"We Should Be Working Together, and It Felt like They Disrupted That": Pregnant Women and Partners' Experiences of Maternity Care in the First UK COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown.

Pregnant women were identified as being at elevated risk from COVID-19 early in the pandemic. Certain restrictions were placed upon birth partners accompanying their pregnant partner to in-person maternity consultations and for in-patient maternity care. In the absence of a central directive in England, the nature of restrictions varied across maternity services. Eleven participants (seven pregnant women and four partners), who were expectant parents during the first UK COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, took part in serial interviews in pregnancy and the postnatal period. Data were subject to a reflexive thematic analysis. Four main themes were identified, with sub-themes: uncertainty and anxiety (uncertainty and anxiety about COVID-19, uncertainty and anxiety about maternity services); disruption of partnering and parenting role; complexity around entering hospital spaces (hospitals offering protection while posing threat, individual health professionals in inflexible systems); and attempting to feel in control. Separating couples may result in disruption to their anticipated roles and significant distress to both partners, with potential impacts for mental health and future family relationships. Trauma-informed perspectives are relevant for understanding parents' experiences of maternity care in the pandemic and identifying ways to improve care to promote and protect the mental health of all parents.

The impacts of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose separation and targeting on the COVID-19 epidemic in England.

In late 2020, the JCVI (the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which provides advice to the Department of Health and Social Care, England) made two important recommendations for the initial roll-out of the COVID-19 vaccine. The first was that vaccines should be targeted to older and vulnerable people, with the aim of maximally preventing disease rather than infection. The second was to increase the interval between first and second doses from 3 to 12 weeks. Here, we re-examine these recommendations through a mathematical model of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England. We show that targeting the most vulnerable had the biggest immediate impact (compared to targeting younger individuals who may be more responsible for transmission). The 12-week delay was also highly beneficial, estimated to have averted between 32-72 thousand hospital admissions and 4-9 thousand deaths over the first ten months of the campaign (December 2020-September 2021) depending on the assumed interaction between dose interval and efficacy.

Implementation of a Web-Based Resilience Enhancement Training for Nurses: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Global workforce challenges faced by health care providers are linked to low levels of job satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and well-being, with detrimental impacts on patient care outcomes. Resilience-building programs can provide support for staff who endure highly stressful environments, enhance resilience, and support recruitment and retention, with web-based formats being key to increasing accessibility. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine participants' engagement with a newly developed Resilience Enhancement Online Training for Nurses (REsOluTioN), explore its acceptability, and compare levels of resilience and psychological well-being in nurses who completed REsOluTioN with those who did not. METHODS: We carried out a pilot randomized trial (1:1), conducted at a single site (mental health and community trust in South England) between August 2021 and May 2022. Local research ethics approvals were obtained. Nurses were invited to participate and were randomly assigned to a waitlist group or REsOluTioN group. Training lasted for 4 weeks, consisting of prereading, web-based facilitated sessions, and mentorship support. We evaluated trial engagement, acceptability of training, and pre-post changes in resilience, measured by the Brief Resilience Scale, and psychological well-being, measured by the Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale. Qualitative participant feedback was collected. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 extension guidelines for reporting pilot and feasibility trials were used. RESULTS: Of 108 participants recruited, 93 completed the study. Participants' mean age was 44 (SD 10.85) years. Most participants were female (n=95, 88.8%), White (n=95, 88.8%), and worked in community settings (n=91, 85.0%). Sixteen facilitated and 150 mentoring sessions took place. Most REsOluTioN program participants reported the sessions helped improve their resilience (n=24, 72.8%), self-confidence (n=24, 72.7%), ability to provide good patient care (n=25, 75.8%), relationships with colleagues (n=24, 72.7%), and communication skills (n=25, 75.8%). No statistically significant differences between training and control groups and time on well-being (F1,91=1.44, P=.23, partial η2=0.02) and resilience scores (F1,91=0.33, P=.57, partial η2=0.004) were revealed; however, there were positive trends toward improvement in both. Nurse participants engaged with the REsOluTioN program and found it acceptable. Most found web-based training and mentoring useful and enjoyed learning, reflection, networking, and participatory sessions. CONCLUSIONS: The REsOluTioN program was acceptable, engaging, perceived as useful, and nurses were keen for it to be implemented to optimize resilience, psychological health, communication, and workplace environments. The study has evidenced that it is acceptable to implement web-based resilience programs with similar design features within busy health care settings, indicating a need for similar programs to be carefully evaluated. Mentorship support may also be a key in optimizing resilience. Trial limitations include small sample size and reduced statistical power; a multicenter randomized controlled trial could test effectiveness of the training on a larger scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05074563; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05074563. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/37015.

Sharing real-world data for public benefit: a qualitative exploration of stakeholder views and perceptions.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increasing interest in the use of "real-world" data to inform care decision making that could lead to public health benefit. Routinely collected service and activity data associated with the administration of care services and service-users (such as electronic health records or electronic social care records), hold potential to better inform effective and responsive decision-making about health and care services provided to national and local populations. This study sought to gain an in-depth understanding regarding the potential to unlock real world data that was held in individual organisations, to better inform public health decision-making. This included sharing data between and within health service providers and local governing authorities, but also with university researchers to inform the evidence base. METHODS: We used qualitative methods and carried out a series of online workshops and interviews with stakeholders (senior-level decision-makers and service leads, researchers, data analysts, those with a legal and governance role, and members of the public). We identified recurring themes in initial workshops, and explored these with participants in subsequent workshops. By this iterative process we further refined the themes identified, compared views and perceptions amongst different stakeholder groups, and developed recommendations for action. RESULTS: Our study identified key elements of context and timing, the need for a different approach, and obstacles including governmental and legal, organisational features, and process factors which adversely affect the sharing of real world data. The findings also highlighted a need for improved communication about data for secondary uses to members of the public. CONCLUSION: The Covid-19 pandemic context and changes to organisational structures in the health service in England have provided opportunities to address data sharing challenges. Change at national and local level is required, within current job roles and generating new jobs roles focused on the use and sharing of real-world data. The study suggests that actions can be taken to unlock the potential of real-world data for public health benefit, and provides a series of recommendations at a national level, for organisational leaders, those in data roles and those in public engagement roles.

Knowledge of Self-Isolation Rules in the UK for Those Who Have Symptoms of COVID-19: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate knowledge of self-isolation rules and factors associated with knowledge. METHODS: Repeated cross-sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 UK adults) between 9 November 2020 and 16 February 2022 (78,573 responses from 51,881 participants). We computed a composite measure of knowledge of self-isolation rules and investigated associations between knowledge and survey wave, socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, UK nation, index of multiple deprivation), trust in government, and participants' belief that they had received enough information about self-isolation. RESULTS: In total, 87.9% (95% CI 87.7% to 88.1%, n = 67,288/76,562) of participants knew that if they had symptoms of COVID-19 they should 'self-isolate'. However, only 62.8% (n = 48,058/76,562, 95% CI 62.4% to 63.1%) knew the main rules regarding what that meant. Younger people had less knowledge than older people, and men had less knowledge than women. Knowledge was lower in people living in England versus in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The pattern of association between knowledge and trust in government was unclear. Knowledge was lower in people living in a more deprived area and those who did not believe they had enough information about self-isolation. Knowledge was lower in December 2020 to January 2021, compared with before and after this period. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 63% of UK adults between November 2020 and February 2022 appeared to know the main rules regarding self-isolation if symptomatic with COVID-19. Knowledge was lower in younger than older people, men than women, those living in England compared with Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, and those living in more deprived areas.

Investigating the usefulness of Automated Check-in Data Collection in general practice (AC DC Study): a multicentre, cross-sectional study in England.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the usefulness of using automated appointment check-in screens to collect brief research data from patients, prior to their general practice consultation. DESIGN: A descriptive, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nine general practices in the West Midlands, UK. Recruitment commenced in Autumn 2018 and was concluded by 31 March 2019. PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 18 years and above, self-completing an automated check-in screen prior to their general practice consultation, were invited to participate during a 3-week recruitment period. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The response rate to the use of the automated check-in screen as a research data collection tool was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included responses to the two research questions and an assessment of impact of check-in completion on general practice operationalisation RESULTS: Over 85% (n=9274) of patients self-completing an automated check-in screen participated in the Automated Check-in Data Collection Study (61.0% (n=5653) women, mean age 55.1 years (range 18-98 years, SD=18.5)). 96.2% (n=8922) of participants answered a 'clinical' research question, reporting the degree of bodily pain experienced during the past 4 weeks: 32.9% (n=2937) experienced no pain, 28.1% (n=2507) very mild or mild pain and 39.0% (n=3478) moderate, severe or very severe pain. 89.3% (n=8285) of participants answered a 'non-clinical' research question on contact regarding future research studies: 46.9% (n=3889) of participants responded 'Yes, I'd be happy for you to contact me about research of relevance to me'. CONCLUSIONS: Using automated check-in facilities to integrate research into routine general practice is a potentially useful way to collect brief research data from patients. With the COVID-19 pandemic initiating an extensive digital transformation in society, now is an ideal time to build on these opportunities and investigate alternative, innovative ways to collect research data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82531292.

Quantifying the effect of delaying the second COVID-19 vaccine dose in England: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The UK was the first country to start national COVID-19 vaccination programmes, initially administering doses 3 weeks apart. However, early evidence of high vaccine effectiveness after the first dose and the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant prompted the UK to extend the interval between doses to 12 weeks. In this study, we aimed to quantify the effect of delaying the second vaccine dose in England. METHODS: We used a previously described model of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, calibrated to COVID-19 surveillance data from England, including hospital admissions, hospital occupancy, seroprevalence data, and population-level PCR testing data, using a Bayesian evidence-synthesis framework. We modelled and compared the epidemic trajectory in the counterfactual scenario in which vaccine doses were administered 3 weeks apart against the real reported vaccine roll-out schedule of 12 weeks. We estimated and compared the resulting numbers of daily infections, hospital admissions, and deaths. In sensitivity analyses, we investigated scenarios spanning a range of vaccine effectiveness and waning assumptions. FINDINGS: In the period from Dec 8, 2020, to Sept 13, 2021, the number of individuals who received a first vaccine dose was higher under the 12-week strategy than the 3-week strategy. For this period, we estimated that delaying the interval between the first and second COVID-19 vaccine doses from 3 to 12 weeks averted a median (calculated as the median of the posterior sample) of 58 000 COVID-19 hospital admissions (291 000 cumulative hospitalisations [95% credible interval 275 000-319 000] under the 3-week strategy vs 233 000 [229 000-238 000] under the 12-week strategy) and 10 100 deaths (64 800 deaths [60 200-68 900] vs 54 700 [52 800-55 600]). Similarly, we estimated that the 3-week strategy would have resulted in more infections compared with the 12-week strategy. Across all sensitivity analyses the 3-week strategy resulted in a greater number of hospital admissions. In results by age group, the 12-week strategy led to more hospitalisations and deaths in older people in spring 2021, but fewer following the emergence of the delta variant during summer 2021. INTERPRETATION: England's delayed-second-dose vaccination strategy was informed by early real-world data on vaccine effectiveness in the context of limited vaccine supplies in a growing epidemic. Our study shows that rapidly providing partial (single-dose) vaccine-induced protection to a larger proportion of the population was successful in reducing the burden of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths overall. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research; UK Medical Research Council; Community Jameel; Wellcome Trust; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; and EU.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in people with blood cancer: Population-level cohort study of 12 million patients in England.

BACKGROUND: People with blood cancers have increased risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 and were prioritised for vaccination. METHODS: Individuals in the QResearch database aged 12 years and above on 1st December 2020 were included in the analysis. Kaplan-Meier analysis described time to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer and other high-risk disorders. Cox regression was used to identify factors associated with vaccine uptake in people with blood cancer. RESULTS: The analysis included 12,274,948 individuals, of whom 97,707 had a blood cancer diagnosis. 92% of people with blood cancer received at least one dose of vaccine, compared to 80% of the general population, but there was lower uptake of each subsequent vaccine dose (31% for fourth dose). Vaccine uptake decreased with social deprivation (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.70, 0.74 for most deprived versus most affluent quintile for first vaccine). Compared with White groups, uptake of all vaccine doses was significantly lower in people of Pakistani and Black ethnicity, and more people in these groups remain unvaccinated. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine uptake declines following second dose and there are ethnic and social disparities in uptake in blood cancer populations. Enhanced communication of benefits of vaccination to these groups is needed.

The use of representative community samples to assess SARS-CoV-2 lineage competition: Alpha outcompetes Beta and wild-type in England from January to March 2021.

Genomic surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 lineages informs our understanding of possible future changes in transmissibility and vaccine efficacy and will be a high priority for public health for the foreseeable future. However, small changes in the frequency of one lineage over another are often difficult to interpret because surveillance samples are obtained using a variety of methods all of which are known to contain biases. As a case study, using an approach which is largely free of biases, we here describe lineage dynamics and phylogenetic relationships of the Alpha and Beta variant in England during the first 3 months of 2021 using sequences obtained from a random community sample who provided a throat and nose swab for rt-PCR as part of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. Overall, diversity decreased during the first quarter of 2021, with the Alpha variant (first identified in Kent) becoming predominant, driven by a reproduction number 0.3 higher than for the prior wild-type. During January, positive samples were more likely to be Alpha in those aged 18 to 54 years old. Although individuals infected with the Alpha variant were no more likely to report one or more classic COVID-19 symptoms compared to those infected with wild-type, they were more likely to be antibody-positive 6 weeks after infection. Further, viral load was higher in those infected with the Alpha variant as measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values. The presence of infections with non-imported Beta variant (first identified in South Africa) during January, but not during February or March, suggests initial establishment in the community followed by fade-out. However, this occurred during a period of stringent social distancing. These results highlight how sequence data from representative community surveys such as REACT-1 can augment routine genomic surveillance during periods of lineage diversity.

Increased use of 6-monthly gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy for prostate cancer: a capacity and cost-minimization analysis for England.

AIMS: The National Health Service (NHS) in England is facing extreme capacity pressures. The backbone of prostate cancer care is gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) therapy, commonly administered every month or 3 months. We estimated the cost and capacity savings associated with increased use of 6-monthly GnRHa therapy in England. METHODS: A capacity and cost-minimization model including a societal perspective was developed (in Microsoft Excel) to generate cost and capacity estimates for GnRHa drug acquisition and administration for "Current practice" and for a "Base case" scenario. In the "Base case" scenario, 50% of patients who were receiving monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy in "Current practice" switched/transitioned to a 6-monthly formulation. Cost/capacity estimates were calculated per patient per administration and scaled to annualized population levels. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the impact of individual model assumptions: 1 tested the impact of drug acquisition costs; 2 and 3 tested the level of nurse grade and the time associated with treatment administration, respectively; 4 tested the rate of switch/transition to 6-monthly GnRHa therapy; and 5 tested differing diagnostic patterns following the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. RESULTS: Compared with "Current practice", the "Base case" scenario was associated with annual cost savings of £5,164,296 (148,478 fewer appointments/year and 37,119 fewer appointment-hours/year). The largest savings were in drug administration (£2.2 million) and acquisition (£1.6 million) costs. Annual societal cost savings totaled £1.4 million, mainly in reduced appointment-related travel, productivity and leisure time opportunity losses. Increased use of 6-monthly versus monthly or 3-monthly GnRHa therapy consistently achieved system-wide annual cost and capacity savings across all sensitivity analysis scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Our holistic model suggests that switching/transitioning men from monthly or 3- monthly GnRHa therapy to a 6-monthly formulation can reduce NHS cost and capacity pressures and the societal and environmental costs associated with prostate cancer care.

Men with prostate cancer often receive hormone injections to slow their cancer progression and relieve their symptoms. In England, most men who are prescribed hormone injections receive them once every month or 3 months; however, a 6-monthly option would reduce the number of injection appointments required each year. If some men who are receiving hormone injections every month or every 3 months switched to treatment once every 6 months, it could reduce the impact of prostate cancer treatment on their lives. It might also reduce the demands of prostate cancer treatment on the National Health Service (NHS). We developed a computer-based model to assess how NHS costs and nursing would be affected if half of the men in England who are receiving hormone injections every month or 3 months switched to injections every 6 months. According to our model, this change could save the NHS about £5.2 million each year. The main cost savings would be in reduced nursing costs. The change would also benefit the NHS because nurses would have almost 150,000 fewer injections to give, meaning that they could spend their time providing care elsewhere. Given that men would have to attend fewer appointments, they would also benefit from reduced time traveling, which would benefit the environment as well. Overall, these benefits to society would contribute about £1.4 million of savings per year. Given how stretched the NHS is in England, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, opportunities to reduce time and staffing pressures are very important.

Explaining the UK's 'high-risk' approach to type 2 diabetes prevention: findings from a qualitative interview study with policy-makers in England.

OBJECTIVES: When seeking to prevent type 2 diabetes, a balance must be struck between individual approaches (focusing on people's behaviour 'choices') and population approaches (focusing on the environment in which those choices are made) to address the socioeconomic complexity of diabetes development. We sought to explore how this balance is negotiated in the accounts of policy-makers developing and enacting diabetes prevention policy. METHODS: Twelve semistructured interviews were undertaken with nine UK policy-makers between 2018-2021. We explored their perspectives on disease prevention strategies and what influenced policy decision-making. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically using NVIVO. We used Shiffman's political priority framework to theorise why some diabetes prevention policy approaches gather political support while others do not. RESULTS: The distribution of power and funding among relevant actors, and the way they exerted their power determined the dominant approach in diabetes prevention policy. As a result of this distribution, policy-makers framed their accounts of diabetes prevention policies in terms of individual behaviour change, monitoring personal quantitative markers but with limited ability to effect population-level approaches. Such an approach aligns with the current prevailing neoliberal political context, which focuses on individual lifestyle choices to prevent disease rather than on infrastructure measures to improve the environments and contexts within which those choices are made. CONCLUSION: Within new local and national policy structures, there is an opportunity for collaborative working among the National Health Service, local governments and public health teams to balance the focus on disease prevention, addressing upstream drivers of ill health as well as targeting individuals with the highest risk of diabetes.

Lung cancer recovery focus post pandemic: an income-deprived area paradigm.

'Stage shift' has been proposed as a marker of impact of Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) in lung cancer services; however, there are no data available specifically from income-deprived areas. Thus, this study evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer care in our area (Corby; among the most income deprived in England) and identified focus recovery areas. The study was a retrospective observational study of 668 consecutive patients with lung cancer at a district general hospital, pre-, during and after the COVID peak. Outcomes were the overall number of cases, presenting staging and treatment pathway. Overall, 32 fewer patients were diagnosed during the pandemic, with more inpatient diagnoses (p=0.01) and fewer primary care referrals (p<0.0001). There were no differences observed in treatment intent or 'stage shift'. Our results suggest that COVID-19 negatively affected the whole lung cancer pathway in our area. However, 'stage shift' might not be ideal to assess the impact of COVID-19 in income-deprived areas. Further studies will help the strategic rollout of a screening programme to identify patients with lung cancer earlier on in such areas.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 viral load distributions with individual demographics and suspected variant type: results from the Liverpool community testing pilot, England, 6 November 2020 to 8 September 2021.

BackgroundThe PCR quantification cycle (Cq) is a proxy measure of the viral load of a SARS-CoV-2-infected individual.AimTo investigate if Cq values vary according to different population characteristics, in particular demographic ones, and within the COVID-19 pandemic context, notably the SARS-CoV-2 type/variant individuals get infected with.MethodsWe considered all positive PCR results from Cheshire and Merseyside, England, between 6 November 2020 and 8 September 2021. Cq distributions were inspected with Kernel density estimates. Multivariable quantile regression models assessed associations between people's features and Cq.ResultsWe report Cq values for 188,821 SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals. Median Cqs increased with decreasing age for suspected wild-type virus and Alpha variant infections, but less so, if not, for Delta. For example, compared to 30-39-year-olds (median age group), 5-11-year-olds exhibited 1.8 (95% CI: 1.5 to 2.1), 2.2 (95% CI: 1.8 to 2.6) and 0.8 (95% CI: 0.6 to 0.9) higher median Cqs for suspected wild-type, Alpha and Delta positives, respectively, in multivariable analysis. 12-18-year-olds also had higher Cqs for wild-type and Alpha positives, however, not for Delta. Overall, in univariable analysis, suspected Delta positives reported 2.8 lower median Cqs than wild-type positives (95% CI: 2.7 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Suspected Alpha positives had 1.5 (95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5; p < 0.001) lower median Cqs than wild type.ConclusionsWild-type- or Alpha-infected school-aged children (5-11-year-olds) might transmit less than adults (> 18 years old), but have greater mixing exposures. Smaller differences in viral loads with age occurred in suspected Delta infections. Suspected-Alpha- or Delta-infections involved higher viral loads than wild type, suggesting increased transmission risk. COVID-19 control strategies should consider age and dominant variant.

How are hospitals in England caring for women at risk of preterm birth in 2021? The influence of national guidance on preterm birth care in England: a national questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: National guidance (Saving Babies Lives Care Bundle Version 2 (SBLCBv2) Element 5) was published in 2019, with the aim to standardise preterm care in England. We plan to identify how many preterm birth surveillance clinics there are in England, and to define current national management in caring for women who are both asymptomatic and high-risk of preterm birth, and who arrive symptomatically in threatened preterm labour, to assist preterm management both nationally and internationally. METHODS: An online survey comprising of 27 questions was sent to all maternity units in England between February 2021 to July 2021. RESULTS: Data was obtained from 96 units. Quantitative analysis and free text analysis was then undertaken. We identified 78 preterm birth surveillance clinics in England, an increase from 30 preterm clinics in 2017. This is a staggering 160% increase in 4 years. SBLCBv2 has had a considerable impact in increasing preterm birth surveillance clinic services, with the majority (61%) of sites reporting that the NHS England publication influenced their unit in setting up their clinic. Variations exist at every step of the preterm pathway, such as deciding which risk factors warrant referral, distinguishing within particular risk factors, and offering screening tests and treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: While variations in care still do persist, hospitals have done well to increase preterm surveillance clinics, under the difficult circumstances of the COVID pandemic and many without specific additional funding.

Effects of Second Dose of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination on Household Transmission, England.

A single SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose reduces onward transmission from case-patients. We assessed the potential effects of receiving 2 doses on household transmission for case-patients in England and their household contacts. We used stratified Cox regression models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for contacts becoming secondary case-patients, comparing contacts of 2-dose vaccinated and unvaccinated index case-patients. We controlled for age, sex, and vaccination status of case-patients and contacts, as well as region, household composition, and relative socioeconomic condition based on household location. During the Alpha-dominant period, HRs were 0.19 (0.13-0.28) for contacts of 2-dose BNT162b2-vaccinated case-patients and 0.54 (0.41-0.69) for contacts of 2-dose Ch4dOx1-vaccinated case-patients; during the Delta-dominant period, HRs were higher, 0.74 (0.72-0.76) for BNT162b2 and 1.06 (1.04-1.08) for Ch4dOx1. Reduction of onward transmission was lower for index case-patients who tested positive ≥2 months after the second dose of either vaccine.

Voluntary risk mitigation behaviour can reduce impact of SARS-CoV-2: a real-time modelling study of the January 2022 Omicron wave in England.

BACKGROUND: Predicting the likely size of future SARS-CoV-2 waves is necessary for public health planning. In England, voluntary "plan B" mitigation measures were introduced in December 2021 including increased home working and face coverings in shops but stopped short of restrictions on social contacts. The impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on future SARS-CoV-2 burden is unknown. METHODS: We developed a rapid online survey of risk mitigation behaviours ahead of the winter 2021 festive period and deployed in two longitudinal cohort studies in the UK (Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) and TwinsUK/COVID Symptom Study (CSS) Biobank) in December 2021. Using an individual-based, probabilistic model of COVID-19 transmission between social contacts with SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant parameters and realistic vaccine coverage in England, we predicted the potential impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron wave in England in terms of the effective reproduction number and cumulative infections, hospital admissions and deaths. Using survey results, we estimated in real-time the impact of voluntary risk mitigation behaviours on the Omicron wave in England, if implemented for the entire epidemic wave. RESULTS: Over 95% of survey respondents (NALSPAC = 2686 and NTwins = 6155) reported some risk mitigation behaviours, with vaccination and using home testing kits reported most frequently. Less than half of those respondents reported that their behaviour was due to "plan B". We estimate that without risk mitigation behaviours, the Omicron variant is consistent with an effective reproduction number between 2.5 and 3.5. Due to the reduced vaccine effectiveness against infection with the Omicron variant, our modelled estimates suggest that between 55% and 60% of the English population could be infected during the current wave, translating into between 12,000 and 46,000 cumulative deaths, depending on assumptions about severity and vaccine effectiveness. The actual number of deaths was 15,208 (26 November 2021-1 March 2022). We estimate that voluntary risk reduction measures could reduce the effective reproduction number to between 1.8 and 2.2 and reduce the cumulative number of deaths by up to 24%. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting future infection burden is affected by uncertainty in disease severity and vaccine effectiveness estimates. In addition to biological uncertainty, we show that voluntary measures substantially reduce the projected impact of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant but that voluntary measures alone would be unlikely to completely control transmission.

Ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality in the second and third waves of the pandemic in England during the vaccine rollout: a retrospective, population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Ethnic minority groups in England have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and have lower vaccination rates than the White British population. We examined whether ethnic differences in COVID-19 mortality in England have continued since the vaccine rollout and to what extent differences in vaccination rates contributed to excess COVID-19 mortality after accounting for other risk factors. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, population-based cohort study of 28.8 million adults aged 30-100 years in England. Self-reported ethnicity was obtained from the 2011 Census. The outcome was death involving COVID-19 during the second (8 December 2020 to 12 June 2021) and third wave (13 June 2021 to 1 December 2021). We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for death involving COVID-19, sequentially adjusting for age, residence type, geographical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, pre-pandemic health, and vaccination status. RESULTS: Age-adjusted HRs of death involving COVID-19 were elevated for most ethnic minority groups during both waves, particularly for groups with lowest vaccination rates (Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African, and Black Caribbean). HRs were attenuated after adjusting for geographical factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and pre-pandemic health. Further adjusting for vaccination status substantially reduced residual HRs for Black African, Black Caribbean, and Pakistani groups in the third wave. Fully adjusted HRs only remained elevated for the Bangladeshi group (men: 2.19 [95% CI 1.72-2.78]; women: 2.12 [1.58-2.86]) and Pakistani men (1.24 [1.06-1.46]). CONCLUSIONS: Lower COVID-19 vaccination uptake in several ethnic minority groups may drive some of the differences in COVID-19 mortality compared to White British. Public health strategies to increase vaccination uptake in ethnic minority groups would help reduce inequalities in COVID-19 mortality, which have remained substantial since the start of the vaccination campaign.

Harmonising electronic health records for reproducible research: challenges, solutions and recommendations from a UK-wide COVID-19 research collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The CVD-COVID-UK consortium was formed to understand the relationship between COVID-19 and cardiovascular diseases through analyses of harmonised electronic health records (EHRs) across the four UK nations. Beyond COVID-19, data harmonisation and common approaches enable analysis within and across independent Trusted Research Environments. Here we describe the reproducible harmonisation method developed using large-scale EHRs in Wales to accommodate the fast and efficient implementation of cross-nation analysis in England and Wales as part of the CVD-COVID-UK programme. We characterise current challenges and share lessons learnt. METHODS: Serving the scope and scalability of multiple study protocols, we used linked, anonymised individual-level EHR, demographic and administrative data held within the SAIL Databank for the population of Wales. The harmonisation method was implemented as a four-layer reproducible process, starting from raw data in the first layer. Then each of the layers two to four is framed by, but not limited to, the characterised challenges and lessons learnt. We achieved curated data as part of our second layer, followed by extracting phenotyped data in the third layer. We captured any project-specific requirements in the fourth layer. RESULTS: Using the implemented four-layer harmonisation method, we retrieved approximately 100 health-related variables for the 3.2 million individuals in Wales, which are harmonised with corresponding variables for > 56 million individuals in England. We processed 13 data sources into the first layer of our harmonisation method: five of these are updated daily or weekly, and the rest at various frequencies providing sufficient data flow updates for frequent capturing of up-to-date demographic, administrative and clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented an efficient, transparent, scalable, and reproducible harmonisation method that enables multi-nation collaborative research. With a current focus on COVID-19 and its relationship with cardiovascular outcomes, the harmonised data has supported a wide range of research activities across the UK.

Impact of social deprivation on clinical outcomes of adults hospitalised with community-acquired pneumonia in England: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic deprivation has been associated with an increased incidence of infection and poorer clinical outcomes during influenza pandemics and the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between deprivation and adverse clinical outcomes following hospital admission with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), specifically 30-day all-cause mortality and non-elective hospital readmission. METHODS: Data from the British Thoracic Society national CAP audit on patients admitted to hospital with CAP in England between 1 December 2018 and 31 January 2019 were linked to patient-level Hospital Episode Statistics data and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between deprivation and (a) 30-day mortality and (b) 30-day readmission with p values for trend reported. Age was examined as a potential effect modifier on the effect of IMD quintile on mortality and subsequent subanalysis in those <65 and ≥65 years was performed. RESULTS: Of 9165 adults admitted with CAP, 24.7% (n=2263) were in the most deprived quintile. No significant trend between deprivation and mortality was observed (p trend=0.38); however, the association between deprivation and mortality differed by age group. In adults aged<65 years, 30-day mortality was highest in the most deprived and lowest in the least deprived quintiles (4.4% vs 2.5%, aOR 1.83, 95% CI 0.84 to 4.0) with a significant trend across groups (p trend=0.04). Thirty-day readmission was highest in the most deprived quintile (17.1%) with a significant p trend across groups (p trend 0.003). Age-adjusted odds of readmission were highest in the most deprived compared with the least deprived (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.73). CONCLUSIONS: In adults aged<65 years hospitalised with CAP in England, mortality varied inversely with indices of social deprivation. There was also a significant association between deprivation and 30-day readmission. Strategies are required to decrease health inequalities in pneumonia mortality and hospital readmissions associated with deprivation.

Laboratory diagnosed microbial infection in English UK Biobank participants in comparison to the general population.

Understanding the genetic and environmental risk factors for serious bacterial infections in ageing populations remains incomplete. Utilising the UK Biobank (UKB), a prospective cohort study of 500,000 adults aged 40-69 years at recruitment (2006-2010), can help address this. Partial implementation of such a system helped groups around the world make rapid progress understanding risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, with insights appearing as early as May 2020. In principle, such approaches could also to be used for bacterial isolations. Here we report feasibility testing of linking an England-wide dataset of microbial reporting to UKB participants, to enable characterisation of microbial infections within the UKB Cohort. These records pertain mainly to bacterial isolations; SARS-CoV-2 isolations were not included. Microbiological infections occurring in patients in England, as recorded in the Public Health England second generation surveillance system (SGSS), were linked to UKB participants using pseudonymised identifiers. By January 2015, ascertainment of laboratory reports from UKB participants by SGSS was estimated at 98%. 4.5% of English UKB participants had a positive microbiological isolate in 2015. Half of UKB isolates came from 12 laboratories, and 70% from 21 laboratories. Incidence rate ratios for microbial isolation, which is indicative of serious infection, from the UKB cohort relative to the comparably aged general population ranged from 0.6 to 1, compatible with the previously described healthy participant bias in UKB. Data on microbial isolations can be linked to UKB participants from January 2015 onwards. This linked data would offer new opportunities for research into the role of bacterial agents on health and disease in middle to-old age.