: Overall, higher risk classifications for the first six domains tended to be associated with an increased risk of infection, with little evidence of a relationship for domains relating to proportion of workers with job insecurity or migrant workers. By time there was a clear exposure-response relationship for these domains in the first period only. Results were largely consistent across the two UK cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: An exposure-response relationship exists in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic for number of contacts, nature of contacts, contacts via surfaces, indoor or outdoor location, ability to social distance and use of face coverings. These associations appear to have diminished over time.

Tracking Changes in Mobility Before and After the First SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Using Global Positioning System Data in England and Wales (Virus Watch): Prospective Observational Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that individuals may change adherence to public health policies aimed at reducing the contact, transmission, and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus after they receive their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination when they are not fully vaccinated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate changes in median daily travel distance of our cohort from their registered addresses before and after receiving a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. METHODS: Participants were recruited into Virus Watch starting in June 2020. Weekly surveys were sent out to participants, and vaccination status was collected from January 2021 onward. Between September 2020 and February 2021, we invited 13,120 adult Virus Watch participants to contribute toward our tracker subcohort, which uses the GPS via a smartphone app to collect data on movement. We used segmented linear regression to estimate the median daily travel distance before and after the first self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. RESULTS: We analyzed the daily travel distance of 249 vaccinated adults. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the day before vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 9.05 (IQR 8.06-10.09) km. From the day of vaccination to 105 days after vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 10.08 (IQR 8.60-12.42) km. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the vaccination date, there was a daily median decrease in mobility of 40.09 m (95% CI -50.08 to -31.10; P<.001). After vaccination, there was a median daily increase in movement of 60.60 m (95% CI 20.90-100; P<.001). Restricting the analysis to the third national lockdown (January 4, 2021, to April 5, 2021), we found a median daily movement increase of 18.30 m (95% CI -19.20 to 55.80; P=.57) in the 30 days prior to vaccination and a median daily movement increase of 9.36 m (95% CI 38.6-149.00; P=.69) in the 30 days after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting high-volume geolocation data as part of research projects and the utility of these data for understanding public health issues. Our various analyses produced results that ranged from no change in movement after vaccination (during the third national lock down) to an increase in movement after vaccination (considering all periods, up to 105 days after vaccination), suggesting that, among Virus Watch participants, any changes in movement distances after vaccination are small. Our findings may be attributable to public health measures in place at the time such as movement restrictions and home working that applied to the Virus Watch cohort participants during the study period.

Differential Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Occupation: Evidence from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Workers across different occupations vary in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase. METHODS: Data from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR). RESULTS: Increased risk was seen in nurses (aRR = 1.44, 1.25-1.65; AF = 30%, 20-39%), doctors (aRR = 1.33, 1.08-1.65; AF = 25%, 7-39%), carers (1.45, 1.19-1.76; AF = 31%, 16-43%), primary school teachers (aRR = 1.67, 1.42- 1.96; AF = 40%, 30-49%), secondary school teachers (aRR = 1.48, 1.26-1.72; AF = 32%, 21-42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR = 1.42, 1.23-1.64; AF = 29%, 18-39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020-May 2021) and attenuated later (June-October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.

How Does Living in Temporary Accommodation and the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact under 5s' Healthcare Access and Health Outcomes? A Qualitative Study of Key Professionals in a Socially and Ethnically Diverse and Deprived Area of London.

Background: Children < 5 years living in temporary accommodation (U5TA) are vulnerable to poor health outcomes. Few qualitative studies have examined service provider perspectives in family homelessness; none have focused on U5TA with a cross-sector approach. This study explored professionals' perspectives of the barriers and facilitators, including pandemic-related challenges, experienced by U5TA in accessing healthcare and optimising health outcomes, and their experiences in delivering services. Methods: Sixteen semi-structured online interviews were conducted. Professionals working in Newham (London) with U5TA families were recruited from non-profit organisations, the health sector, and Local Authority. A thematic analysis was conducted. Findings: Professionals described barriers including poor parental mental health; unsuitable housing; no social support; mistrust of services; immigration administration; and financial insecurity. Digital poverty, language discordance, and the inability to register and track U5TA made them even less visible to services. Professionals tried to mitigate barriers with improved communication, and through community facilitators. Adverse pandemic effects on U5TA health included delay and regression in developmental milestones and behaviours. In-person services were reduced, exacerbating pre-existing barriers. Interpretation: COVID-19 further reduced the ability of professionals to deliver care to U5TA and significantly impacted the lives of U5TA with potential life-long risks. Innovative and tailored cross-sector strategies are needed, including co-production of public health services and policies focusing on early development, mental health support, employment training, and opportunities for parents/carers.

Strong peak immunogenicity but rapid antibody waning following third vaccine dose in older residents of care homes.

Third-dose coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines are being deployed widely but their efficacy has not been assessed adequately in vulnerable older people who exhibit suboptimal responses after primary vaccination series. This observational study, which was carried out by the VIVALDI study based in England, looked at spike-specific immune responses in 341 staff and residents in long-term care facilities who received an mRNA vaccine following dual primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Third-dose vaccination strongly increased antibody responses with preferential relative enhancement in older people and was required to elicit neutralization of Omicron. Cellular immune responses were also enhanced with strong cross-reactive recognition of Omicron. However, antibody titers fell 21-78% within 100 d after vaccine and 27% of participants developed a breakthrough Omicron infection. These findings reveal strong immunogenicity of a third vaccine in one of the most vulnerable population groups and endorse an approach for widespread delivery across this population. Ongoing assessment will be required to determine the stability of immune protection.

Clinical Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccine Against Omicron Infection in Residents and Staff of Long-term Care Facilities: A Prospective Cohort Study (VIVALDI).

Background: Successive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have caused severe disease in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Primary vaccination provides strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection following booster vaccines, particularly against the Omicron variant. We investigated the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among LTCF residents and staff in England. Methods: We included residents and staff of LTCFs within the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN 14447421) who underwent routine, asymptomatic testing (December 12, 2021-March 31, 2022). Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associated hospitalization and death at 0-13, 14-48, 49-83, 84-111, 112-139, and 140+ days after dose 3 of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with 2 doses (after 84+ days), stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex, LTCF capacity, and local SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Results: A total of 14 175 residents and 19 793 staff were included. In residents without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection risk was reduced 0-111 days after the first booster, but no protection was apparent after 112 days. Additional protection following booster vaccination waned but was still present at 140+ days for COVID-associated hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63) and death (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.27). Most residents (64.4%) had received primary course vaccine of AstraZeneca, but this did not impact pre- or postbooster risk. Staff showed a similar pattern of waning booster effectiveness against infection, with few hospitalizations and no deaths. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that booster vaccination provided sustained protection against severe outcomes following infection with the Omicron variant, but no protection against infection from 4 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs is crucial.

Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific and heterologous immune responses in vaccine-naïve residents of long-term care facilities who survive natural infection.

We studied humoral and cellular immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 152 long-term care facility staff and 124 residents over a prospective 4-month period shortly after the first wave of infection in England. We show that residents of long-term care facilities developed high and stable levels of antibodies against spike protein and receptor-binding domain. Nucleocapsid-specific responses were also elevated but waned over time. Antibodies showed stable and equivalent levels of functional inhibition against spike-angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 binding in all age groups with comparable activity against viral variants of concern. SARS-CoV-2 seropositive donors showed high levels of antibodies to other beta-coronaviruses but serostatus did not impact humoral immunity to influenza or other respiratory syncytial viruses. SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular responses were similar across all ages but virus-specific populations showed elevated levels of activation in older donors. Thus, survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection show a robust and stable immunity against the virus that does not negatively impact responses to other seasonal viruses.

A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales. METHODS: Participants (n = 1154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group. RESULTS: 457/1154 (39.60 %) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1154 (32.15 %) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1154 (8.67 %) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1154 (6.41 %) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95 % CI 1.31-2.06, p < 0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95 % CI 1.03-2.17, p = 0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups. CONCLUSION: Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Comparative effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA-based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections: a time-varying cohort analysis using trial emulation in the Virus Watch community cohort.

BACKGROUND: The Omicron B.1.1.529 variant increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in doubly vaccinated individuals, particularly in the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1) recipients. To tackle infections, the UK's booster vaccination programmes used messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines irrespective of an individual's primary course vaccine type, and prioritized the clinically vulnerable. These mRNA vaccines included the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders affect these evaluations. METHODS: Trial emulation was applied to a prospective community observational cohort in England and Wales to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritizing vaccination based upon age, vulnerability and exposure. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight adult cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16 September 2021 and 05 January 2022 and followed until 23 January 2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end of study was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability and deprivation. RESULTS: A total of 19 159 participants were analysed, with 11 709 ChAdOx1 primary courses and 7450 BNT162b2 primary courses. Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. In mRNA-boosted adults, 7.4% (n = 863) of boosted adults with a ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 7.7% (n = 571) of those who had BNT162b2 as a primary course. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.01 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of: 0.90 to 1.13. CONCLUSION: After an mRNA booster dose, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 with those with a ChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

A case-crossover study of the effect of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 transmission relevant behaviours during a period of national lockdown in England and Wales

Background Studies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales. Methods Participants (n=1,154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs. 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group. Results 457/1,154 (39.60%) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, p<0.001) and use of non-essential shops or services (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.03-2.17, p=0.032). This effect varied between men and women and different age groups. Conclusion Participants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Digital mHealth and Virtual Care Use During COVID-19 in 4 Countries: Rapid Landscape Review.

BACKGROUND: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, providing health care while maintaining social distancing has resulted in the need to provide care remotely, support quarantined or isolated individuals, monitor infected individuals and their close contacts, as well as disseminate accurate information regarding COVID-19 to the public. This has led to an unprecedented rapid expansion of digital tools to provide digitized virtual care globally, especially mobile phone-facilitated health interventions, called mHealth. To help keep abreast of different mHealth and virtual care technologies being used internationally to facilitate patient care and public health during the COVID-19 pandemic, we carried out a rapid investigation of solutions being deployed and considered in 4 countries. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to describe mHealth and the digital and contact tracing technologies being used in the health care management of the COVID-19 pandemic among 2 high-income and 2 low-middle income countries. METHODS: We compared virtual care interventions used for COVID-19 management among 2 high-income countries (the United Kingdom and Canada) and 2 low-middle income (Kenya and Rwanda) countries. We focused on interventions used to facilitate patient care and public health. Information regarding specific virtual care technologies was procured from a variety of resources including gray literature, government and health organization websites, and coauthors' personal experiences as implementers of COVID-19 virtual care strategies. Search engine queries were performed to find health information that would be easily accessible to the general public, with keywords including "COVID-19," "contact-tracing," "tool-kit," "telehealth," and "virtual care," in conjunction with corresponding national health authorities. RESULTS: We identified a variety of technologies in Canada, the United Kingdom, Rwanda, and Kenya being used for patient care and public health. These countries are using both video and text message-based platforms to facilitate communication with health care providers (eg, WelTel and Zoom). Nationally developed contact tracing apps are provided free to the public, with most of them using Bluetooth-based technology. We identified that often multiple complimentary technologies are being utilized for different aspects of patient care and public health with the common purpose to disseminate information safely. There was a negligible difference among the types of technologies used in both high-income and low-middle income countries, although the latter implemented virtual care interventions earlier during the pandemic's first wave, which may account for their effective response. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual care and mHealth technologies have evolved rapidly as a tool for health care support for both patient care and public health. It is evident that, on an international level, a variety of mHealth and virtual care interventions, often in combination, are required to be able to address patient care and public health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic, independent of a country's economic standing.