Ethnic differences in cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Few studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine. Findings: The total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06-2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05-2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178-12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023-6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811-4487] vs 1199 [984-1462], P < 0.001 respectively), increments which persisted after adjustment (aGMR 1.26, 95% CI [1.01-1.58], P = 0.04 and aGMR 2.01, 95% CI [1.34-3.01], P = 0.001). SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot responses to S1 and whole spike peptides (S1 + S2 response) were higher in HCWs from South Asian ethnic groups than those from White groups (S1: aIRR 2.33, 95% CI [1.09-4.94], P = 0.03; spike: aIRR, 2.04, 95% CI [1.02-4.08]). Interpretation: This study provides evidence that, in an infection naïve cohort, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are stronger in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs. These differences are most clearly seen in the early period following vaccination. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms, whether differences persist with further exposure to vaccine or virus, and the potential impact on vaccine effectiveness. Funding: DIRECT and BELIEVE have received funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060).

Long title: Exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load kinetics measured by facemask sampling associates with household transmission.

OBJECTIVES: No studies have examined longitudinal patterns of naturally exhaled SARS-CoV-2 RNA viral load (VL) during acute infection. We report this using facemask sampling (FMS) and assessed the relationship between emitted RNA VL and household transmission. METHODS: Between December 2020 and February 2021, we recruited participants within 24 hours of a positive RT-qPCR on upper respiratory tract sampling (URTS) (day 0). Participants gave FMS (for 1 hour) and URTS (self-taken) on 7 occasions up to day 21. Samples were analysed by RT-qPCR (from sampling matrix strips within the mask) and symptom diaries recorded. Household transmission was assessed through reporting of positive URTS RT-qPCR in household contacts. RESULTS: Analysis of 203 FMS and 190 URTS from 34 participants showed that RNA VL peaked in the first five days following sampling. Concomitant URTS, FMS RNA VL and symptom scores however were poorly correlated, but a higher severity of reported symptoms was associated with FMS positivity up to day 5. Of 28 participants who had household contacts, 12 (43%) reported transmission. Frequency of household transmission was associated with the highest (peak) FMS RNA VL obtained (negative copies/strip: 0% household transmission; 1-1000 copies/strip: 20%; 1001 - 10,000 copies/strip: 57%; >10,000 copies/strip: 75%; p=0.048; age adjusted odds ratio of transmission per log increase in copies/strip: 4.97; 95% CI: 1.20-20.55, p=0.02) but this was not observed with peak URTS RNA VL. CONCLUSIONS: Exhaled RNA VL measured by FMS is highest in early infection, can be positive in symptomatic patients with concomitantly negative URTS and is strongly associated with household transmission.

Prevalence of long COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: A proportion of those who survive the acute phase of COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms, commonly known as long COVID-19. Given that healthcare workers (HCWs) face an elevated risk of acute COVID-19 compared with the general population, the global burden of long COVID-19 in HCWs is likely to be large; however, there is limited understanding of the prevalence of long COVID-19 in HCWs, or its symptoms and their clustering. This review will aim to estimate the pooled prevalence and the symptoms of long COVID-19 among HCWs infected with SARS-CoV-2 globally, and investigate differences by country, age, sex, ethnicity, vaccination status and occupation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted. Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), Embase (via Ovid), PsycINFO (via EBSCO), OpenGrey (grey literature) and medRxiv (preprint server) will be searched from the 31 December 2019 onward. All research studies and preprint articles reporting any primary data on the prevalence and/or the symptoms of long COVID-19 among adult HCWs will be included. Methodological quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. Outcomes are anticipated to be the prevalence of long COVID-19 among HCWs around the world and trajectory of symptoms. Data synthesis will include random-effect meta-analysis for studies reporting prevalence data of long COVID-19 following SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. The results will be presented with a 95% CI as an estimated effect across studies. Heterogeneity will be assessed using I² statistic. Where meta-analysis is inappropriate, a narrative synthesis of the evidence will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed as data will be obtained from published articles. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminate the results of our review at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022312781.

Discriminatory Ability of Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry to Identify Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Predict Prognosis.

Background: Rapid diagnostic and prognostic tests for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are urgently required. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic ability of breath analysis using gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (GC-IMS) in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: Between February and May 2021, we took 1 breath sample for analysis using GC-IMS from participants who were admitted to the hospital for COVID-19, participants who were admitted to the hospital for other respiratory infections, and symptom-free controls, at the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, United Kingdom. Demographic, clinical, and radiological data, including requirement for continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) ventilation as a marker for severe disease in the COVID-19 group, were collected. Results: A total of 113 participants were recruited into the study. Seventy-two (64%) were diagnosed with COVID-19, 20 (18%) were diagnosed with another respiratory infection, and 21 (19%) were healthy controls. Differentiation between participants with COVID-19 and those with other respiratory tract infections with GC-IMS was highly accurate (sensitivity/specificity, 0.80/0.88; area under the receiver operating characteristics curve [AUROC], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74-0.96). GC-IMS was also moderately accurate at identifying those who subsequently required CPAP (sensitivity/specificity, 0.62/0.80; AUROC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.87). Conclusions: GC-IMS shows promise as both a diagnostic tool and a predictor of prognosis in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and should be assessed further in larger studies.

Hesitancy for receiving regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis from the UK-REACH study.

BACKGROUND: Regular vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may be needed to maintain immunity in 'at-risk' populations, which include healthcare workers (HCWs). However, little is known about the proportion of HCWs who might be hesitant about receiving a hypothetical regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or the factors associated with this hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of questionnaire data collected as part of UK-REACH, a nationwide, longitudinal cohort study of HCWs. The outcome measure was binary, either a participant indicated they would definitely accept regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination if recommended or they indicated some degree of hesitancy regarding acceptance (probably accept or less likely). We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with hesitancy for receiving regular vaccination. RESULTS: A total of 5454 HCWs were included in the analysed cohort, 23.5% of whom were hesitant about regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Black HCWs were more likely to be hesitant than White HCWs (aOR 2.60, 95%CI 1.80-3.72) as were those who reported a previous episode of COVID-19 (1.33, 1.13-1.57 [vs those who tested negative]). Those who received influenza vaccination in the previous two seasons were over five times less likely to report hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination than those not vaccinated against influenza in either season (0.18, 0.14-0.21). HCWs who trusted official sources of vaccine information (such as NHS or government adverts or websites) were less likely to report hesitancy for a regular vaccination programme. Those who had been exposed to information advocating against vaccination from friends and family were more likely to be hesitant. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, nearly a quarter of UK HCWs were hesitant about receiving a regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We have identified key factors associated with hesitancy for regular SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, which can be used to identify groups of HCWs at the highest risk of vaccine hesitancy and tailor interventions accordingly. Family and friends of HCWs may influence decisions about regular vaccination. This implies that working with HCWs and their social networks to allay concerns about SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could improve uptake in a regular vaccination programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN11811602.

Access to personal protective equipment in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom: results from a nationwide cohort study (UK-REACH).

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE) reduces this risk. We sought to determine the prevalence and predictors of self-reported access to appropriate PPE (aPPE) for HCWs in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted cross sectional analyses using data from a nationwide questionnaire-based cohort study administered between December 2020-February 2021. The outcome was a binary measure of self-reported aPPE (access all of the time vs access most of the time or less frequently) at two timepoints: the first national lockdown in the UK in March 2020 (primary analysis) and at the time of questionnaire response (secondary analysis). RESULTS: Ten thousand five hundred eight HCWs were included in the primary analysis, and 12,252 in the secondary analysis. 35.2% of HCWs reported aPPE at all times in the primary analysis; 83.9% reported aPPE at all times in the secondary analysis. In the primary analysis, after adjustment (for age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, occupation, aerosol generating procedure exposure, work sector and region, working hours, night shift frequency and trust in employing organisation), older HCWs and those working in Intensive Care Units were more likely to report aPPE at all times. Asian HCWs (aOR:0.77, 95%CI 0.67-0.89 [vs White]), those in allied health professional and dental roles (vs those in medical roles), and those who saw a higher number of COVID-19 patients compared to those who saw none (≥ 21 patients/week 0.74, 0.61-0.90) were less likely to report aPPE at all times. Those who trusted their employing organisation to deal with concerns about unsafe clinical practice, compared to those who did not, were twice as likely to report aPPE at all times. Significant predictors were largely unchanged in the secondary analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Only a third of HCWs in the UK reported aPPE at all times during the first lockdown and that aPPE had improved later in the pandemic. We also identified key determinants of aPPE during the first UK lockdown, which have mostly persisted since lockdown was eased. These findings have important implications for the safe delivery of healthcare during the pandemic.

Risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in a multiethnic cohort of United Kingdom healthcare workers (UK-REACH): A cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly those from ethnic minority groups, have been shown to be at disproportionately higher risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) compared to the general population. However, there is insufficient evidence on how demographic and occupational factors influence infection risk among ethnic minority HCWs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the baseline questionnaire of the United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) cohort study, administered between December 2020 and March 2021. We used logistic regression to examine associations of demographic, household, and occupational risk factors with SARS-CoV-2 infection (defined by polymerase chain reaction (PCR), serology, or suspected COVID-19) in a diverse group of HCWs. The primary exposure of interest was self-reported ethnicity. Among 10,772 HCWs who worked during the first UK national lockdown in March 2020, the median age was 45 (interquartile range [IQR] 35 to 54), 75.1% were female and 29.6% were from ethnic minority groups. A total of 2,496 (23.2%) reported previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fully adjusted model contained the following dependent variables: demographic factors (age, sex, ethnicity, migration status, deprivation, religiosity), household factors (living with key workers, shared spaces in accommodation, number of people in household), health factors (presence/absence of diabetes or immunosuppression, smoking history, shielding status, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status), the extent of social mixing outside of the household, and occupational factors (job role, the area in which a participant worked, use of public transport to work, exposure to confirmed suspected COVID-19 patients, personal protective equipment [PPE] access, aerosol generating procedure exposure, night shift pattern, and the UK region of workplace). After adjustment, demographic and household factors associated with increased odds of infection included younger age, living with other key workers, and higher religiosity. Important occupational risk factors associated with increased odds of infection included attending to a higher number of COVID-19 positive patients (aOR 2.59, 95% CI 2.11 to 3.18 for ≥21 patients per week versus none), working in a nursing or midwifery role (1.30, 1.11 to 1.53, compared to doctors), reporting a lack of access to PPE (1.29, 1.17 to 1.43), and working in an ambulance (2.00, 1.56 to 2.58) or hospital inpatient setting (1.55, 1.38 to 1.75). Those who worked in intensive care units were less likely to have been infected (0.76, 0.64 to 0.92) than those who did not. Black HCWs were more likely to have been infected than their White colleagues, an effect which attenuated after adjustment for other known risk factors. This study is limited by self-selection bias and the cross sectional nature of the study means we cannot infer the direction of causality. CONCLUSIONS: We identified key sociodemographic and occupational risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection among UK HCWs, and have determined factors that might contribute to a disproportionate odds of infection in HCWs from Black ethnic groups. These findings demonstrate the importance of social and occupational factors in driving ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes, and should inform policies, including targeted vaccination strategies and risk assessments aimed at protecting HCWs in future waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was prospectively registered at ISRCTN (reference number: ISRCTN11811602).

Ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients from ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19. METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO, Cochrane library and MedRxiv) were searched up to 31st August 2020, for studies reporting COVID-19 data disaggregated by ethnicity. Outcomes were: risk of infection; intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission and death. PROSPERO ID: 180654. FINDINGS: 18,728,893 patients from 50 studies were included; 26 were peer-reviewed; 42 were from the United States of America and 8 from the United Kingdom. Individuals from Black and Asian ethnicities had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals. This was consistent in both the main analysis (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 2.02, 95% CI 1.67-2.44; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.83) and sensitivity analyses examining peer-reviewed studies only (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 1.85, 95%CI: 1.46-2.35; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88). Individuals of Asian ethnicity may also be at higher risk of ITU admission (pooled adjusted RR 1.97 95% CI 1.34-2.89) (but no studies had yet been peer-reviewed) and death (pooled adjusted RR/HR 1.22 [0.99-1.50]). INTERPRETATION: Individuals of Black and Asian ethnicity are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals; Asians may be at higher risk of ITU admission and death. These findings are of critical public health importance in informing interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality amongst ethnic minority groups.