Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 20
Filter
2.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-335254

ABSTRACT

Background Despite the potential widespread global use of the ChAdOx1-S booster, to date there are no published data on the real-world effectiveness. VE studies have found one and two doses of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine to be highly effective, and clinical trial data have demonstrated enhanced immunity following a ChAdOx1-S booster. In England, some individuals received a ChAdOx1-S booster where vaccination with mRNA vaccines was clinically contraindicated. Methods The demographic characteristics of those who received a ChAdOx1-S booster were compared to those who received a BNT162b2 booster. A test-negative case control design was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S booster against symptomatic disease and hospitalisation in England. Findings Those who received a ChAdOx1-S booster were more likely to be female (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.67 (1.64-1.71)), in a clinical risk group (adjusted OR 1.58 (1.54-1.63)), in the CEV group (adjusted OR 1.84 (1.79-1.89)) or severely immunosuppressed (adjusted OR 2.05 (1.96-2.13)). Protection against symptomatic disease in those aged 65 years and older peaked at 66.1% (16.6 to 86.3%) and 68.5% (65.7 to 71.2%) amongst those who received the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 booster vaccines, respectively. Protection waned to 44.5% (22.4 to 60.2%) and 54.1% (50.5 to 57.5%) after 5-9 weeks. Protection against hospitalisation following Omicron infection peaked at 82.3% (64.2 to 91.3%) after receiving a ChAdOx1-S booster, as compared to 90.9% (88.7 to 92.7%) for those who received a BNT162b2 booster. Interpretation Differences in the population boosted with ChAdOx1-S in England renders direct comparison of vaccine effectiveness by manufacturer challenging. Nonetheless, this study supports the use of the ChAdOx1-S booster for protection against severe disease with COVID-19 in settings that have not yet offered booster doses and suggests that those who received ChAdOx1-S as a booster in England do not require re-vaccination ahead of others. Funding UKHSA

3.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-331526

ABSTRACT

The BA.1 sub-lineage of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, first detected in the UK in mid-November 2021, rapidly became the dominant strain partly due to reduced vaccine effectiveness. An increase in a second Omicron sub-lineage BA.2 was observed in early January 2022. In this study we use a test-negative case control study design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with BA.1 and BA.2 after one or two doses of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1-S or mRNA-1273, and after booster doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 during a period of co-circulation. Overall, there was no evidence that vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease is reduced following infection with the BA.2 sub-lineage as compared to BA.1. Furthermore, similar rates of waning were observed after the second and booster dose for each sub-lineage. These data provide reassuring evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccines currently in use against symptomatic disease caused by BA.2.

4.
Lancet ; 399(10332): 1303-1312, 2022 04 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1740323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort. METHODS: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases). FINDINGS: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54-0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39-0·43) and 0·31 (0·26-0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85-1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21-0·30) in 60-69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40-0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32-0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06-0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88-1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48-0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28-0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20-0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , England/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Vaccines, Synthetic
6.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-322164

ABSTRACT

Background: We investigated the effect of both doses of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx-1 vaccine among residents of Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) in England. This cohort is at particularly high risk for severe outcomes related to COVID-19 and is regularly tested regardless of symptoms.Methods: This observational study uses testing, immunisation and mortality data from 8 December 2020 to 25 June 2021 in LTCF residents aged 65 years and above. Cox proportional hazards models were used to derive adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for the risk of infection and death within 28 days of positive test result, adjusted for sex, age-group, previous infection, deprivation, and incidence rate in the local authority area. The impact of interval between first and second dose was also explored. Findings: Of 219733 LTCF residents, 41828 (19%) had a positive test and 10719 (4.9%) died within 28 days of a positive test during the study period. Relative to unvaccinated individuals, aHR for infection were lowest at 0.43 (95% CI 0.35-0.52) 36-49 days after first dose and 0.27 (0.20-0.38) at 29-60 days following second dose . Against death, aHR was lowest at 0.25 (0.20-0.31) 28-56 days after first dose and 0.13 (0-05-0.32) in the 1-14 days after second dose. As expected, some waning of protection against infection was observed after seven weeks from first dose which persisted to 2-4 weeks following second dose. Interpretation: Vaccination with one dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx-1 provides moderate protection against infection and death in residents in LTCFs. Protection is strong after two doses.Funding: None to declare.Declaration of Interest: None to declare. Ethical Approval: Vaccine effectiveness studies are undertaken by Public Health England as part of ongoing surveillance activities and did not require ethical approval.

7.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-314792

ABSTRACT

Background: Many countries re-opened schools after national lockdown but little is known about the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in educational settings. Public Health England conducted six-month prospective surveillance in primary schools across England. Methods: The COVID-19 Surveillance in School KIDs (sKIDs) study included two arms: weekly nasal swabs for ≥4 weeks following partial reopening during the summer half-term (June to mid-July 2020) and blood sampling with nasal and throat swabs at the beginning and end of the summer half-term, and, following full reopening in September 2020, at the end of the autumn term (end-November 2020). Results: In round 1, 12,026 participants (59.1% students, 40.9% staff) in 131 schools had 43,091 swabs taken. Weekly SARS-CoV-2 infection rates were 3.9 (1/25,537;95% CI, 0.10-21.8) and 11.3 (2/17,554;95% CI, 1.4-41.2) per 100,000 students and staff. At recruitment, N-antibody positivity in 45 schools was 11.1% (91/817;95%CI, 9.2-13.5%) in students and 15.1% (209/1381;95%CI, 13.3-17.1%) in staff, similar to local community seroprevalence. Seropositivity was not associated with school attendance during lockdown or staff contact with students. Round 2 participation was 73.7% (1,619/2,198) and only five (4 students, 1 staff) seroconverted. In round 3, when 61.9% (1,361/2,198) of round 1 participants were re-tested, seroconversion rates were 3.4% (19/562;95%CI, 2.0-5.2) in students and 3.9% (36/930;95%CI, 2.7-5.3) in staff. Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 infection rates, assessed using nasal swabs for acute infection and serum antibodies for prior infection, were low following partial and full reopening of primary schools in England.Funding Statement: This surveillance was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC).Declaration of Interests: None to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: The surveillance protocol was approved by the Public Health England Research Ethics Governance Group (R&D REGG Ref: NR0209, 16 May 2020).

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-311891

ABSTRACT

Background: BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK. We determined the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in our healthcare worker (HCW) cohort study of staff undergoing regular asymptomatic testing.Methods: The SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff working in publicly funded hospitals. Baseline risk factors, vaccination status (from 8/12/2020-5/2/2021), and symptoms are recorded at 2 weekly intervals and all SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody test results documented. A mixed effect proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to calculate hazard ratios to compare time to infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants to estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all (asymptomatic and symptomatic) infection.Findings: Vaccine coverage was 89% on 5/2/2021. Significantly lower coverage was associated with prior infection (aOR 0.59 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.64), female (aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.82), aged under 35 years, being from minority ethnic groups (especially Black, aOR 0.26, 95% CI 0.21-0.32), porters/security guards (aOR 0.61, 95% CI 0.42-0.90),or midwife (aOR 0.74, 95% CI 0.57-0.97), and living in more deprived neighbourhoods (IMD 1 (most) vs. 5 (least) (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.87). A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine demonstrated vaccine effectiveness of 72% (95% CI 58-86) 21 days after first dose and 86% (95% CI 76-97) seven days after two doses in the antibody negative cohort.Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that the BNT162b2 vaccine effectively prevents both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working age adults;this cohort was vaccinated when the dominant variant in circulation was B1.1.7 and demonstrates effectiveness against this variant.Trial Registration: IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230 Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales approval granted 22 May 2020. Trial registered with ISRCTN, Trial ID: ISRCTN11041050. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11041050Funding: The study is funded by the United Kingdom’s Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments. Funding is also provided by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as an Urgent Public Health Priority Study (UPHP). SH, VH are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at the University of Oxford in partnership with Public Health England (PHE) (NIHR200915). AC is supported by NIHR HealthProtection Research Unit in Behavioural Science and Evaluation at University of Bristol in partnership with Public Health England. MR, NA, AC are supported by NIHR HealthProtection Research Unit in Immunisation at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in partnership with Public Health England.Conflict of Interest: The Immunisation and Countermeasures Division has provided vaccine manufacturers(including Pfizer) with post-marketing surveillance reports on pneumococcal andmeningococcal infection which the companies are required to submit to the UK Licensing authority in compliance with their Risk Management Strategy. A cost recovery charge is made for these reports.Ethical Approval: The study was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230) on 22 May 2020;the vaccine amendment was approved on 12/1/2021.

9.
SSRN;
Preprint in English | SSRN | ID: ppcovidwho-326260

ABSTRACT

Background: The Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection compared with Delta (B.1.617.2). We sought to better characterise Omicron severity relative to Delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission or death in a large national cohort. Methods: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between 22 November 2021 and 9 January 2022 were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospitalisation and mortality. The relative risk of attendance at hospital within 14 days, or death within 28 days following confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, region and vaccination status and further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a prior infection and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant- and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of Omicron infection compared with Delta;i.e. the relative risk in unvaccinated cases. Findings: We found that the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with Omicron compared with Delta was 0.56 (95%CI: 0.54-0.58);for hospital admission and death the estimates were 0.41 (95%CI: 0.39-0.43) and 0.31 (95%CI: 0.26-0.37), respectively. Omicron vs Delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined: the adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1.07 (95%CI: 0.83-1.38) in <10 year-olds, falling to 0.25 (95%CI: 0.21-0.30) in 60-69 year-olds, and rising to 0.48 (95%CI: 0.40-0.57) in ≥80 year-olds. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR: 0.45 [95%CI: 0.30-0.68]) and unvaccinated (0.14 [95%CI: 0.04-0.45]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR: 0.99 [95%CI: 0.9-1.08]), whilst for unvaccinated cases moderate protection remained (HR: 0.53 [95%CI: 0.46-0.61]). Estimation of variant-specific vaccine effectiveness gave lower Omicron vs Delta HR estimates for hospital admission (0.29 [95%CI: 0.28-0.31]) in unvaccinated cases than estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in Omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post booster, compared with unvaccinated: 0.22 [95%CI: 0.19-0.24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being significantly affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. Interpretation: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for Omicron compared with Delta cases, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. The (low) risk of hospital admission in children <10 years of age did not differ significantly by variant, while 60-69 year-olds had an approximately 75% reduced risk of hospital admission with Omicron compared with Delta. Underlying the observed HRs is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. A documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvac

10.
Nat Commun ; 12(1): 7217, 2021 12 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1565716

ABSTRACT

The UK prioritised delivery of the first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccines by extending the interval between doses up to 12 weeks. In 750 participants aged 50-89 years, we here compare serological responses after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccination with varying dose intervals, and evaluate these against real-world national vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against COVID-19 in England. We show that antibody levels 14-35 days after dose two are higher in BNT162b2 recipients with an extended vaccine interval (65-84 days) compared with those vaccinated with a standard (19-29 days) interval. Following the extended schedule, antibody levels were 6-fold higher at 14-35 days post dose 2 for BNT162b2 than AZD1222. For both vaccines, VE was higher across all age-groups from 14 days after dose two compared to one dose, but the magnitude varied with dose interval. Higher dose two VE was observed with >6 week interval between BNT162b2 doses compared to the standard schedule. Our findings suggest higher effectiveness against infection using an extended vaccine schedule. Given global vaccine constraints these results are relevant to policymakers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Immunization Schedule , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibody Formation , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , England , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
11.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-296012

ABSTRACT

Background Vaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Real-world immunogenicity data are sparse, particularly for ChAdOx1 and in populations with chronic conditions;and given the UK’s extended dosing interval, it is also important to understand antibody responses in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals following a single dose. Methods Adults aged ≥18 years from households enrolled in Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided capillary blood samples and self-reported vaccination status. Primary outcome variables were quantitative Spike total antibody levels (U/ml) and seropositivity to Spike (≥0.8 U/ml), as per Roche’s Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay. Samples seropositive for Nucleocapsid, and samples taken prior to vaccination, were excluded. Outcomes were analysed by days since vaccination, vaccine type (BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1), and a range of self-reported demographic and clinical factors. Results 8,837 vaccinated participants (median age 65 years [IQR: 58, 71]), contributed 17,160 samples (10,508 following ChAdOx1, 6,547 following BNT162b2). Seropositivity to Spike was 96.79% (95% CI 96.42, 97.12) from 28 days following a single dose, reaching 99.34% (98.91, 99.60) from 14 days after a second dose. Seropositivity rates, and Spike-antibody levels rose more quickly following the first dose of BNT162b2, however, were equivalent for both vaccines by 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. There was evidence for lower S-antibody levels with increasing age (p=0.0001). In partially vaccinated 65-79 year-olds, lower S-antibody levels were observed in men compared with women (26.50 vs 44.01 U/ml, p<0.0001), those with any chronic condition (33.8 vs 43.83 U/ml, p<0.0001), diabetes (22.46 vs 36.90 U/ml, p<0.0001), cardiovascular disease (32.9 vs 37.9 U/ml, p=0.0002), obesity (27.2 vs 37.42, p<0.0001), cancer diagnosis (31.39 vs 36.50 U/ml, p=0.0001), particularly those with haematological cancers (7.94 vs 32.50 U/ml, p<0.0001), and for those currently on statin therapy (30.03 vs 39.39, p<0.0001), or on any immunosuppressive therapy (28.7 vs 36.78 U/ml, p<0.0001), particularly those on oral steroids (16.8 vs 36.07, p<0.0001). Following a second dose, high S-antibody titres (≥250U/ml) were observed across all groups. Interpretation A single dose of either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 leads to high Spike seropositivity rates in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals. Observed disparities in antibody levels by vaccine type, age, and comorbidities highlight the importance of ongoing non-pharmaceutical preventative measures for partially vaccinated adults, particularly those who are older and more clinically vulnerable;and high antibody levels across all groups following a second dose demonstrate the importance of complete vaccination. However, the relationship between Spike-antibody levels and protection against COVID-19, and thus the clinical significance of observed disparities, is not yet clear.

12.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-294494

ABSTRACT

Summary Background The ability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect against infection and onward transmission determines whether immunisation can control global circulation. We estimated effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against acquisition and transmission of the Alpha and Delta variants in a prospective household study in England. Methods Adult index cases in the community and their household contacts took oral-nasal swabs on days 1, 3 and 7 after enrolment. Swabs were tested by RT-qPCR with genomic sequencing conducted on a subset. We used Bayesian logistic regression to infer vaccine effectiveness against acquisition and transmission, adjusted for age, vaccination history and variant. Findings Between 2 February 2021 and 10 September 2021 213 index cases and 312 contacts were followed up. After excluding households lacking genomic proximity (N=2) or with unlikely serial intervals (N=16), 195 households with 278 contacts remained of whom 113 (41%) became PCR positive. Delta lineages had 1.64 times the risk (95% Credible Interval: 1.15 – 2.44) of transmission than Alpha;contacts older than 18 years were 1.19 times (1.04 - 1.52) more likely to acquire infection than children. Effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against transmission of Delta was 31% (−3%, 61%) and 42% (14%, 69%) for ChAdOx1, similar to their effectiveness for Alpha. Protection against infection with Alpha was higher than for Delta, 71% (12%,95%) vs 24% (−2%, 64%) respectively for BNT162b2 and 26% (−39%, 73%) vs 14% (−5%, 46%) respectively for ChAdOx1. Interpretation BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 reduce transmission of the Delta variant from breakthrough infections in the household setting though their protection against infection is low. Funding This study was funded by the UK Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England) as part of the COVID-19 response.

13.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293893

ABSTRACT

Background: There are few epidemiological studies of community cases in the current coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We report on the first 500 COVID-19 cases identified through United Kingdom primary care surveillance and describe risk factors for testing COVID-19 positive. <br><br>Methods: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), is a nationally representative primary care sentinel network sharing pseudonymised data, including virological test data for COVID-19. We used multivariable logistic regression models with multiple imputation to identify risk factors for positive COVID-19 tests within this surveillance programme. <br><br>Findings: We identified 3,802 COVID-19 results between 28/01/20 and 04/04/2020, 587 were positive. Greater odds of testing COVID-19 positive included: working-age people (40-64years) and older age, (≥75 years) versus 0-17 year olds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.26, 95%CI:3.26-8.49 and 5.17,95%CI:2.99-8.92, respectively);male gender (aOR 1.56, 95%CI:1.28-1.90);black and mixed ethnicity compared with white (aOR 4.55, 95%CI:2.55-8.10 and 1.84 95%CO:1.1-3.14, respectively));urban compared with rural areas (aOR 4.58, 95%CI:3.57-5.88);people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (aOR 1.88, 95%CI:1.29-2.75) and increasing body mass index (aOR 1.02, 95%CI:1.00-1.03). People in the least deprived deprivation quintile had lower odds of a positive test (aOR 0.49 95%CI:0.36-0.65) as did current smokers (aOR 0.53, 95%CI:0.38-0.74). <br><br>Interpretation: A positive COVID-19 test result in primary care was associated with similar risk factors for severe outcomes seen in hospital settings, with the exception of smoking. We provide early evidence of potential sociodemographic factors associated with a positive test, including ethnicity, deprivation, population density, and CKD. <br><br>Funding Statement: Public Health England provides the core funding for RCGP RSC, no specific funding was provided for this analysis.<br><br>Declaration of Interests: The authors have no competing interests. SdeL is the Director of the Oxford RCGP RSC, RB, JS, FF, EK and GH are part funded by PHE;and CO and AC by a Wellcome Biomedical resources grant (212763/Z/18/Z). JD is funded by Wellcome Trust (216421/Z/19/Z).<br><br>Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the RCGP RSC study approval committee and was classified as a study of “usual practice”. Therefore, no further ethical approval was required.

14.
Bull World Health Organ ; 99(3): 178-189, 2021 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256313

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical presentation, course of disease and health-care seeking behaviour of the first few hundred cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. METHODS: We implemented the World Health Organization's First Few X cases and contacts investigation protocol for COVID-19. Trained public health professionals collected information on 381 virologically confirmed COVID-19 cases from 31 January 2020 to 9 April 2020. We actively followed up cases to identify exposure to infection, symptoms and outcomes. We also collected limited data on 752 symptomatic people testing negative for COVID-19, as a control group for analyses of the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of symptoms. FINDINGS: Approximately half of the COVID-19 cases were imported (196 cases; 51.4%), of whom the majority had recent travel to Italy (140 cases; 71.4%). Of the 94 (24.7%) secondary cases, almost all reported close contact with a confirmed case (93 cases; 98.9%), many through household contact (37 cases; 39.8%). By age, a lower proportion of children had COVID-19. Most cases presented with cough, fever and fatigue. The sensitivity and specificity of symptoms varied by age, with nonlinear relationships with age. Although the proportion of COVID-19 cases with fever increased with age, for those with other respiratory infections the occurrence of fever decreased with age. The occurrence of shortness of breath also increased with age in a greater proportion of COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSION: The study has provided useful evidence for generating case definitions and has informed modelling studies of the likely burden of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/physiopathology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Child , Child, Preschool , Dyspnea/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Respiratory Tract Infections/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
15.
Euro Surveill ; 26(11)2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1181332

ABSTRACT

BackgroundA multi-tiered surveillance system based on influenza surveillance was adopted in the United Kingdom in the early stages of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to monitor different stages of the disease. Mandatory social and physical distancing measures (SPDM) were introduced on 23 March 2020 to attempt to limit transmission.AimTo describe the impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity as detected through the different surveillance systems.MethodsData from national population surveys, web-based indicators, syndromic surveillance, sentinel swabbing, respiratory outbreaks, secondary care admissions and mortality indicators from the start of the epidemic to week 18 2020 were used to identify the timing of peaks in surveillance indicators relative to the introduction of SPDM. This timing was compared with median time from symptom onset to different stages of illness and levels of care or interactions with healthcare services.ResultsThe impact of SPDM was detected within 1 week through population surveys, web search indicators and sentinel swabbing reported by onset date. There were detectable impacts on syndromic surveillance indicators for difficulty breathing, influenza-like illness and COVID-19 coding at 2, 7 and 12 days respectively, hospitalisations and critical care admissions (both 12 days), laboratory positivity (14 days), deaths (17 days) and nursing home outbreaks (4 weeks).ConclusionThe impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity was detectable within 1 week through community surveillance indicators, highlighting their importance in early detection of changes in activity. Community swabbing surveillance may be increasingly important as a specific indicator, should circulation of seasonal respiratory viruses increase.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Epidemiological Monitoring , Physical Distancing , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , United Kingdom/epidemiology
16.
BMC Public Health ; 21(1): 484, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133589

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Characterising the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID-19 is vital for effective policy and planning. Older age, and underlying health conditions, are associated with higher risk of death from COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom. METHODS: We used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to estimate the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region with binomial exact confidence intervals. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status. RESULTS: On 5 March 2019, 24.4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8.3% of school-aged children, 19.6% of working-aged adults, and 66.2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7.1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1.6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 y. CONCLUSIONS: The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (defined as either aged ≥70 years, or younger with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. Our national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates in other countries. We provide age- and region- stratified prevalence for each condition to support effective modelling of public health interventions and planning of vaccine resource allocation. The high prevalence of health conditions among older age groups suggests that age-targeted vaccination strategies may efficiently target individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Status , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Child , Chronic Disease/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multimorbidity , Pregnancy , Prevalence , Public Health , Risk Factors , United Kingdom/epidemiology
17.
Diagn Progn Res ; 5(1): 4, 2021 Feb 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1069608

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of RApid community Point-of-care Testing fOR COVID-19 (RAPTOR-C19) is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multiple current and emerging point-of-care tests (POCTs) for active and past SARS-CoV2 infection in the community setting. RAPTOR-C19 will provide the community testbed to the COVID-19 National DiagnOstic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR). METHODS: RAPTOR-C19 incorporates a series of prospective observational parallel diagnostic accuracy studies of SARS-CoV2 POCTs against laboratory and composite reference standards in patients with suspected current or past SARS-CoV2 infection attending community settings. Adults and children with suspected current SARS-CoV2 infection who are having an oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) swab for laboratory SARS-CoV2 reverse transcriptase Digital/Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (d/rRT-PCR) as part of clinical care or community-based testing will be invited to participate. Adults (≥ 16 years) with suspected past symptomatic infection will also be recruited. Asymptomatic individuals will not be eligible. At the baseline visit, all participants will be asked to submit samples for at least one candidate point-of-care test (POCT) being evaluated (index test/s) as well as an OP/NP swab for laboratory SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR performed by Public Health England (PHE) (reference standard for current infection). Adults will also be asked for a blood sample for laboratory SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by PHE (reference standard for past infection), where feasible adults will be invited to attend a second visit at 28 days for repeat antibody testing. Additional study data (e.g. demographics, symptoms, observations, household contacts) will be captured electronically. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for each POCT will be calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals when compared to the reference standard. POCTs will also be compared to composite reference standards constructed using paired antibody test results, patient reported outcomes, linked electronic health records for outcomes related to COVID-19 such as hospitalisation or death, and other test results. DISCUSSION: High-performing POCTs for community use could be transformational. Real-time results could lead to personal and public health impacts such as reducing onward household transmission of SARS-CoV2 infection, improving surveillance of health and social care staff, contributing to accurate prevalence estimates, and understanding of SARS-CoV2 transmission dynamics in the population. In contrast, poorly performing POCTs could have negative effects, so it is necessary to undertake community-based diagnostic accuracy evaluations before rolling these out. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14226970.

19.
Br J Gen Pract ; 70(701): e890-e898, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-881363

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has passed its first peak in Europe. AIM: To describe the mortality in England and its association with SARS-CoV-2 status and other demographic and risk factors. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analyses of people with known SARS-CoV-2 status in the Oxford RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network. METHOD: Pseudonymised, coded clinical data were uploaded from volunteer general practice members of this nationally representative network (n = 4 413 734). All-cause mortality was compared with national rates for 2019, using a relative survival model, reporting relative hazard ratios (RHR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A multivariable adjusted odds ratios (OR) analysis was conducted for those with known SARS-CoV-2 status (n = 56 628, 1.3%) including multiple imputation and inverse probability analysis, and a complete cases sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Mortality peaked in week 16. People living in households of ≥9 had a fivefold increase in relative mortality (RHR = 5.1, 95% CI = 4.87 to 5.31, P<0.0001). The ORs of mortality were 8.9 (95% CI = 6.7 to 11.8, P<0.0001) and 9.7 (95% CI = 7.1 to 13.2, P<0.0001) for virologically and clinically diagnosed cases respectively, using people with negative tests as reference. The adjusted mortality for the virologically confirmed group was 18.1% (95% CI = 17.6 to 18.7). Male sex, population density, black ethnicity (compared to white), and people with long-term conditions, including learning disability (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.22 to 3.18, P = 0.0056) had higher odds of mortality. CONCLUSION: The first SARS-CoV-2 peak in England has been associated with excess mortality. Planning for subsequent peaks needs to better manage risk in males, those of black ethnicity, older people, people with learning disabilities, and people who live in multi-occupancy dwellings.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noncommunicable Diseases/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Age Factors , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , England/epidemiology , Family Characteristics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mortality , Risk Assessment/methods , Risk Factors , Sentinel Surveillance , Sex Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL