A trial emulation comparing thromboprophylaxis versus no thromboprophylaxis among ward-based patients with covid-19

209 Figure 1Kaplan-Meier curves displaying cumulative all-cause mortality[Figure omitted. See PDF]Conflict of InterestNo conflicts of interest

A mixed methods analysis of participation in a social contact survey.

BACKGROUND: Social contact survey data forms a core component of modern epidemic models: however, there has been little assessment of the potential biases in such data. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with university students who had (n = 13) and had never (n = 14) completed a social contact survey during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualitative findings were explored quantitatively by analysing participation data. RESULTS: The opportunity to contribute to COVID-19 research, to be heard and feel useful were frequently reported motivators for participating in the contact survey. Reductions in survey engagement following lifting of COVID-19 restrictions may have occurred because the research was perceived to be less critical and/or because the participants were busier and had more contacts. Having a high number of contacts to report, uncertainty around how to report each contact, and concerns around confidentiality were identified as factors leading to inaccurate reporting. Focus groups participants thought that financial incentives or provision of study results would encourage participation. CONCLUSIONS: Incentives could improve engagement with social contact surveys. Qualitative research can inform the format, timing, and wording of surveys to optimise completion and accuracy.

Association of Results of Four Lateral Flow Antibody Tests with Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low-income countries. Rapid point-of-care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated may assist in risk management and vaccine prioritization. We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19 rapid test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM rapid test cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 rapid test cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test; Roche N and Euroimmun S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Positive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00 to 0.01), 0.03 (0.02 to 0.05), 0.07 (0.05 to 0.10), and 0.09 (0.07 to 0.12), respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10). Lateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over a 200-day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays. IMPORTANCE Previous research has demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology that has been used on a large scale in population screening programs, yet no studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study of 2,826 United Kingdom key workers, we found positivity in lateral flow test results had a strong negative association with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection within 200 days in an unvaccinated population. Positivity on more-specific but less-sensitive tests was associated with a markedly decreased rate of disease; protection associated with testing positive using more sensitive devices detecting lower levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was more modest. Lateral flow tests with high specificity may have a role in estimation of SARS-CoV-2 disease risk in unvaccinated populations.

Comparing the longer-term effectiveness of a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines across the age spectrum.

Background: A single dose strategy may be adequate to confer population level immunity and protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, especially in low- and middle-income countries where vaccine supply remains limited. We compared the effectiveness of a single dose strategy of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection across all age groups and over an extended follow-up period. Methods: Individuals vaccinated in North-West London, UK, with either the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines between January 12, 2021 and March 09, 2021, were matched to each other by demographic and clinical characteristics. Each vaccinated individual was additionally matched to an unvaccinated control. Study outcomes included SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity, COVID-19 hospitalisation, COVID-19 death, and all-cause mortality. Findings: Amongst matched individuals, 63,608 were in each of the vaccine groups and 127,216 were unvaccinated. Between 14 and 84 days of follow-up after matching, there were 534 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 65 COVID-19 hospitalisations, and 190 deaths, of which 29 were categorized as due to COVID-19. The incidence rate ratio (IRR) for SARS-CoV-2 infection was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.05) for Oxford-Astra-Zeneca, and 0.69 (0.55 to 0.86) for Pfizer-BioNTech. The IRR for both vaccines was the same at 0.25 (0.09 to 0.55) and 0.14 (0.02 to 0.58) for reducing COVID-19 hospitalization and COVID-19 mortality, respectively. The IRR for all-cause mortality was 0.25 (0.15 to 0.39) and 0.18 (0.10 to 0.30) for the Oxford-Astra-Zeneca and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines, respectively. Age was an effect modifier of the association between vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection of any severity; lower hazard ratios for increasing age. Interpretation: A single dose strategy, for both vaccines, was effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality and hospitalization rates. The magnitude of vaccine effectiveness was comparatively lower for SARS-CoV-2 infection, although this was variable across the age range, with higher effectiveness seen with older adults. Our results have important implications for health system planning -especially in low resource settings where vaccine supply remains constrained.

High COVID-19 transmission potential associated with re-opening universities can be mitigated with layered interventions.

Controlling COVID-19 transmission in universities poses challenges due to the complex social networks and potential for asymptomatic spread. We developed a stochastic transmission model based on realistic mixing patterns and evaluated alternative mitigation strategies. We predict, for plausible model parameters, that if asymptomatic cases are half as infectious as symptomatic cases, then 15% (98% Prediction Interval: 6-35%) of students could be infected during the first term without additional control measures. First year students are the main drivers of transmission with the highest infection rates, largely due to communal residences. In isolation, reducing face-to-face teaching is the most effective intervention considered, however layering multiple interventions could reduce infection rates by 75%. Fortnightly or more frequent mass testing is required to impact transmission and was not the most effective option considered. Our findings suggest that additional outbreak control measures should be considered for university settings.

University students and staff able to maintain low daily contact numbers during various COVID-19 guideline periods

UK universities re-opened in September 2020, amidst the coronavirus epidemic. During the first term, various national social distancing measures were introduced, including banning groups of >6 people and the second lockdown in November;however, outbreaks among university students occurred. We aimed to measure the University of Bristol staff and student contact patterns via an online, longitudinal survey capturing self-reported contacts on the previous day. We investigated the change in contacts associated with COVID-19 guidance periods: post-first lockdown (23/06/2020–03/07/2020), relaxed guidance period (04/07/2020–13/09/2020), ‘rule-of-six’ period (14/09/2020–04/11/2020) and the second lockdown (05/11/2020–25/11/2020). In total, 722 staff (4199 responses) and 738 students (1906 responses) were included in the study. For staff, daily contacts were higher in the relaxed guidance and ‘rule-of-six’ periods than the post-first lockdown and second lockdown. Mean student contacts dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ and second lockdown periods. For both staff and students, the proportion meeting with groups larger than six dropped between the ‘rule-of-six’ period and the second lockdown period, although was higher for students than for staff. Our results suggest university staff and students responded to national guidance by altering their social contacts. Most contacts during the second lockdown were household contacts. The response in staff and students was similar, suggesting that students can adhere to social distancing guidance while at university. The number of contacts recorded for both staff and students were much lower than those recorded by previous surveys in the UK conducted before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Contacts and behaviours of university students during the COVID-19 pandemic at the start of the 2020/2021 academic year.

University students have unique living, learning and social arrangements which may have implications for infectious disease transmission. To address this data gap, we created CONQUEST (COroNavirus QUESTionnaire), a longitudinal online survey of contacts, behaviour, and COVID-19 symptoms for University of Bristol (UoB) staff/students. Here, we analyse results from 740 students providing 1261 unique records from the start of the 2020/2021 academic year (14/09/2020-01/11/2020), where COVID-19 outbreaks led to the self-isolation of all students in some halls of residences. Although most students reported lower daily contacts than in pre-COVID-19 studies, there was heterogeneity, with some reporting many (median = 2, mean = 6.1, standard deviation = 15.0; 8% had ≥ 20 contacts). Around 40% of students' contacts were with individuals external to the university, indicating potential for transmission to non-students/staff. Only 61% of those reporting cardinal symptoms in the past week self-isolated, although 99% with a positive COVID-19 test during the 2 weeks before survey completion had self-isolated within the last week. Some students who self-isolated had many contacts (mean = 4.3, standard deviation = 10.6). Our results provide context to the COVID-19 outbreaks seen in universities and are available for modelling future outbreaks and informing policy.