Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants.

Background: COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in health. Little is known about whether inequalities in severe disease and deaths, observed globally among minoritised ethnic groups, relates to greater infection risk, poorer prognosis, or both. We analysed global data on COVID-19 clinical outcomes examining inequalities between people from minoritised ethnic groups compared to the ethnic majority group. Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1st December 2019 to 3rd October 2022, for studies reporting original clinical data for COVID-19 outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity: infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. We assessed inequalities in incidence and prognosis using random-effects meta-analyses, with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) use to assess certainty of findings. Meta-regressions explored the impact of region and time-frame (vaccine roll-out) on heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42021284981. Findings: 77 studies comprising over 200,000,000 participants were included. Compared with White majority populations, we observed an increased risk of testing positive for infection for people from Black (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR]:1.78, 95% CI:1.59-1.99, I2 = 99.1), South Asian (aRR:3.00, 95% CI:1.59-5.66, I2 = 99.1), Mixed (aRR:1.64, 95% CI:1.02-1.67, I2 = 93.2) and Other ethnic groups (aRR:1.36, 95% CI:1.01-1.82, I2 = 85.6). Black, Hispanic, and South Asian people were more likely to be seropositive. Among population-based studies, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of hospitalisation; Black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian and Mixed ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of ICU admission. Mortality risk was increased for Hispanic, Mixed, and Indigenous groups. Smaller differences were seen for prognosis following infection. Following hospitalisation, South Asian, East Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups had an increased risk of ICU admission, and mortality risk was greater in Mixed ethnic groups. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Interpretation: Our study suggests that systematic ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes exist, with large differences in exposure risk and some differences in prognosis following hospitalisation. Response and recovery interventions must focus on tackling drivers of ethnic inequalities which increase exposure risk and vulnerabilities to severe disease, including structural racism and racial discrimination. Funding: ESRC:ES/W000849/1.

Pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 infection in periods dominated by delta and omicron variants in Scotland: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that the SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1·1.529) is associated with lower risks of adverse outcomes than the delta (B.1.617.2) variant among the general population. However, little is known about outcomes after omicron infection in pregnancy. We aimed to assess and compare short-term pregnancy outcomes after SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron infection in pregnancy. METHODS: We did a national population-based cohort study of women who had SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy between May 17, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022. The primary maternal outcome was admission to critical care within 21 days of infection or death within 28 days of date of infection. Pregnancy outcomes were preterm birth and stillbirth within 28 days of infection. Neonatal outcomes were death within 28 days of birth, and low Apgar score (<7 of 10, for babies born at term) or neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection in births occurring within 28 days of maternal infection. We used periods when variants were dominant in the general Scottish population, based on 50% or more of cases being S-gene positive (delta variant, from May 17 to Dec 14, 2021) or S-gene negative (omicron variant, from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022) as surrogates for variant infections. Analyses used logistic regression, adjusting for maternal age, deprivation quintile, ethnicity, weeks of gestation, and vaccination status. Sensitivity analyses included restricting the analysis to those with first confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and using periods when delta or omicron had 90% or more predominance. FINDINGS: Between May 17, 2021, and Jan 31, 2022, there were 9923 SARS-CoV-2 infections in 9823 pregnancies, in 9817 women in Scotland. Compared with infections in the delta-dominant period, SARS-CoV-2 infections in pregnancy in the omicron-dominant period were associated with lower maternal critical care admission risk (0·3% [13 of 4968] vs 1·8% [89 of 4955]; adjusted odds ratio 0·25, 95% CI 0·14-0·44) and lower preterm birth within 28 days of infection (1·8% [37 of 2048] vs 4·2% [98 of 2338]; 0·57, 95% CI 0·38-0·87). There were no maternal deaths within 28 days of infection. Estimates of low Apgar scores were imprecise due to low numbers (5 [1·2%] of 423 with omicron vs 11 [2·1%] of 528 with delta, adjusted odds ratio 0·72, 0·23-2·32). There were fewer stillbirths in the omicron-dominant period than in the delta-dominant period (4·3 [2 of 462] per 1000 births vs 20·3 [13 of 639] per 1000) and no neonatal deaths during the omicron-dominant period (0 [0 of 460] per 1000 births vs 6·3 [4 of 626] per 1000 births), thus numbers were too small to support adjusted analyses. Rates of neonatal infection were low in births within 28 days of maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection, with 11 cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 in the delta-dominant period, and 1 case in the omicron-dominant period. Of the 15 stillbirths, 12 occurred in women who had not received two or more doses of COVID-19 vaccination at the time of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy. All 12 cases of neonatal SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in women who had not received two or more doses of vaccine at the time of maternal infection. Findings in sensitivity analyses were similar to those in the main analyses. INTERPRETATION: Pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 were substantially less likely to have a preterm birth or maternal critical care admission during the omicron-dominant period than during the delta-dominant period. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Tommy's charity, Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Health Data Research UK, National Core Studies-Data and Connectivity, Public Health Scotland, Scottish Government Health and Social Care, Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office, National Research Scotland.

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.

Explaining COVID-19 mortality among immigrants in Sweden from a social determinants of health perspective (COVIS): protocol for a national register-based observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Adopting a social determinants of health perspective, this project aims to study how disproportionate COVID-19 mortality among immigrants in Sweden is associated with social factors operating through differential exposure to the virus (eg, by being more likely to work in high-exposure occupations) and differential effects of infection arising from socially patterned, pre-existing health conditions, differential healthcare seeking and inequitable healthcare provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This observational study will use health (eg, hospitalisations, deaths) and sociodemographic information (eg, occupation, income, social benefits) from Swedish national registers linked using unique identity numbers. The study population includes all adults registered in Sweden in the year before the start of the pandemic (2019), as well as individuals who immigrated to Sweden or turned 18 years of age after the start of the pandemic (2020). Our analyses will primarily cover the period from 31 January 2020 to 31 December 2022, with updates depending on the progression of the pandemic. We will evaluate COVID-19 mortality differences between foreign-born and Swedish-born individuals by examining each mechanism (differential exposure and effects) separately, while considering potential effect modification by country of birth and socioeconomic factors. Planned statistical modelling techniques include mediation analyses, multilevel models, Poisson regression and event history analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project has been granted all necessary ethical permissions from the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2022-0048-01) for accessing and analysing deidentified data. The final outputs will primarily be disseminated as scientific articles published in open-access peer-reviewed international journals, as well as press releases and policy briefs.

Home working and social and mental wellbeing at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Evidence from 7 longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Home working has increased since the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic's onset with concerns that it may have adverse health implications. We assessed the association between home working and social and mental wellbeing among the employed population aged 16 to 66 through harmonised analyses of 7 UK longitudinal studies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We estimated associations between home working and measures of psychological distress, low life satisfaction, poor self-rated health, low social contact, and loneliness across 3 different stages of the pandemic (T1 = April to June 2020 -first lockdown, T2 = July to October 2020 -eased restrictions, T3 = November 2020 to March 2021 -second lockdown) using modified Poisson regression and meta-analyses to pool results across studies. We successively adjusted the model for sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age, sex), job characteristics (e.g., sector of activity, pre-pandemic home working propensities), and pre-pandemic health. Among respectively 10,367, 11,585, and 12,179 participants at T1, T2, and T3, we found higher rates of home working at T1 and T3 compared with T2, reflecting lockdown periods. Home working was not associated with psychological distress at T1 (RR = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.08) or T2 (RR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.88 to 1.11), but a detrimental association was found with psychological distress at T3 (RR = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.30). Study limitations include the fact that pre-pandemic home working propensities were derived from external sources, no information was collected on home working dosage and possible reverse association between change in wellbeing and home working likelihood. CONCLUSIONS: No clear evidence of an association between home working and mental wellbeing was found, apart from greater risk of psychological distress during the second lockdown, but differences across subgroups (e.g., by sex or level of education) may exist. Longer term shifts to home working might not have adverse impacts on population wellbeing in the absence of pandemic restrictions but further monitoring of health inequalities is required.

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants

Background COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in health. Little is known about whether inequalities in severe disease and deaths, observed globally among minoritised ethnic groups, relates to greater infection risk, poorer prognosis, or both. We analysed global data on COVID-19 clinical outcomes examining inequalities between people from minoritised ethnic groups compared to the ethnic majority group. Methods Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1st December 2019 to 3rd October 2022, for studies reporting original clinical data for COVID-19 outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity: infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. We assessed inequalities in incidence and prognosis using random-effects meta-analyses, with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) use to assess certainty of findings. Meta-regressions explored the impact of region and time-frame (vaccine roll-out) on heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42021284981. Findings 77 studies comprising over 200,000,000 participants were included. Compared with White majority populations, we observed an increased risk of testing positive for infection for people from Black (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR]:1.78, 95% CI:1.59–1.99, I2 = 99.1), South Asian (aRR:3.00, 95% CI:1.59–5.66, I2 = 99.1), Mixed (aRR:1.64, 95% CI:1.02–1.67, I2 = 93.2) and Other ethnic groups (aRR:1.36, 95% CI:1.01–1.82, I2 = 85.6). Black, Hispanic, and South Asian people were more likely to be seropositive. Among population-based studies, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of hospitalisation;Black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian and Mixed ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of ICU admission. Mortality risk was increased for Hispanic, Mixed, and Indigenous groups. Smaller differences were seen for prognosis following infection. Following hospitalisation, South Asian, East Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups had an increased risk of ICU admission, and mortality risk was greater in Mixed ethnic groups. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Interpretation Our study suggests that systematic ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes exist, with large differences in exposure risk and some differences in prognosis following hospitalisation. Response and recovery interventions must focus on tackling drivers of ethnic inequalities which increase exposure risk and vulnerabilities to severe disease, including structural racism and racial discrimination. Funding 10.13039/501100000269ESRC:ES/W000849/1.

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

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

Antibody levels following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: associations with post-vaccination infection and risk factors in two UK longitudinal studies.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike antibodies are known to be associated with increased protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, variation in antibody levels and risk factors for lower antibody levels following each round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been explored across a wide range of socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and health factors within population-based cohorts. Methods: Samples were collected from 9361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Cross-sectional sampling was undertaken jointly in April-May 2021 (TwinsUK, N=4256; ALSPAC, N=4622), and in TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022 (N=3575). Variation in antibody levels after first, second, and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables were analysed. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables. Results: Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had threefold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next 6-9 months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.0), compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK 'Shielded Patient List' had consistently greater odds (two- to fourfold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations. Conclusions: These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies. Funding: Antibody testing was funded by UK Health Security Agency. The National Core Studies program is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing - National Core Study (LHW-NCS) HMT/UKRI/MRC ([MC_PC_20030] and [MC_PC_20059]). Related funding was also provided by the NIHR 606 (CONVALESCENCE grant [COV-LT-0009]). TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: [217065/Z/19/Z]) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC.

Vaccination against the virus that causes COVID-19 triggers the body to produce antibodies that help fight future infections. But some people generate more antibodies after vaccination than others. People with lower levels of antibodies are more likely to get COVID-19 in the future. Identifying people with low antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination is important. It could help decide who receives priority for future vaccination. Previous studies show that people with certain health conditions produce fewer antibodies after one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. For example, people with weakened immune systems. Now that third booster doses are available, it is vital to determine if they increase antibody levels for those most at risk of severe COVID-19. Cheetham et al. show that a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies to high levels in 90% of individuals, including those at increased risk. In the experiments, Cheetham et al. measured antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19 in 9,361 individuals participating in two large long-term health studies in the United Kingdom. The experiments found that UK individuals advised to shield from the virus because they were at increased risk of complications had lower levels of antibodies after one or two vaccine doses than individuals without such risk factors. This difference was also seen after a third booster dose, but overall antibody levels had large increases. People who received the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose also had lower antibody levels after one or two doses than those who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine first. Positively, this difference in antibody levels was no longer seen after a third booster dose. Individuals with lower antibody levels after their first dose were also more likely to have a case of COVID-19 in the following months. Antibody levels were high in most individuals after the third dose. The results may help governments and public health officials identify individuals who may need extra protection after the first two vaccine doses. They also support current policies promoting booster doses of the vaccine and may support prioritizing booster doses for those at the highest risk from COVID-19 in future vaccination campaigns.

A population-based matched cohort study of major congenital anomalies following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Evidence on associations between COVID-19 vaccination or SARS-CoV-2 infection and the risk of congenital anomalies is limited. Here we report a national, population-based, matched cohort study using linked electronic health records from Scotland (May 2020-April 2022) to estimate the association between COVID-19 vaccination and, separately, SARS-CoV-2 infection between six weeks pre-conception and 19 weeks and six days gestation and the risk of [1] any major congenital anomaly and [2] any non-genetic major congenital anomaly. Mothers vaccinated in this pregnancy exposure period mostly received an mRNA vaccine (73.7% Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and 7.9% Moderna mRNA-1273). Of the 6731 babies whose mothers were vaccinated in the pregnancy exposure period, 153 had any anomaly and 120 had a non-genetic anomaly. Primary analyses find no association between any vaccination and any anomaly (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] = 1.01, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.83-1.24) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.81-1.22). Primary analyses also find no association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and any anomaly (aOR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.66-1.60) or non-genetic anomalies (aOR = 0.94, 95% CI = 0.57-1.54). Findings are robust to sensitivity analyses. These data provide reassurance on the safety of vaccination, in particular mRNA vaccines, just before or in early pregnancy.

Effectiveness of mRNA boosters after homologous primary series with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 against symptomatic infection and severe COVID-19 in Brazil and Scotland: A test-negative design case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Brazil and Scotland have used mRNA boosters in their respective populations since September 2021, with Omicron's emergence accelerating their booster program. Despite this, both countries have reported substantial recent increases in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. The duration of the protection conferred by the booster dose against symptomatic Omicron cases and severe outcomes is unclear. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a test-negative design, we analyzed national databases to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of a primary series (with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) plus an mRNA vaccine booster (with BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) against symptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death) during the period of Omicron dominance in Brazil and Scotland compared to unvaccinated individuals. Additional analyses included stratification by age group (18 to 49, 50 to 64, ≥65). All individuals aged 18 years or older who reported acute respiratory illness symptoms and tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection between January 1, 2022, and April 23, 2022, in Brazil and Scotland were eligible for the study. At 14 to 29 days after the mRNA booster, the VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection of ChAdOx1 plus BNT162b2 booster was 51.6%, (95% confidence interval (CI): [51.0, 52.2], p < 0.001) in Brazil and 67.1% (95% CI [65.5, 68.5], p < 0.001) in Scotland. At ≥4 months, protection against symptomatic infection waned to 4.2% (95% CI [0.7, 7.6], p = 0.02) in Brazil and 37.4% (95% CI [33.8, 40.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland. VE against severe outcomes in Brazil was 93.5% (95% CI [93.0, 94.0], p < 0.001) at 14 to 29 days post-booster, decreasing to 82.3% (95% CI [79.7, 84.7], p < 0.001) and 98.3% (95% CI [87.3, 99.8], p < 0.001) to 77.8% (95% CI [51.4, 89.9], p < 0.001) in Scotland for the same periods. Similar results were obtained with the primary series of BNT162b2 plus homologous booster. Potential limitations of this study were that we assumed that all cases included in the analysis were due to the Omicron variant based on the period of dominance and the limited follow-up time since the booster dose. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that mRNA boosters after a primary vaccination course with either mRNA or viral-vector vaccines provided modest, short-lived protection against symptomatic infection with Omicron but substantial and more sustained protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes for at least 3 months.

A population-based matched cohort study of early pregnancy outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy are limited. We conducted a national, population-based, matched cohort study assessing associations between COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage prior to 20 weeks gestation and, separately, ectopic pregnancy. We identified women in Scotland vaccinated between 6 weeks preconception and 19 weeks 6 days gestation (for miscarriage; n = 18,780) or 2 weeks 6 days gestation (for ectopic; n = 10,570). Matched, unvaccinated women from the pre-pandemic and, separately, pandemic periods were used as controls. Here we show no association between vaccination and miscarriage (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], pre-pandemic controls = 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.96-1.09) or ectopic pregnancy (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.92-1.38). We undertook additional analyses examining confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as the exposure and similarly found no association with miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Our findings support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies from COVID-19.

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

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

Inequalities in healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from 12 UK population-based longitudinal studies.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated associations between multiple sociodemographic characteristics (sex, age, occupational social class, education and ethnicity) and self-reported healthcare disruptions during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Coordinated analysis of prospective population surveys. SETTING: Community-dwelling participants in the UK between April 2020 and January 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Over 68 000 participants from 12 longitudinal studies. OUTCOMES: Self-reported healthcare disruption to medication access, procedures and appointments. RESULTS: Prevalence of healthcare disruption varied substantially across studies: between 6% and 32% reported any disruption, with 1%-10% experiencing disruptions in medication, 1%-17% experiencing disruption in procedures and 4%-28% experiencing disruption in clinical appointments. Females (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.15 to 1.40; I2=54%), older persons (eg, OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.72; I2=77% for 65-75 years vs 45-54 years) and ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.35; I2=0% vs white) were more likely to report healthcare disruptions. Those in a more disadvantaged social class were also more likely to report healthcare disruptions (eg, OR 1.17; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27; I2=0% for manual/routine vs managerial/professional), but no clear differences were observed by education. We did not find evidence that these associations differed by shielding status. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare disruptions during the COVID-19 pandemic could contribute to the maintenance or widening of existing health inequalities.

BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination uptake, safety, effectiveness and waning in children and young people aged 12-17 years in Scotland.

Background: The two-dose BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine has demonstrated high efficacy against COVID-19 disease in clinical trials of children and young people (CYP). Consequently, we investigated the uptake, safety, effectiveness and waning of the protective effect of the BNT162b2 against symptomatic COVID-19 in CYP aged 12-17 years in Scotland. Methods: The analysis of the vaccine uptake was based on information from the Turas Vaccination Management Tool, inclusive of Mar 1, 2022. Vaccine safety was evaluated using national data on hospital admissions and General Practice (GP) consultations, through a self-controlled case series (SCCS) design, investigating 17 health outcomes of interest. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic COVID-19 disease for Delta and Omicron variants was estimated using a test-negative design (TND) and S-gene status in a prospective cohort study using the Scotland-wide Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) surveillance platform. The waning of the VE following each dose of BNT162b2 was assessed using a matching process followed by conditional logistic regression. Findings: Between Aug 6, 2021 and Mar 1, 2022, 75.9% of the 112,609 CYP aged 16-17 years received the first and 49.0% the second COVID-19 vaccine dose. Among 237,681 CYP aged 12-15 years, the uptake was 64.5% and 37.2%, respectively. For 12-17-year-olds, BNT162b2 showed an excellent safety record, with no increase in hospital stays following vaccination for any of the 17 investigated health outcomes. In the 16-17-year-old group, VE against symptomatic COVID-19 during the Delta period was 64.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 59.2-68.5) at 2-5 weeks after the first dose and 95.6% (77.0-99.1) at 2-5 weeks after the second dose. The respective VEs against symptomatic COVID-19 in the Omicron period were 22.8% (95% CI -6.4-44.0) and 65.5% (95% CI 56.0-73.0). In children aged 12-15 years, VE against symptomatic COVID-19 during the Delta period was 65.4% (95% CI 61.5-68.8) at 2-5 weeks after the first dose, with no observed cases at 2-5 weeks after the second dose. The corresponding VE against symptomatic COVID-19 during the Omicron period were 30.2% (95% CI 18.4-40.3) and 81.2% (95% CI 77.7-84.2). The waning of the protective effect against the symptomatic disease began after five weeks post-first and post-second dose. Interpretation: During the study period, uptake of BNT162b2 in Scotland has covered more than two-thirds of CYP aged 12-17 years with the first dose and about 40% with the second dose. We found no increased likelihood of admission to hospital with a range of health outcomes in the period after vaccination. Vaccination with both doses was associated with a substantial reduction in the risk of COVID-19 symptomatic disease during both the Delta and Omicron periods, but this protection began to wane after five weeks. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council); Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund; Chief Scientist's Office of the Scottish Government; Health Data Research UK; National Core Studies - Data and Connectivity.

Risk of COVID-19 hospitalizations among school-aged children in Scotland: A national incident cohort study.

Background: There is considerable policy, clinical and public interest about whether children should be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 and, if so, which children should be prioritised (particularly if vaccine resources are limited). To inform such deliberations, we sought to identify children and young people at highest risk of hospitalization from COVID-19. Methods: We used the Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II) platform to undertake a national incident cohort analysis to investigate the risk of hospitalization among 5-17 years old living in Scotland in risk groups defined by the living risk prediction algorithm (QCOVID). A Cox proportional hazard model was used to derive hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between risk groups and COVID-19 hospital admission. Adjustments were made for age, sex, socioeconomic status, co-morbidity, and prior hospitalization. Results: Between March 1, 2020 and November 22, 2021, there were 146 183 (19.4% of all 752 867 children in Scotland) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections among 5-17 years old. Of those with confirmed infection, 973 (0.7%) were admitted to hospital with COVID-19. The rate of COVID-19 hospitalization was higher in those within each QCOVID risk group compared to those without the condition. Similar results were found in age stratified analyses (5-11 and 12-17 years old). Risk groups associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admission, included (adjusted HR, 95% CIs): sickle cell disease 14.35 (8.48-24.28), chronic kidney disease 11.34 (4.61-27.87), blood cancer 6.32 (3.24-12.35), rare pulmonary diseases 5.04 (2.58-9.86), type 2 diabetes 3.04 (1.34-6.92), epilepsy 2.54 (1.69-3.81), type 1 diabetes 2.48 (1.47-4.16), Down syndrome 2.45 (0.96-6.25), cerebral palsy 2.37 (1.26-4.47), severe mental illness 1.43 (0.63-3.24), fracture 1.41 (1.02-1.95), congenital heart disease 1.35 (0.82-2.23), asthma 1.28 (1.06-1.55), and learning disability (excluding Down syndrome) 1.08 (0.82-1.42), when compared to those without these conditions. Although our Cox models were adjusted for a number of potential confounders, residual confounding remains a possibility. Conclusions: In this national study, we observed an increased risk of COVID-19 hospital admissions among school-aged children with specific underlying long-term health conditions compared with children without these conditions.

The UK Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and smoking, alcohol consumption and vaping during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from eight longitudinal population surveys.

BACKGROUND: Employment disruptions can impact smoking and alcohol consumption. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries implemented furlough schemes to prevent job loss. We examine how furlough was associated with smoking, vaping and alcohol consumption in the UK. METHODS: Data from 27,841 participants in eight UK adult longitudinal surveys were analysed. Participants self-reported employment status and current smoking, current vaping and alcohol consumption (>4 days/week or 5+ drinks per typical occasion) both before and during the early stages of the pandemic (April-July 2020). Risk ratios were estimated within each study using modified Poisson regression, adjusting for a range of potential confounders, including pre-pandemic behaviour. Findings were synthesised using random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Compared to stable employment and after adjustment for pre-pandemic characteristics, furlough was not associated with smoking (ARR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; I2: 10%), vaping (ARR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.74-1.08; I2: 0%) or drinking (ARR = 1.03; 95% CI: 0.94-1.13; I2: 48%). There were similar findings for no longer being employed, and stable unemployment, though this varied by sex: stable unemployment was associated with smoking for women (ARR = 1.35; 95% CI: 1.00-1.82; I2: 47%) but not men (0.84; 95% CI: 0.67-1.05; I2: 0%). No longer being employed was associated with vaping among women (ARR = 2.74; 95% CI: 1.59-4.72; I2: 0%) but not men (ARR = 1.25; 95% CI: 0.83-1.87; I2: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: We found no clear evidence of furlough or unemployment having adverse impacts on smoking, vaping or drinking behaviours during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Differences in risk compared to those who remained employed were largely explained by pre-pandemic characteristics.

Vaccine effectiveness of heterologous CoronaVac plus BNT162b2 in Brazil.

There is considerable interest in the waning of effectiveness of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and vaccine effectiveness (VE) of booster doses. Using linked national Brazilian databases, we undertook a test-negative design study involving almost 14 million people (~16 million tests) to estimate VE of CoronaVac over time and VE of BNT162b2 booster vaccination against RT-PCR-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and severe COVID-19 outcomes (hospitalization or death). Compared with unvaccinated individuals, CoronaVac VE at 14-30 d after the second dose was 55.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 54.3-55.7) against confirmed infection and 82.1% (95% CI: 81.4-82.8) against severe outcomes. VE decreased to 34.7% (95% CI: 33.1-36.2) against infection and 72.5% (95% CI: 70.9-74.0) against severe outcomes over 180 d after the second dose. A BNT162b2 booster, 6 months after the second dose of CoronaVac, improved VE against infection to 92.7% (95% CI: 91.0-94.0) and VE against severe outcomes to 97.3% (95% CI: 96.1-98.1) 14-30 d after the booster. Compared with younger age groups, individuals 80 years of age or older had lower protection after the second dose but similar protection after the booster. Our findings support a BNT162b2 booster vaccine dose after two doses of CoronaVac, particularly for the elderly.

Second-dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccines and thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events in Scotland.

We investigated thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and hemorrhagic events following a second dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 using a self-controlled case series analysis. We used a national prospective cohort with 2.0 million(m) adults vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx or 1.6 m with BNT162b2. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) 14-20 days post-ChAdOx1 second dose was 2.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90-5.08. The incidence of ITP post-second dose ChAdOx1 was 0.59 (0.37-0.89) per 100,000 doses. No evidence of an increased risk of CVST was found for the 0-27 day risk period (IRR 0.83, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.26). However, few (≤5) events arose within this risk period. It is perhaps noteworthy that these events all clustered in the 7-13 day period (IRR 4.06, 95% CI 0.94 to 17.51). No other associations were found for second dose ChAdOx1, or any association for second dose BNT162b2 vaccination. Second dose ChAdOx1 vaccination was associated with increased borderline risks of ITP and CVST events. However, these events were rare thus providing reassurance about the safety of these vaccines. Further analyses including more cases are required to determine more precisely the risk profile for ITP and CVST after a second dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine.