ABSTRACT
Background. The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people living and working in UK care homes causing high mortality rates. Vaccinating staff members and residents is considered the most effective intervention to reduce infection and its transmission rates. However, uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in care homes was variable. We sought to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in care home staff to inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake and inform future preparedness.Methods. Twenty care home staff including managerial and administrative staff, nurses, healthcare practitioners and support staff from nine care homes across England participated in semi-structured telephone interviews (March-June 2021) exploring attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing uptake. We used thematic analysis to generate themes which were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify potential intervention strategies to address identified influences.Results. Enablers to vaccine uptake included the willingness to protect care home residents, staff and family/friends from infection and the belief that vaccination provided a way back to normality (reflective motivation); convenience of vaccination and access to accurate information (physical opportunity); and a supporting social environment around them favouring vaccination (social opportunity). Barriers included fears about side-effects (automatic motivation); a lack of trust due to the quick release of the vaccine (reflective motivation); and feeling pressurised to accept vaccination if mandatory (automatic motivation).Conclusions We identified influences on COVID-19 vaccine uptake by care home staff that can inform the implementation of future vaccination programmes. Strategies likely to support uptake include information campaigns and facilitating communication between staff and managers to openly discuss concerns regarding possible vaccination side effects. Freedom of choice played an important role in the decision to be vaccinated suggesting that the decision to mandate vaccination may have unintended behavioural consequences.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , InfectionsABSTRACT
We evaluated the effectiveness of 1-3 booster vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality among a cohort of 13407 older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) participating in the VIVALDI study in England in 2022. Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 related death following booster vaccination relative to 2 doses (after 84+ days), stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex and LTCF capacity. Each booster provided additional short-term protection relative to primary vaccination, with consistent pattern of waning to 45-75% reduction in risk beyond 112 days.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Successive 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 effectiveness of booster vaccination against infections, hospitalisations 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 hospitalisation and death at 0-13, 14-48, 49-83 and 84 days after dose 3 of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared to 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 14175 residents and 19973 staff were included. In residents without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection risk was reduced 0-83 days after first booster, but no protection was apparent after 84 days. Additional protection following booster vaccination waned, but was still present at 84+ days for COVID-associated hospitalisation (aHR: 0.47, 0.24-0.89) and death (aHR: 0.37, 0.21-0.62). Most residents (64.4%) had received primary course of AstraZeneca, but this did not impact on pre- or post-booster risks. Staff showed a similar pattern of waning booster effectiveness against infection, with few hospitalisations and no deaths. Conclusions Booster vaccination provides sustained protection against severe outcomes following infection with the Omicron variant, but no protection against infection from 3 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs is crucial. Summary The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted residents in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Booster vaccination provides sustained moderate protection against severe outcomes, but no protection against infection was apparent from around 3 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance in LTCFs is crucial.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Structured summary Background Whole genome sequencing (WGS) for managing healthcare associated infections (HCAIs) has developed considerably through experiences with SARS-CoV-2. We interviewed various healthcare professionals (HCPs) with direct experience of using WGS in hospitals (within the COG-UK Hospital Onset COVID-19 Infection (HOCI) study) to explore its acceptability and future use. Method An exploratory, cross-sectional, qualitative design employed semi-structured interviews with 39 diverse HCPs between December 2020 and June 2021. Participants were recruited from five sites within the larger clinical study of a novel genome sequencing reporting tool for SARS-CoV-2 (the HOCI study). All had experience, in their diverse roles, of using sequencing data to manage nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis identified themes exploring aspects of the acceptability of sequencing. Findings The analysis highlighted the overall acceptability of rapid WGS for infectious disease using SARS-CoV-2 as a case study. Diverse professionals were largely very positive about its future use and believed that it could become a valuable and routine tool for managing HCAIs. We identified three key themes ‘1) ‘Proof of concept achieved’; 2) ‘Novel insights and implications’; and 3) ‘Challenges and demands’. Conclusion Our qualitative analysis, drawn from five diverse hospitals, shows the broad acceptability of rapid sequencing and its potential. Participants believed it could and should become an everyday technology capable of being embedded within typical hospital processes and systems. However, its future integration into existing healthcare systems will not be without challenges (e.g., resource, multi-level change) warranting further mixed methods research.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Communicable DiseasesABSTRACT
Third dose COVID-19 vaccines are being deployed widely but their efficacy has not been assessed adequately in vulnerable elderly people who exhibit suboptimal responses after primary series vaccination. We studied spike-specific immune responses in 341 staff and residents in long-term care facilities (LTCF) who received an mRNA vaccine following dual primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Third dose vaccination strongly increased antibody responses with preferential enhancement in older people and was required to elicit neutralisation of Omicron. Cellular immune responses were also enhanced with strong cross-reactive recognition of Omicron. However, antibody titres fell 21-78% within 100 days post vaccine and 27% of participants developed a breakthrough Omicron infection. These findings reveal strong immunogenicity of a 3rd 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.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background Long-term care facilities (LTCF) have been prioritised for vaccination, but data on potential waning of vaccine effectiveness (VE) and the impact of booster doses in this vulnerable population remains scarce. Methods We included residents and staff from 331 LTCFs enrolled in VIVALDI (ISRCTN 14447421), who underwent routine PCR testing between Dec 8, 2020 - Dec 11, 2021 in a Cox proportional hazards regression, estimating VE against SARS-CoV2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and COVID-19-related death after 1-3 vaccine doses, stratifying by previous SARS-CoV2 exposure. Results For 15,518 older residents, VE declined from 50.7% (15.5, 71.3) to 17.2% (-23.9, 44.6) against infection; from 85.4% (60.7, 94.6) to 54.3% (26.2, 71.7) against hospitalisation; and from 94.4% (76.4, 98.7) to 62.8% (32.9, 79.4) against death, when comparing 2-12 weeks and [≥]12 weeks after two doses. For 19,515 staff, VE against infection declined slightly from 50.3% (32.7, 63.3) to 42.1% 29.5, 52.4). High VE was restored following a third dose, with VE of 71.6% (53.5, 82.7) and 78.3% (70.1, 84.3) against infection and 89.9% (80.0, 94.6) and 95.8% (50.4, 99.6) against hospitalisation, for residents and staff respectively; and 97.5% (88.1, 99.5) against death for residents. Interpretation Substantial waning of VE is observed against all outcomes in residents from 12 weeks after a primary course of AstraZeneca or mRNA vaccines. Boosters restore protection, and maximise immunity across all outcomes. These findings demonstrate the importance of boosting and the need for ongoing surveillance of VE in this vulnerable cohort. Funding UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome , DeathABSTRACT
Background General population studies have shown strong humoral response following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with subsequent waning of anti-spike antibody levels. Vaccine-induced immune responses are often attenuated in frail and older populations such as Long-Term Care Facility (LTCF) residents but published data are scarce. Methods VIVALDI is a prospective cohort study in England which links serial blood sampling in LTCF staff and residents to routine healthcare records. We measured quantitative titres of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibodies in residents and staff following second vaccination dose with ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). We investigated differences in peak antibody levels and rates of decline using linear mixed effects models. Results We report on 1317 samples from 402 residents (median age 86 years, IQR 78-91) and 632 staff (50 years, 37-58), ≤280 days from second vaccination dose. Peak antibody titres were 7.9-fold higher after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine compared to Oxford-AstraZeneca (95%CI 3.6-17.0; P <0.01) but rate of decline was increased, and titres were similar at 6 months. Prior infection was associated with higher peak antibody levels in both Pfizer-BioNTech (2.8-fold, 1.9-4.1; P <0.01) and Oxford-AstraZeneca (4.8-fold, 3.2-7.1; P <0.01) recipients and slower rates of antibody decline. Increasing age was associated with a modest reduction in peak antibody levels for Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients. Conclusions Double-dose vaccination elicits robust and stable antibody responses in older LTCF residents, suggesting comparable levels of vaccine-induced immunity to that in the general population. Antibody levels are higher after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination but fall more rapidly compared to Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients and are enhanced by prior infection in both groups.
ABSTRACT
Background Recently there has been a rapid, global increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections associated with the Omicron variant (B.1.1.529). Although severity of Omicron cases may be reduced, the scale of infection suggests hospital admissions and deaths may be substantial. Definitive conclusions about disease severity require evidence from populations with the greatest risk of severe outcomes, such as residents of Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCFs). Methods We used a cohort study to compare the risk of hospital admission or death in LTCF residents in England who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the period shortly before Omicron emerged (Delta dominant) and the Omicron-dominant period, adjusting for age, sex, vaccine type, and booster vaccination. Variants were confirmed by sequencing or spike-gene status in a subset. Results Risk of hospital admission was markedly lower in 398 residents infected in the pre-Omicron period (10.8% hospitalised, 95% CI: 8.13-14.29) compared to 1241 residents infected in the Omicron-period (4.01% hospitalised, 95% CI: 2.87-5.59, adjusted Hazard Ratio 0.50, 95% CI: 0.29-0.87, p=0.014); findings were similar in residents with confirmed variant. No residents with previous infection were hospitalised in either period. Mortality was lower in the Omicron versus the pre-Omicron period, (p<0.0001). Conclusions Risk of severe outcomes in LTCF residents with the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was substantially lower than that seen for previous variants. This suggests the current wave of Omicron infections is unlikely to lead to a major surge in severe disease in LTCF populations with high levels of vaccine coverage and/or natural immunity. Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 14447421
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Death , Severe Acute Respiratory SyndromeABSTRACT
BackgroundLong Term Care Facilities (LTCF) have reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and related mortality, but the proportion infected amongst survivors and duration of the antibody response to natural infection is unknown. We determined the prevalence and stability of nucleocapsid antibodies - the standard assay for detection of prior infection - in staff and residents from 201 LTCFs. MethodsProspective cohort study of residents aged >65 years and staff of LTCFs in England (11 June 2020-7 May 2021). Serial blood samples were tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein. Prevalence and cumulative incidence of antibody-positivity were weighted to the LTCF population. Cumulative incidence of sero-reversion was estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves. Results9488 samples were included, 8636 (91%) of which could be individually-linked to 1434 residents or 3288 staff members. The cumulative incidence of nucleocapsid seropositivity was 35% (95% CI: 30-40%) in residents and 26% (95% CI: 23-30%) in staff over 11 months. The incidence rate of loss of antibodies (sero-reversion) was 2{middle dot}1 per 1000 person-days at risk, and median time to reversion was around 8 months. InterpretationAt least one-quarter of staff and one-third of surviving residents were infected during the first two pandemic waves. Nucleocapsid-specific antibodies often become undetectable within the first year following infection which is likely to lead to marked underestimation of the true proportion of those with prior infection. Since natural infection may act to boost vaccine responses, better assays to identify natural infection should be developed. FundingUK Government Department of Health and Social Care. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSA search was conducted of Ovid MEDLINE and MedRxiv on 21 July 2021 to identify studies conducted in long term care facilities (LTCF) that described seroprevalence using the terms "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2" and "nursing home" or "care home" or "residential" or "long term care facility" and "antibody" or "serology" without date or language restrictions. One meta-analysis was identified, published before the introduction of vaccination, that included 2 studies with a sample size of 291 which estimated seroprevalence as 59% in LTCF residents. There were 28 seroprevalence surveys of naturally-acquired SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in LTCFs; 16 were conducted in response to outbreaks and 12 conducted in care homes without known outbreaks. 16 studies included more than 1 LTCF and all were conducted in Autumn 2020 after the first wave of infection but prior to subsequent peaks. Seroprevalence studies conducted following a LTCF outbreak were biased towards positivity as the included population was known to have been previously infected. In the 12 studies that were conducted outside of known outbreaks, seroprevalence varied significantly according to local prevalence of infection. The largest of these was a cross-sectional study conducted in 9,000 residents and 10,000 staff from 362 LTCFs in Madrid, which estimated seroprevalence in staff as 31{middle dot}5% and 55{middle dot}4% in residents. However, as this study was performed in one city, it may not be generalisable to the whole of Spain and sequential sampling was not performed. Of the 28 studies, 9 undertook longitudinal sampling for a maximum of four months although three of these reported from the same cohort of LTCFs in London. None of the studies reported on antibody waning amongst the whole resident population. Added value of this studyWe estimated the proportion of care home staff and residents with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 natural infection using data from over 3,000 staff and 1,500 residents in 201 geographically dispersed LTCFs in England. Population selection was independent of outbreak history and the sample is therefore more reflective of the population who reside and work in LTCFs. Our estimates of the proportion of residents with prior natural infection are substantially higher than estimates based on population-wide PCR testing, due to limited testing coverage at the start of the pandemic. 1361 individuals had at least one positive antibody test and participants were followed for up to 11 months, which allowed modelling of the time to loss of antibody in over 600 individuals in whom the date of primary infection could be reliably estimated. This is the longest reported serological follow up in a population of LTCF residents, a group who are known to be most at risk of severe outcomes following infection with SARS-CoV-2 and provides important evidence on the duration that nucleocapsid antibodies remained detectable over the first and second waves of the pandemic. Implications of all available researchA substantial proportion of the LTCF population will have some level of natural immunity to infection as a result of past infection. Immunological studies have highlighted greater antibody responses to vaccination in seropositive individuals, so vaccine efficacy in this population may be affected by this large pool of individuals who have survived past infection. In addition, although the presence of nucleocapsid-specific antibodies is generally considered as the standard marker for prior infection, we find that antibody waning is such that up to 50% of people will lose detectable antibody responses within eight months. Individual prior natural infection history is critical to assess the impact of factors such as vaccine response or protection against re-infection. These findings may have implications for duration of immunity following natural infection and indicate that alternative assays for prior infection should be developed.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Long term care facilities (LTCF) provide residential and/or nursing care support for frail and elderly people and many have suffered from a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although mortality rates have been high in LTCF residents there is little information regarding the features of SARS-CoV-2-specific immunity after infection in this setting or how this may influence immunity to other infections. We studied humoral and cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2 in 152 LTCF staff and 124 residents over a prospective 4-month period shortly after the first wave of infection and related viral serostatus to heterologous immunity to other respiratory viruses and systemic inflammatory markers. LTCF residents developed high levels of antibodies against spike protein and RBD domain which were stable over 4 months of follow up. Nucleocapsid-specific responses were also elevated in elderly donors but showed waning across all populations. Antibodies showed stable and equivalent levels of functional inhibition against spike-ACE2 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 RSV. SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular responses were equivalent across the life course but virus-specific populations showed elevated levels of activation in older donors. LTCF residents who are survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection thus show robust and stable immunity which does not impact responses to other seasonal viruses. These findings augur well for relative protection of LTCF residents to re-infection. Furthermore, they underlie the potent influence of previous infection on the immune response to Covid-19 vaccine which may prove to be an important determinant of future vaccine strategy. One sentence summeryCare home residents show waning of nucleocapsid specific antibodies and enhanced expression of activation markers on SARS-CoV-2 specific cells
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCF) have experienced high mortality rates from SARS-CoV-2 infection and as such have been prioritized for Covid-19 vaccination. Several countries have implemented an extended interval of up to 12 weeks between first and second vaccine doses to increase population coverage after single administration. Methods: Spike-specific immune responses that were induced following single administration of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 were studied in 89 staff and 35 residents within LTCFs. Quantitative antibody and cellular responses were determined as well as antibody inhibition of spike protein-ACE2 binding from viral variants. Results: 20% of staff and 34% of residents were found to have serological evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and all of these donors demonstrated strong antibody responses that were independent of age. Antibody responses were detectable within 99% and 79% of ‘infection-naive’ staff and residents respectively but were 8.2-fold lower within residents. This effect resulted from slower kinetics of antibody generation within residents which reached levels comparable to staff after only 42 days. In contrast spike-specific cellular responses were equivalent between both groups. Antibody inhibition activity against the B.1.351 and P.1 viral variants of concern was low using serum from ‘infection-naive’ older donors. Prior history of natural infection thus has a marked impact on the magnitude and quality of antibody response after a single Covid-19 vaccine in care home residents. Interpretation: Residents who are infection-naive have delayed antibody responses to the first dose of vaccine and might be considered for an early second vaccine where possible. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social CareDeclaration of Interests: LS reports grants from the Department of Health and Social Care during the conduct of the study and is a member of the Social Care Working Group, which reports to the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. AH is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group at the Department of Health.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the South Central - Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee, REC Ref: 20/SC/023.
Subject(s)
Leigh Disease , Emergencies , COVID-19 , Hemoglobin SC DiseaseABSTRACT
BackgroundThe effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in frail older adults living in Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCFs) is uncertain. We estimated protective effects of the first dose of ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 vaccines against infection in this population. MethodsCohort study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated LTCF residents in England, undergoing routine asymptomatic testing (8 December 2020 - 15 March 2021). We estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for age, sex, prior infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, LTCF bed capacity, and clustering by LTCF. ResultsOf 10,412 residents (median age 86 years) from 310 LTCFs, 9,160 were vaccinated with either ChAdOx1 (6,138; 67%) or BNT162b2 (3,022; 33%) vaccines. A total of 670,628 person days and 1,335 PCR-positive infections were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days following the first vaccine dose to 0{middle dot}44 (0{middle dot}24, 0{middle dot}81) at 28-34 days and 0{middle dot}38 (0{middle dot}19, 0{middle dot}77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (aHR 0{middle dot}32 [0{middle dot}15-0{middle dot}66] and BNT162b2 (aHR 0{middle dot}35 [0{middle dot}17, 0{middle dot}71]) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR cycle threshold values were higher, implying lower infectivity, for infections [≥]28 days post-vaccination compared with those prior to vaccination (31{middle dot}3 vs 26{middle dot}6, p<0{middle dot}001). InterpretationThe first dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines was associated with substantially reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection risk in LTCF residents from 4 weeks to at least 7 weeks. FundingUK Government Department of Health and Social Care. Research in ContextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe conducted a systematic search for studies which evaluated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) published between 01/01/2020 and 11/03/2021. We used variations of search terms for "COVID-19" AND "vaccine effectiveness" OR "vaccine efficacy" AND "care homes" OR "long term care facilities" OR "older people" on Ovid MEDLINE and MedRxiv. We identified one pre-print article regarding LTCFs in Denmark, which reported that a single dose of BNT162b was ineffective against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents, however, participants received the second vaccine dose 24 days following the first dose on average, which is likely to be too soon to capture the protective effects of a single vaccine dose. Additionally, we identified two pre-print reports of studies evaluating vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection and hospitalisation amongst older adults in the community. The first of these found 81% vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19-related hospitalisation at 28-34 days following a single dose of BNT162b or ChAdOx1 in [≥]80-year-olds. The second of these found vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infection of 60% at 28-34 days and 73% at 35+ days following a single dose of ChAdOx1 in [≥]70-year-olds. No studies were identified that focused on the effectiveness of a single vaccine dose against infection amongst LTCF residents at more than 4 weeks post-vaccination, a particularly important question in the context of the UK policy decision to extend the dose interval beyond 3 weeks. Added value of this studyWe conducted a prospective cohort study of 10,412 residents aged [≥]65 years, from 310 LTCFs across England, to investigate the protective effect of the first dose of the ChAdOx1 and BNT162b vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection in frail older adults. We retrieved results from routine monthly PCR testing, as well as outbreak and clinical testing for SARS-CoV-2, thereby capturing data on asymptomatic as well as symptomatic infections, which we linked to vaccination records. We estimated vaccine effectiveness to be 56% (19-76%) at 28-34 days, and 62% (23-81%) at 35-48 days following a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162. Our findings suggest that the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially reduced from 28 days following the first dose of either vaccine and that this effect is maintained for at least 7 weeks, with similar protection offered by both vaccine types. We also found that PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, which are negatively associated with the ability to isolate virus, were significantly higher in infections occurring at [≥] 28days post vaccination compared to those occurring in the unvaccinated period, suggesting that vaccination may reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in breakthrough infections. To the best of our knowledge, our findings constitute the first real-world evidence on vaccine effectiveness against infection for ChAdOx1, in any age group. We can also infer that both vaccines are effective against the B.1.1.7 variant, because our analysis period coincided with the rapid emergence of B.1.1.7 in England during the second wave of the pandemic. Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings add to the growing body of evidence on the protective effect of the BNT162b vaccines in residents of LTCFs and demonstrate the effectiveness of ChAdOx1 in this vulnerable population. Evaluating single-dose vaccine efficacy has become increasingly important in light of extended dosing intervals that have been implemented in order to maximise vaccine coverage across high-risk groups. Further work is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the first vaccine dose after 8-12 weeks, as well as following the second dose, and to evaluate the long-term impact of vaccination on SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission and mortality in LTCFs. This will inform policy decisions regarding the ongoing need for disease control measures in LTCF such as visitor restrictions, which continue to have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of residents, their relatives, and staff. Supplementary material attached.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background SARS-CoV-2 infection represents a major challenge for Long Term Care Facilities (LTCFs) and many residents and staff are now sero-positive following persistent outbreaks. We investigated the relationship between the presence of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies and subsequent infection in this population. Methods Prospective cohort study of infection in staff and residents in 100 LTCFs in England between October 2020 and February 2021. Blood samples were collected at baseline (June 2020), 2 and 4 months and tested for IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid and spike protein. PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 was undertaken weekly in staff and monthly in residents. The primary analysis estimated the relative hazard of a PCR-positive test by baseline antibody status, from Cox regression adjusted for age and gender, and stratified by LTCF. Findings Study inclusion criteria were met by 682 residents and 1429 staff. Baseline IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid were detected in 226 residents (33%) and 408 staff (29%). A total of 93 antibody-negative residents had a PCR-positive test (0.054 per month at risk) compared to 4 antibody-positive residents (0.007 per month at risk). There were 111 PCR-positive tests in antibody-negative staff (0.042 per month at risk) compared to 10 in antibody-positive staff (0.009 per month at risk). The adjusted hazard ratios for reinfection in staff and residents with a baseline positive versus negative antibody test were 0.13 (95% CI 0.05-0.40) and 0.39 ((95% CI: 0.19-0.77) respectively. Of 12 reinfected participants with data on symptoms, 11 were symptomatic. Antibody titres to spike and nucleocapsid were comparable in PCR-positive and PCR-negative cases. Interpretation The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection. Funding UK Government Department of Health and Social Care Research in context Evidence before this study We performed a systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid) and MedRxiv on 18 January 2021 for studies in LTCFs that described the risk of infection in individuals who were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to individuals who were seronegative. Search terms were deliberately broad to improve capture of relevant literature and included “SARS-CoV-2”OR “COVID-19” OR “coronavirus” AND “care home” OR “nursing home” OR “long term care facility” with no date or language restrictions. We did not identify any publications that focussed on risk of reinfection in seropositive individuals, but subsequent to our search one study has been published using data from two LTCFs in London, UK. This study reported a 96% reduction in the odds of reinfection in individuals who were seropositive compared to those who were seronegative based on 4-month follow-up in 161 participants. We found 10 studies that performed seroprevalence surveys in either staff or staff and residents in LTCFs in 8 cohorts. Five of these were carried out in response to SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks within the care homes, either as part of the subsequent investigation or as post-infection surveillance. The largest of these, which enrolled both staff and residents, was performed in 6 LTCFs and performed longitudinal antibody testing. Added value of this study We undertook a cohort study in staff and residents from 100 LTCFs in England to investigate whether individuals with evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection could be infected twice. Staff and residents were offered up to three rounds of antibody testing and antibody results were linked to PCR test results which were obtained weekly from staff and monthly from residents through the national SARS-CoV-2 testing programme. This study, which was conducted in >2000 staff and residents, suggests that antibodies provide high levels of protection against reinfection for up to 10 months. Almost all cases of reinfection were symptomatic, but no cases required hospital treatment. Amongst those with detectable baseline antibodies, quantitative antibody titres against spike protein and nucleocapsid were comparable between cases of reinfection and those who did not become reinfected. Implications of all available evidence Despite high background rates of infection in LTCFs, the overall risk of reinfection was low in this population. This is broadly consistent with findings from large cohort studies of hospital staff, but, importantly, extends the evidence of substantial protection to frail elderly, who are vulnerable to severe outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 due to age-related changes in immunity (immune-senescence) and high levels of comorbidity. The low risk of reinfection in our study suggests identification of immune correlates of protection in this population will require pooling of data across multiple cohorts. As vaccination coverage in residents approaches 100% in England, it will be important to understand whether vaccination and natural infection provide comparable levels of protection against infection. Such insights will inform future policy decisions regarding re-vaccination schedules in LTCF, and the longer-term need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission, such as asymptomatic testing and visitor restrictions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Emergency hospital admissions for infection often lack microbiological diagnostic certainty. Novel approaches to discriminate likelihood of bacterial and viral infections are required to support antimicrobial prescribing decisions and infection control practice. We sought to derive and validate a blood transcriptional signature to differentiate bacterial infections from viral infections including COVID-19.Methods: Blood RNA sequencing was performed on a discovery cohort of adults attending the Emergency Department with confirmed bacteraemia or viral infection. Differentially expressed host genes were subjected to feature selection to derive the most parsimonious discriminating signature. RT-qPCR validation of the signature was then performed in a prospective cohort of patients presenting with undifferentiated fever and a second case-control cohort of patients with bacteraemia or COVID-19.Findings: A 3-gene transcript signature was derived from the discovery cohort of 56 definite bacterial and 27 viral infection cases. In the validation cohort, the signature differentiated bacterial and viral infections with an area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.976 (95% CI: 0.919-1.000), sensitivity 97.3% and specificity of 100%. The AUC for C-reactive protein and leucocyte count was 0.833 (95% CI: 0.694-0.944) and 0.938 (95% CI: 0.840-0.986) respectively. In the second validation analysis the signature discriminated 34 SARS-CoV-2 positive COVID-19 from 35 bacterial infections with AUC of 0.953 (95% CI: 0.893-0.992), sensitivity 88.6% and specificity of 94.1%.Interpretation: This novel 3-gene signature discriminates viral infections including COVID-19 from bacterial sepsis in adults, outperforming both leucocyte count and CRP, thus potentially providing significant clinical utility in managing acute presentations with infection.Funding Statement: Work in this study was funded by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust and the European Union FP7 (EC-GA 279185) (EUCLIDS).Declaration of Interests: None of the authors have any relevant interest to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval was obtained to take deferred consent from patients from whom an RNA specimen had been collected (or from next of kin or nominated consultee) (REC references 14/SC/0008 and 19/SC/0116).
Subject(s)
Neurologic Manifestations , Fever , Sepsis , Bacterial Infections , Emergencies , Eye Infections, Viral , COVID-19 , Hemoglobin SC DiseaseABSTRACT
BackgroundOutbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 have occurred worldwide in Long Term Care Facilities (LTCFs), but the reasons why some facilities are particularly vulnerable to infection are poorly understood. We aimed to identify risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks in LTCFs. MethodsCross-sectional survey of all LTCFs providing dementia care or care to adults >65 years in England with linkage to SARS-CoV-2 test results. Exposures included: LTCF characteristics, staffing factors, and use of disease control measures. Main outcomes included risk factors for infection and outbreaks, estimated using multivariable logistic regression, and survey and test-based weighted estimates of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. Findings5126/9081 (56%) LTCFs participated in the survey, with 160,033 residents and 248,594 staff. The weighted period prevalence of infection in residents and staff respectively was 10.5% (95% CI: 9.9-11.1%) and 3.8% (95%: 3.4-4.2%) and 2724 LTCFs (53.1%) had [≥]1 infection. Odds of infection and/or outbreaks were reduced in LTCFs that paid sickness pay, cohorted staff, did not employ agency staff and had higher staff to resident ratios. Higher odds of infection and outbreaks were identified in facilities with more admissions, lower cleaning frequency, poor compliance with isolation and "for profit" status. InterpretationHalf of LTCFs had no cases suggesting they remain vulnerable to outbreaks. Reducing transmission from staff requires adequate sick pay, minimal use of temporary staff, improved staffing ratios and staff cohorting. Transmission from residents is associated with the number of admissions to the facility and poor compliance with isolation. FundingUK Government Department of Health & Social Care Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSCOVID-19 outbreaks have occurred worldwide in long-term care facilities (LTCFs), which provide care to elderly and vulnerable residents, and are associated with high mortality. The reasons why LTCFs are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 are poorly understood. Most studies of risk factors for COVID-19 to date have been limited by scale, and poor quality administrative, demographic and infection control data. We conducted a systematic search on 27 July 2020 in MEDLINE Ovid, WHO COVID-19 database and in MedRxiv to identify studies reporting risk factors for COVID-19 infection or outbreaks in LTCFs, with no date or language restrictions. We used the search terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "coronavirus" and "care home", "nursing home", "long term care facilit" and excluded studies that did not investigate LTCF-level risk factors. 14 studies met our inclusion criteria comprising 11 cross-sectional studies and 3 surveys. The largest cross-sectional study was conducted in 9395 specialised nursing facilities across 30 states in USA; the largest survey was conducted in 124 LTCFs in Haute-Garrone region of France. Risk of bias was high across all studies, and results could not be pooled due to heterogeneity between studies. Main risk factors for infection and/or outbreaks related to the size of the facility, lower ratios of staff to residents, urban location, higher occupancy, and the community prevalence of infection. Only one study collected data on the use of disease control measures during the pandemic, and no studies provided data on risk factors such as the use of temporary staff, or the impact of staff working across multiple locations. Added value of this studyWe conducted a national telephone survey with managers of all LTCFs in England which provided dementia care or care to residents aged > 65 years to collect data on the number of staff and residents in each facility, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, characteristics of the facility e.g.size, staffing (use of temporary staff, staffing ratios, sickness pay) and disease control measures such as cohorting and isolation. We identified risk factors for infection in residents and staff, outbreaks (defined as [≥]1 case per LTCF) and large outbreaks using logistic regression. We also estimated the proportion of staff and residents who had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Responses were obtained from 5126 of out 9081 (56%) of eligible LTCFs. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most detailed survey of risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks that has been conducted in LTCFs. Implications of all the available evidenceAlmost half of LTCFs surveyed in this study did not report any cases of infection, and remain vulnerable to infection and outbreaks, highlighting the need for effective control measures. Reducing transmission from staff requires adequate sick pay, minimal use of temporary staff, improved staffing ratios and staff cohorting. Transmission from residents is associated with the number of admissions to the facility and poor compliance with control measures such as isolation.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundDiagnostic testing forms a major part of the UKs response to the current COVID-19 pandemic with tests offered to people with a continuous cough, high temperature or anosmia. Testing capacity must be sufficient during the winter respiratory season when levels of cough and fever are high due to non-COVID-19 causes. This study aims to make predictions about the contribution of baseline cough or fever to future testing demand in the UK. MethodsIn this analysis of the Bug Watch prospective community cohort study, we estimated the incidence of cough or fever in England in 2018-2019. We then estimated the COVID-19 diagnostic testing rates required in the UK for baseline cough or fever cases for the period July 2020-June 2021. This was explored for different rates of the population requesting tests and four second wave scenarios and then compared to current national capacity. ResultsThe baseline incidence of cough or fever in the UK is expected to rise rapidly from 154,554 (95%CI 103,083 - 231,725) cases per day in August 2020 to 250,708 (95%CI 181,095 - 347,080) in September, peaking at 444,660 (95%CI 353,084 - 559,988) in December. If 80% of baseline cough or fever cases request tests, average daily UK testing demand would exceed current capacity for five consecutive months (October 2020 to February 2021), with a peak demand of 147,240 (95%CI 73,978 - 239,502) tests per day above capacity in December 2020. ConclusionsOur results show that current national COVID-19 testing capacity is likely to be exceeded by demand due to baseline cough and fever alone. This study highlights that the UKs response to the COVID-19 pandemic must ensure that a high proportion of people with symptoms request tests, and that testing capacity is immediately scaled up to meet this high predicted demand.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundEpidemiological data on COVID-19 infection in care homes are scarce. We analysed data from a large provider of long-term care for older people to investigate infection and mortality during the first wave of the pandemic. MethodsCohort study of 179 UK care homes with 9,339 residents and 11,604 staff.We used manager-reported daily tallies to estimate the incidence of suspected and confirmed infection and mortality in staff and residents. Individual-level electronic health records from 8,713 residents were used to model risk factors for confirmed infection, mortality, and estimate attributable mortality. Results2,075/9,339 residents developed COVID-19 symptoms (22.2% [95% confidence interval: 21.4%; 23.1%]), while 951 residents (10.2% [9.6%; 10.8%]) and 585 staff (5.0% [4.7%; 5.5%]) had laboratory-confirmed infections. The incidence of confirmed infection was 152.6 [143.1; 162.6] and 62.3 [57.3; 67.5] per 100,000 person-days in residents and staff respectively. 121/179 (67.6%) care homes had at least one COVID-19 infection or COVID-19-related death. Lower staffing ratios and higher occupancy rates were independent risk factors for infection. 217/607 residents with confirmed infection died (case-fatality rate: 35.7% [31.9%; 39.7%]). Mortality in residents with no direct evidence of infection was two-fold higher in care homes with outbreaks versus those without (adjusted HR 2.2 [1.8; 2.6]). ConclusionsFindings suggest many deaths occurred in people who were infected with COVID-19, but not tested. Higher occupancy and lower staffing levels were independently associated with risks of infection. Protecting staff and residents from infection requires regular testing for COVID-19 and fundamental changes to staffing and care home occupancy.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundUp to 80% of active SARS-CoV-2 infections are proposed to be asymptomatic based on cross-sectional studies. However, accurate estimates of the asymptomatic proportion require systematic detection and follow-up to differentiate between truly asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic cases. We conducted a rapid review and meta-analysis of current evidence regarding the asymptomatic proportion of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections based on methodologically-appropriate studies in community settings. MethodsWe searched Medline and EMBASE for peer-reviewed articles, and BioRxiv and MedRxiv for pre-prints published prior to 05/05/2020. We included studies based in community settings that involved systematic PCR testing on participants and follow-up symptom monitoring regardless of symptom status. We extracted data on study characteristics, frequencies of PCR-confirmed infections by symptom status, and (if available) cycle threshold values and/or duration of viral shedding by symptom status. We computed estimates of the asymptomatic proportion and 95% confidence intervals for each study and overall using random effect meta-analysis. FindingsWe screened 270 studies and included 6. The pooled estimate for the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections was 11% (95% CI 4%-18%). Estimates of baseline viral load appeared to be similar for asymptomatic and symptomatic cases based on available data in three studies, though detailed reporting of cycle threshold values and natural history of viral shedding by symptom status was limited. InterpretationThe asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections is relatively low when estimated from methodologically-appropriate studies. Further investigation into the degree and duration of infectiousness for asymptomatic infections is warranted. FundingMedical Research Council
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
RAPID COMMUNICATION 22 March 2020 Estimating excess 1- year mortality from COVID-19 according to underlying conditions and age in England: a rapid analysis using NHS health records in 3.8 million adults Background: The medical, health service, societal and economic impact of the COVID-19 emergency has unknown effects on overall population mortality. Previous models of population mortality are based on death over days among infected people, nearly all of whom (to date at least) have underlying conditions. Models have not incorporated information on high risk conditions or their longer term background (pre-COVID-19) mortality. We estimated the excess number of deaths over 1 year under different COVID-19 incidence rates and differing mortality impacts. Methods: Using population based linked primary and secondary care electronic health records in England (HDR UK - CALIBER), we report the prevalence of underlying conditions defined by UK Public Health England COVID-19 guidelines (16 March 2020) in 3,862,012 individuals aged [≥]30 years from 1997-2017. We used previously validated phenotypes, openly available (https://caliberresearch.org/portal), for each condition using ICD-10 diagnosis, Read, procedure and medication codes. We estimated the 1-year mortality in each condition, and developed simple models of excess COVID-19-related deaths assuming relative risk (RR) of the impact of the emergency (compared to background mortality) of 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0. Findings: 20.0% of the population are at risk according to current PHE guidelines, of which; 13.7% were age>70 years and 6.3% aged [≤]70 years with [≥]1 underlying condition (cardiovascular disease (2.3%), diabetes (2.2%), steroid therapy (1.9%), severe obesity (0.9%), chronic kidney disease (0.6%) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD (0.5%). Multimorbidity (co-occurrence of [≥]2 conditions in an individual) was common (10.1%). The 1-year mortality in the at-risk population was 4.46%, and age and underlying conditions combine to influence background risk, varying markedly across conditions (5.9% in age>70 years, 8.6% for COPD and 13.1% in those with [≥]3 or more conditions). In a suppression scenario (at SARS CoV2 rates of 0.001% of the UK population), there would be minimal excess deaths (3 and 7 excess deaths at relative risk, RR, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively). At SARS CoV2 rates of 10% of the UK population (mitigation) the model estimates the numbers of excess deaths as: 13791, 34479 and 68957 (at RR 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0 respectively). At SARS CoV2 rates of 80% in the UK population (do-nothing), the model estimates the number of excess deaths as 110332, 275,830 and 551,659 (at RR 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0) respectively. Interpretation: We provide the public, researchers and policy makers a simple model to estimate the excess mortality over 1 year from COVID-19, based on underlying conditions at different ages. If the relative mortality impact of COVID-19 were to be about 20% (similar magnitude as the established winter vs summer mortality excess), then the excess deaths would be 0 when 1 in 100 000 (suppression), 13791 when 1 in 10 (mitigation) and 110332 when 8 in 10 are infected (do nothing) scenario. However, the relative impact of COVID-19 is unknown. If the emergency were to double the mortality risk, then we estimate 7, 68957 and 551,659 excess deaths in the same scenarios. These results may inform the need for more stringent suppression measures as well as efforts to target those at highest risk for a range of preventive interventions.