Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 13 de 13
Filter
1.
Lancet ; 399(10335): 1618-1624, 2022 04 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1867912

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern, omicron, appears to be less severe than delta. We aim to quantify the differences in symptom prevalence, risk of hospital admission, and symptom duration among the vaccinated population. METHODS: In this prospective longitudinal observational study, we collected data from participants who were self-reporting test results and symptoms in the ZOE COVID app (previously known as the COVID Symptoms Study App). Eligible participants were aged 16-99 years, based in the UK, with a body-mass index between 15 and 55 kg/m2, had received at least two doses of any SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, were symptomatic, and logged a positive symptomatic PCR or lateral flow result for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. The primary outcome was the likelihood of developing a given symptom (of the 32 monitored in the app) or hospital admission within 7 days before or after the positive test in participants infected during omicron prevalence compared with those infected during delta prevalence. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2021, and Jan 17, 2022, we identified 63 002 participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and reported symptoms in the ZOE app. These patients were matched 1:1 for age, sex, and vaccination dose, across two periods (June 1 to Nov 27, 2021, delta prevalent at >70%; n=4990, and Dec 20, 2021, to Jan 17, 2022, omicron prevalent at >70%; n=4990). Loss of smell was less common in participants infected during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (16·7% vs 52·7%, odds ratio [OR] 0·17; 95% CI 0·16-0·19, p<0·001). Sore throat was more common during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (70·5% vs 60·8%, 1·55; 1·43-1·69, p<0·001). There was a lower rate of hospital admission during omicron prevalence than during delta prevalence (1·9% vs 2·6%, OR 0·75; 95% CI 0·57-0·98, p=0·03). INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of symptoms that characterise an omicron infection differs from those of the delta SARS-CoV-2 variant, apparently with less involvement of the lower respiratory tract and reduced probability of hospital admission. Our data indicate a shorter period of illness and potentially of infectiousness which should impact work-health policies and public health advice. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Medical Research Council.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitals , Humans , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics
3.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 2022 Apr 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1778523

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: With the surge of new SARS-CoV-2 variants, countries have begun offering COVID-19 vaccine booster doses to high-risk groups and, more recently, to the adult population in general. However, uncertainty remains over how long primary vaccination series remain effective, the ideal timing for booster doses, and the safety of heterologous booster regimens. We aimed to investigate COVID-19 primary vaccine series effectiveness and its waning, and the safety and effectiveness of booster doses, in a UK community setting. METHODS: We used SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates in individuals from a longitudinal, prospective, community-based study (ZOE COVID Study), in which data were self-reported through an app, to assess the effectiveness of three COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 nCov19 [Oxford-AstraZeneca], BNT162b2 [Pfizer-BioNtech], and mRNA1273 [Moderna]) against infection in the 8 months after completion of primary vaccination series. In individuals receiving boosters, we investigated vaccine effectiveness and reactogenicity, by assessing 16 self-reported systemic and localised side-effects. We used multivariate Poisson regression models adjusting for confounders to estimate vaccine effectiveness. FINDINGS: We included 620 793 participants who received two vaccine doses (204 731 [33·0%] received BNT162b2, 405 239 [65·3%] received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 10 823 [1·7%] received mRNA-1273) and subsequently had a SARS-CoV-2 test result between May 23 (chosen to exclude the period of alpha [B.1.1.7] variant dominance) and Nov 23, 2021. 62 172 (10·0%) vaccinated individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were compared with 40 345 unvaccinated controls (6726 [16·7%] of whom tested positive). Vaccine effectiveness waned after the second dose: at 5 months, BNT162b2 effectiveness was 82·1% (95% CI 81·3-82·9), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 effectiveness was 75·7% (74·9-76·4), and mRNA-1273 effectiveness was 84·3% (81·2-86·9). Vaccine effectiveness decreased more among individuals aged 55 years or older and among those with comorbidities. 135 932 individuals aged 55 years or older received a booster (2123 [1·6%] of whom tested positive). Vaccine effectiveness for booster doses in 0-3 months after BNT162b2 primary vaccination was higher than 92·5%, and effectiveness for heterologous boosters after ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 was at least 88·8%. For the booster reactogenicity analysis, in 317 011 participants, the most common systemic symptom was fatigue (in 31 881 [10·1%] participants) and the most common local symptom was tenderness (in 187 767 [59·2%]). Systemic side-effects were more common for heterologous schedules (32 632 [17·9%] of 182 374) than for homologous schedules (17 707 [13·2%] of 134 637; odds ratio 1·5, 95% CI 1·5-1·6, p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: After 5 months, vaccine effectiveness remained high among individuals younger than 55 years. Booster doses restore vaccine effectiveness. Adverse reactions after booster doses were similar to those after the second dose. Homologous booster schedules had fewer reported systemic side-effects than heterologous boosters. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, ZOE, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council.

4.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-330263

ABSTRACT

Background We aimed to explore the effectiveness of one-dose BNT162b2 vaccination upon SARS-CoV-2 infection, its effect on COVID-19 presentation, and post-vaccination symptoms in children and young people (CYP) in the UK during periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance. Methods In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, we analysed data from 115,775 CYP aged 12-17 years, proxy-reported through the Covid Symptom Study (CSS) smartphone application. We calculated post-vaccination infection risk after one dose of BNT162b2, and described the illness profile of CYP with post-vaccination SARS- CoV-2 infection, compared to unvaccinated CYP, and post-vaccination side-effects. Findings Between August 5, 2021 and February 14, 2022, 25,971 UK CYP aged 12-17 years received one dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Vaccination reduced (proxy-reported) infection risk (-80·4% and -53·7% at 14–30 days with Delta and Omicron variants respectively, and -61·5% and -63·7% after 61–90 days). The probability of remaining infection-free diverged soon after vaccination, and was greater in CYP with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccinated CYP who contracted SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta period had milder disease than unvaccinated CYP;during the Omicron period this was only evident in children aged 12-15 years. Overall disease profile was similar in both vaccinated and unvaccinated CYP. Post-vaccination local side-effects were common, systemic side-effects were uncommon, and both resolved quickly. Interpretation One dose of BNT162b2 vaccine reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 90 days in CYP aged 12-17 years. Vaccine protection varied for SARS-CoV-2 variant type (lower for Omicron than Delta variant), and was enhanced by pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection. Severity of COVID-19 presentation after vaccination was generally milder, although unvaccinated CYP also had generally mild disease. Overall, vaccination was well-tolerated. Funding UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, The Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging & Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation and Alzheimer’s Society, and ZOE Limited. Research in context Evidence before this study: We searched PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles and medRxiv for preprint papers, published between January 1, 2021 and February 15, 2022 using keywords (“SARS-CoV-2” OR “COVID-19”) AND (child* OR p?ediatric* OR teenager*) AND (“vaccin*” OR “immunization campaign”) AND (“efficacy” OR “effectiveness” OR “symptoms”) AND (“delta” or “omicron” OR “B.1.617.2” OR “B.1.1.529”). The PubMed search retrieved 36 studies, of which fewer than 30% specifically investigated individuals <18 years. Eleven studies explored SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission: seroprevalence in children (n=4), including age-dependency of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=1), SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools (n=5), and the effect of school closure on viral transmission (n=1). Eighteen documents reported clinical aspects, including manifestation of infection (n=13), symptomatology, disease duration, and severity in children. Other studies estimated emergency department visits, hospitalization, need for intensive care, and/or deaths in children (n=4), and explored prognostic factors (n=1). Thirteen studies explored vaccination-related aspects, including vaccination of children within specific paediatric co-morbidity groups (e.g., children with Down syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and cancer survivors, n=4), mRNA vaccine efficacy in children and adolescents from the general population (n=7), and the relation between vaccination and severity of disease and hospitalization cases (n=2). Four clinical trials were conducted using mRNA vaccines in minors, also xploring side effects. Sixty percent of children were found to have side effects after BNT162b2 vaccination, and especially after the second dose;however, most symptoms were mild and transient apart from rare uncomplicated skin ulcers. Two studies focused on severe adverse effects and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in children, reporting on myocarditis episodes and two cases of Guillain-Barrè syndrome. All other studies were beyond the scope of our research. Added value of this study: We assessed multiple components of the UK vaccination campaign in a cohort of children and young people (CYP) aged 12-17 years drawn from a large UK community-based citizen-science study, who received a first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. We describe a variant-dependent protective effect of the first dose against both Delta and Omicron, with additional protective effect of pre-vaccination SARS- CoV-2 infection on post-vaccination re-infection. We compare the illness profile in CYP infected post-vaccination with that of unvaccinated CYP, demonstrating overall milder disease with fewer symptoms for vaccinated CYP. We describe local and systemic side-effects during the first week following first-dose vaccination, confirming that local symptoms are common, systemic symptoms uncommon, and both usually transient. Implications of all the available evidence: Our data confirm that first dose BNT162b2 vaccination in CYP reduces risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 variants, with generally local and brief side-effects. If infected after vaccination, COVID-19 is milder, if manifest at all. The study aims to contribute quantitative evidence to the risk-benefit evaluation of vaccination in CYP to inform discussion regarding rationale for their vaccination and the designing of national immunisation campaigns for this age group;and applies citizen-science approaches in the conduct of epidemiological surveillance and data collection in the UK community. Importantly, this study was conducted during Delta and Omicron predominance in UK;specificity of vaccine efficacy to variants is also illustrated;and results may not be generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 strains.

5.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-316937

ABSTRACT

Background: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford/AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in Phase III trials. Here we report results from a real world setting on the two most administered vaccines in the UK.Methods: We investigated self-reported systemic and local effects within eight days of vaccination in 387,471 individuals from the COVID Symptom Study app who received one (n=209,251) or two (n=13,478) doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine, or one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (n=178,220) between December 8 and February 15 2021. A subset of individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 were studied for infection rates from PCR or lateral flow test results post-vaccination (59,639 vaccinated vs 277,599 controls).Findings: Systemic side effects were reported in 11.8% of participants after the first BNT162b2 dose, 20.3% after the second BNT162b2 dose, and 29.4% after the first ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 dose. Systemic effects were more prevalent among individuals with pre-existing COVID-19 infection (BNT162b2:34.1%;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:51.6%) than among individuals without known prior infection (BNT162b2:10.6%;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:28.6%) and among those aged <55 years (BNT162b2:19.9%;ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:45.3%) compared to those aged >55 years (BNT162b2:9.2%, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19: 26.9%). We observed significant reduction in infection risk 12-21 days after the first dose (BNT162b2:-57% [-71%, -38%], ChAdOx1 nCoV-19:-42% [-71%, -17%]). Interpretation: This phase IV-type study assessing both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines identifies mild systemic side effects affecting 11-30% of individuals post-vaccination, lower than in published Phase III trials. Our data on infection post-vaccine were also reassuring.Funding: Zoe, NIHR, CDRF, NIH, MRCDeclaration of Interests: TDS and AMV are consultants to Zoe Global Ltd (“Zoe”). JW, AM, LP and JC are employees of Zoe Global Limited. ALG is a regional PI on the COV002 trial and the Novavax COVID-19 vaccine trial and as such her organisation has received grants from Novavax. Other authors have no conflict of interest to declare.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for use of the app for research purposes in the UK was obtained from King’s College London Ethics Committee (review reference LRS-19/20-18210), and all users provided consent for non-commercial use.

6.
Nat Commun ; 13(1): 636, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1671552

ABSTRACT

Worldwide, racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 with increased risk of infection, its related complications, and death. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy may result in differences in uptake. We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants who volunteered to take part in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 2020-February 2021) and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of vaccine hesitancy and uptake. In the U.S. (n = 87,388), compared to white participants, vaccine hesitancy was greater for Black and Hispanic participants and those reporting more than one or other race. In the U.K. (n = 1,254,294), racial and ethnic minority participants showed similar levels of vaccine hesitancy to the U.S. However, associations between participant race and ethnicity and levels of vaccine uptake were observed to be different in the U.S. and the U.K. studies. Among U.S. participants, vaccine uptake was significantly lower among Black participants, which persisted among participants that self-reported being vaccine-willing. In contrast, statistically significant racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake were not observed in the U.K sample. In this study of self-reported vaccine hesitancy and uptake, lower levels of vaccine uptake in Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout may be attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/psychology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , /statistics & numerical data , /statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/psychology , Cohort Studies , Female , /statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Minority Groups/psychology , Minority Groups/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Self Report , United Kingdom/ethnology , United States/epidemiology , /statistics & numerical data , Young Adult
7.
2021.
Preprint in English | Other preprints | ID: ppcovidwho-295607

ABSTRACT

Background Racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy and limited access may result in disparities in uptake. Methods We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 24, 2020-February 16, 2021). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (unsure/not willing) and receipt. Results In the U.S. ( n =87,388), compared to White non-Hispanic participants, the multivariable ORs of vaccine hesitancy were 3.15 (95% CI: 2.86 to 3.47) for Black participants, 1.42 (1.28 to 1.58) for Hispanic participants, 1.34 (1.18 to 1.52) for Asian participants, and 2.02 (1.70 to 2.39) for participants reporting more than one race/other. In the U.K. ( n =1,254,294), racial and ethnic minorities had similarly elevated hesitancy: compared to White participants, their corresponding ORs were 2.84 (95% CI: 2.69 to 2.99) for Black participants, 1.66 (1.57 to 1.76) for South Asian participants, 1.84 (1.70 to 1.98) for Middle East/East Asian participants, and 1.48 (1.39 to 1.57) for participants reporting more than one race/other. Among U.S. participants, the OR of vaccine receipt was 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) for Black participants, a disparity that persisted among individuals who specifically endorsed a willingness to obtain a vaccine. In contrast, disparities in uptake were not observed in the U.K. Conclusions COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was greater among racial and ethnic minorities, and Black participants living in the U.S. were less likely to receive a vaccine than White participants. Lower uptake among Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout is attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

8.
EClinicalMedicine ; 42: 101212, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1540603

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Identifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study in 1,072,313 UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (N=362,770) (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2 (N=14,842), aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models considering UK testing criteria. FINDINGS: Differentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. Most of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue). INTERPRETATION: Post-vaccination symptoms per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 or quarantining, to prevent community spread. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Zoe Limited.

9.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 22(1): 43-55, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1500361

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines show excellent efficacy in clinical trials and effectiveness in real-world data, but some people still become infected with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination. This study aimed to identify risk factors for post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe the characteristics of post-vaccination illness. METHODS: This prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study used self-reported data (eg, on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, and COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations) from UK-based, adult (≥18 years) users of the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app. For the risk factor analysis, cases had received a first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021; had either a positive COVID-19 test at least 14 days after their first vaccination (but before their second; cases 1) or a positive test at least 7 days after their second vaccination (cases 2); and had no positive test before vaccination. Two control groups were selected (who also had not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before vaccination): users reporting a negative test at least 14 days after their first vaccination but before their second (controls 1) and users reporting a negative test at least 7 days after their second vaccination (controls 2). Controls 1 and controls 2 were matched (1:1) with cases 1 and cases 2, respectively, by the date of the post-vaccination test, health-care worker status, and sex. In the disease profile analysis, we sub-selected participants from cases 1 and cases 2 who had used the app for at least 14 consecutive days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 3 and cases 4, respectively). Controls 3 and controls 4 were unvaccinated participants reporting a positive SARS-CoV-2 test who had used the app for at least 14 consecutive days after the test, and were matched (1:1) with cases 3 and 4, respectively, by the date of the positive test, health-care worker status, sex, body-mass index (BMI), and age. We used univariate logistic regression models (adjusted for age, BMI, and sex) to analyse the associations between risk factors and post-vaccination infection, and the associations of individual symptoms, overall disease duration, and disease severity with vaccination status. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021, 1 240 009 COVID Symptom Study app users reported a first vaccine dose, of whom 6030 (0·5%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 1), and 971 504 reported a second dose, of whom 2370 (0·2%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 2). In the risk factor analysis, frailty was associated with post-vaccination infection in older adults (≥60 years) after their first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1·93, 95% CI 1·50-2·48; p<0·0001), and individuals living in highly deprived areas had increased odds of post-vaccination infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·01-1·23; p=0·039). Individuals without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2) had lower odds of infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75-0·94; p=0·0030). For the disease profile analysis, 3825 users from cases 1 were included in cases 3 and 906 users from cases 2 were included in cases 4. Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose. Almost all symptoms were reported less frequently in infected vaccinated individuals than in infected unvaccinated individuals, and vaccinated participants were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older. INTERPRETATION: To minimise SARS-CoV-2 infection, at-risk populations must be targeted in efforts to boost vaccine effectiveness and infection control measures. Our findings might support caution around relaxing physical distancing and other personal protective measures in the post-vaccination era, particularly around frail older adults and individuals living in more deprived areas, even if these individuals are vaccinated, and might have implications for strategies such as booster vaccinations. FUNDING: ZOE, the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the UK National Institute for Health Research, the UK Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer's Society.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Mobile Applications/statistics & numerical data , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing/statistics & numerical data , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , Self Report , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
10.
Lancet Infect Dis ; 21(7): 939-949, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1433943

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2vs ≥30 kg/m2), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities). FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days. INTERPRETATION: Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days. FUNDING: ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/immunology , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/immunology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Safety/statistics & numerical data , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , United Kingdom
11.
Lancet Digit Health ; 3(9): e587-e598, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1331339

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Self-reported symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic have been used to train artificial intelligence models to identify possible infection foci. To date, these models have only considered the culmination or peak of symptoms, which is not suitable for the early detection of infection. We aimed to estimate the probability of an individual being infected with SARS-CoV-2 on the basis of early self-reported symptoms to enable timely self-isolation and urgent testing. METHODS: In this large-scale, prospective, epidemiological surveillance study, we used prospective, observational, longitudinal, self-reported data from participants in the UK on 19 symptoms over 3 days after symptoms onset and COVID-19 PCR test results extracted from the COVID-19 Symptom Study mobile phone app. We divided the study population into a training set (those who reported symptoms between April 29, 2020, and Oct 15, 2020) and a test set (those who reported symptoms between Oct 16, 2020, and Nov 30, 2020), and used three models to analyse the self-reported symptoms: the UK's National Health Service (NHS) algorithm, logistic regression, and the hierarchical Gaussian process model we designed to account for several important variables (eg, specific COVID-19 symptoms, comorbidities, and clinical information). Model performance to predict COVID-19 positivity was compared in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in the test set. For the hierarchical Gaussian process model, we also evaluated the relevance of symptoms in the early detection of COVID-19 in population subgroups stratified according to occupation, sex, age, and body-mass index. FINDINGS: The training set comprised 182 991 participants and the test set comprised 15 049 participants. When trained on 3 days of self-reported symptoms, the hierarchical Gaussian process model had a higher prediction AUC (0·80 [95% CI 0·80-0·81]) than did the logistic regression model (0·74 [0·74-0·75]) and the NHS algorithm (0·67 [0·67-0·67]). AUCs for all models increased with the number of days of self-reported symptoms, but were still high for the hierarchical Gaussian process model at day 1 (0·73 [95% CI 0·73-0·74]) and day 2 (0·79 [0·78-0·79]). At day 3, the hierarchical Gaussian process model also had a significantly higher sensitivity, but a non-statistically lower specificity, than did the two other models. The hierarchical Gaussian process model also identified different sets of relevant features to detect COVID-19 between younger and older subgroups, and between health-care workers and non-health-care workers. When used during different pandemic periods, the model was robust to changes in populations. INTERPRETATION: Early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection is feasible with our model. Such early detection is crucial to contain the spread of COVID-19 and efficiently allocate medical resources. FUNDING: ZOE, the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the UK National Institute for Health Research, the UK Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, the Alzheimer's Society, the Chronic Disease Research Foundation, and the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.


Subject(s)
Artificial Intelligence , COVID-19/diagnosis , Models, Biological , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anosmia , COVID-19/complications , Chest Pain , Dyspnea , Early Diagnosis , Epidemiologic Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mobile Applications , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Self Report , Sensitivity and Specificity , United Kingdom , Young Adult
12.
Lancet Public Health ; 6(5): e335-e345, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1180163

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December, 2020, in England. We aimed to investigate whether increases in the proportion of infections with this variant are associated with differences in symptoms or disease course, reinfection rates, or transmissibility. METHODS: We did an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. Data on types and duration of symptoms were obtained from longitudinal reports from users of the COVID Symptom Study app who reported a positive test for COVID-19 between Sept 28 and Dec 27, 2020 (during which the prevalence of B.1.1.7 increased most notably in parts of the UK). From this dataset, we also estimated the frequency of possible reinfection, defined as the presence of two reported positive tests separated by more than 90 days with a period of reporting no symptoms for more than 7 days before the second positive test. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant across the UK was estimated with use of genomic data from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium and data from Public Health England on spike-gene target failure (a non-specific indicator of the B.1.1.7 variant) in community cases in England. We used linear regression to examine the association between reported symptoms and proportion of B.1.1.7. We assessed the Spearman correlation between the proportion of B.1.1.7 cases and number of reinfections over time, and between the number of positive tests and reinfections. We estimated incidence for B.1.1.7 and previous variants, and compared the effective reproduction number, Rt, for the two incidence estimates. FINDINGS: From Sept 28 to Dec 27, 2020, positive COVID-19 tests were reported by 36 920 COVID Symptom Study app users whose region was known and who reported as healthy on app sign-up. We found no changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. For the same period, possible reinfections were identified in 249 (0·7% [95% CI 0·6-0·8]) of 36 509 app users who reported a positive swab test before Oct 1, 2020, but there was no evidence that the frequency of reinfections was higher for the B.1.1.7 variant than for pre-existing variants. Reinfection occurrences were more positively correlated with the overall regional rise in cases (Spearman correlation 0·56-0·69 for South East, London, and East of England) than with the regional increase in the proportion of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant (Spearman correlation 0·38-0·56 in the same regions), suggesting B.1.1.7 does not substantially alter the risk of reinfection. We found a multiplicative increase in the Rt of B.1.1.7 by a factor of 1·35 (95% CI 1·02-1·69) relative to pre-existing variants. However, Rt fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. INTERPRETATION: The lack of change in symptoms identified in this study indicates that existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, given that there was no apparent increase in the reinfection rate, vaccines are likely to remain effective against the B.1.1.7 variant. FUNDING: Zoe Global, Department of Health (UK), Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK), Medical Research Council (UK), Alzheimer's Society.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/virology , Reinfection/virology , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Reinfection/epidemiology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
13.
BMC Psychiatry ; 20(1): 558, 2020 11 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-945198

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The pre-melancholic model described by Tellenbach may provide a common model for understanding the psychological implications of the lockdown. In this case report, we describe a rare catatonic status as a psychological implication linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, a really unique global situation. CASE PRESENTATION: B is a 59 year-old man with mute psychiatric anamnesis whose mother suffered from a major depressive disorder. As the lockdown began, he started to develop concerns about his family's economic condition. According to his wife, he could see no end to the epidemic and no future at all. Moving from this, he started to show a severe and rapidly progressive depression and to develop mood congruent delusions. In addition, he had increasing anhedonia, apathy, starvation and insomnia. This turned in the end into a catatonic-like state, along with a deep desire to die. Admitted to the psychiatry ward in a state of mutism, he was discharged after 15 days with a diagnosis of "Major depressive disorder, single severe episode with no psychotic behavior". He was treated with Sertraline, Olanzapine and Lorazepam. CONCLUSIONS: Our aim is to draw attention to the effect of the lockdown upon a Tellenbach-like personality structure. Identifying this type of pre-morbid personality structure could help clinicians understand and treat some cases of patients with severe major depressive disorders elicited by the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Catatonia/etiology , Depression/etiology , Depressive Disorder, Major/etiology , Physical Distancing , Depressive Disorder, Major/drug therapy , Financial Stress , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL