Re-evaluation of the risk of venous thromboembolism after COVID-19 vaccination using haematological criteria

An elevated risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following a first dose of the ChAdOx1 adenovirus-vectored vaccine was found in a national epidemiological study in England using routine discharge diagnosis codes. Separately, the syndrome of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) was identified using haematological criteria based on presence of thrombocytopenia, significantly elevated D-dimers and development of anti-PF4 antibodies. To re-evaluate risk estimates using haematological criteria, we obtained the haematology results for hospital admitted patients aged 18-64 years in 43 National Health Service trusts in England who were included in the national epidemiological study. Diagnoses were confirmed and haematological parameters obtained from local records without knowledge of vaccination status. The haematological parameters in patients admitted for a confirmed VTE following ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 mRNA vaccination were then compared with those in a randomly selected 40% sample of unvaccinated patients with VTE. Overall, 12 (14%) of the 84 vaccinated cases had a diagnosis compatible with VITT, 11 after a first dose of ChAdOx1 and one after a first dose of BNT162b2. Thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150x109/L) occurred in 17 vaccinated (20%) and 4 (4%) of 108 unvaccinated patients, with all 6 cases of severe thrombocytopenia (<50x109/L) occurring within 42 days of a first dose of ChAdOx1. The attributable risk estimates for a cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) or other VTE with thrombocytopenia after a first dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine were 2.82 and 9.62 per million doses respectively. However, elevated risks were also found after a first dose of ChAdOx1 for VTE without thrombocytopenia with relative incidences for CVT and other VTE of 2.67 (1.77-3.77) and 1.93 (1.57-2.35) respectively. While we identified a distinct population with features of VITT within 42 days of receiving ChAdOx1 vaccination, confirming current diagnostic criteria, we also found evidence of an increased risk of a VTE without thrombocytopenia after ChAdOx1 vaccine.

Risk of myocarditis and pericarditis after a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine booster and after COVID-19 in those with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection: A self-controlled case series analysis in England.

BACKGROUND: An increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis after priming with mRNA Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines has been shown but information on the risk post-booster is limited. With the now high prevalence of prior Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, we assessed the effect of prior infection on the vaccine risk and the risk from COVID-19 reinfection. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis of hospital admissions for myocarditis or pericarditis in England between 22 February 2021 and 6 February 2022 in the 50 million individuals eligible to receive the adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1-S) for priming or an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) for priming or boosting. Myocarditis and pericarditis admissions were extracted from the Secondary Uses Service (SUS) database in England and vaccination histories from the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS); prior infections were obtained from the UK Health Security Agency's Second-Generation Surveillance Systems. The relative incidence (RI) of admission within 0 to 6 and 7 to 14 days of vaccination compared with periods outside these risk windows stratified by age, dose, and prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for individuals aged 12 to 101 years was estimated. The RI within 27 days of an infection was assessed in the same model. There were 2,284 admissions for myocarditis and 1,651 for pericarditis in the study period. Elevated RIs were only observed in 16- to 39-year-olds 0 to 6 days postvaccination, mainly in males for myocarditis. Both mRNA vaccines showed elevated RIs after first, second, and third doses with the highest RIs after a second dose 5.34 (95% confidence interval (CI) [3.81, 7.48]; p < 0.001) for BNT162b2 and 56.48 (95% CI [33.95, 93.97]; p < 0.001) for mRNA-1273 compared with 4.38 (95% CI [2.59, 7.38]; p < 0.001) and 7.88 (95% CI [4.02, 15.44]; p < 0.001), respectively, after a third dose. For ChAdOx1-S, an elevated RI was only observed after a first dose, RI 5.23 (95% CI [2.48, 11.01]; p < 0.001). An elevated risk of admission for pericarditis was only observed 0 to 6 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273 vaccine in 16 to 39 year olds, RI 4.84 (95% CI [1.62, 14.01]; p = 0.004). RIs were lower in those with a prior SARS-CoV-2 infection than in those without, 2.47 (95% CI [1.32,4.63]; p = 0.005) versus 4.45 (95% [3.12, 6.34]; p = 0.001) after a second BNT162b2 dose, and 19.07 (95% CI [8.62, 42.19]; p < 0.001) versus 37.2 (95% CI [22.18, 62.38]; p < 0.001) for mRNA-1273 (myocarditis and pericarditis outcomes combined). RIs 1 to 27 days postinfection were elevated in all ages and were marginally lower for breakthrough infections, 2.33 (95% CI [1.96, 2.76]; p < 0.001) compared with 3.32 (95% CI [2.54, 4.33]; p < 0.001) in vaccine-naïve individuals respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We observed an increased risk of myocarditis within the first week after priming and booster doses of mRNA vaccines, predominantly in males under 40 years with the highest risks after a second dose. The risk difference between the second and the third doses was particularly marked for the mRNA-1273 vaccine that contains half the amount of mRNA when used for boosting than priming. The lower risk in those with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and lack of an enhanced effect post-booster, does not suggest a spike-directed immune mechanism. Research to understand the mechanism of vaccine-associated myocarditis and to document the risk with bivalent mRNA vaccines is warranted.

Community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents in England, 2019-2021.

OBJECTIVE: To understand community seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children and adolescents. This is vital to understanding the susceptibility of this cohort to COVID-19 and to inform public health policy for disease control such as immunisation. DESIGN: We conducted a community-based cross-sectional seroprevalence study in participants aged 0-18 years old recruiting from seven regions in England between October 2019 and June 2021 and collecting extensive demographic and symptom data. Serum samples were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 spike and nucleocapsid proteins using Roche assays processed at UK Health Security Agency laboratories. Prevalence estimates were calculated for six time periods and were standardised by age group, ethnicity and National Health Service region. RESULTS: Post-first wave (June-August 2020), the (anti-spike IgG) adjusted seroprevalence was 5.2%, varying from 0.9% (participants 10-14 years old) to 9.5% (participants 5-9 years old). By April-June 2021, this had increased to 19.9%, varying from 13.9% (participants 0-4 years old) to 32.7% (participants 15-18 years old). Minority ethnic groups had higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity than white participants (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.0), after adjusting for sex, age, region, time period, deprivation and urban/rural geography. In children <10 years, there were no symptoms or symptom clusters that reliably predicted seropositivity. Overall, 48% of seropositive participants with complete questionnaire data recalled no symptoms between February 2020 and their study visit. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants aged 15-18 years old had evidence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 prior to the introduction of widespread vaccination. These data demonstrate that ethnic background is independently associated with risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04061382.

Persistence of immune response in heterologous COVID vaccination schedules in the Com-COV2 study - A single-blind, randomised trial incorporating mRNA, viral-vector and protein-adjuvant vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development. METHODS: Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥ 50 years, previously immunised with single dose 'ChAd' (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or 'BNT' (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8-12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or 'Mod' (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or 'NVX' (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration. FINDINGS: In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N = 540, 45% female) or BNT (N = 532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95% CI (confidence interval): 8.2, 11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95% CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95% CI:2.5,3.5) to 2.4 (95% CI:1.9, 3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The adjusted GMR (aGMR) for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies. INTERPRETATION: Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics. ISRCTN: 27841311 EudraCT:2021-001275-16.

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.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 against SARS-CoV-2 household transmission: a prospective cohort study in England

Background: The ability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect against infection and onward transmission determines whether immunisation can control global circulation. We estimated the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and Oxford AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine (ChAdOx1) vaccines against acquisition and transmission of the Alpha and Delta variants in a prospective household study in England. Methods: : Households were recruited based on adult purported index cases testing positive after reverse transcription-quantitative (RT-q)PCR testing of oral-nasal swabs. Purported index cases and their household contacts took oral-nasal swabs on days 1, 3 and 7 after enrolment and a subset of the PCR-positive swabs underwent 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. Results: : 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 1.53 times the risk (95% Credible Interval: 1.04 – 2.20) of transmission than Alpha;contacts older than 18 years old were 1.48 (1.20 – 1.91) and 1.02 (0.93 – 1.16) times more likely to acquire an Alpha or Delta infection than children. Effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against transmission of Delta was 36% (-1%, 66%) and 49% (18%, 73%) for ChAdOx1, similar to their effectiveness for Alpha. Protection against infection with Alpha was higher than for Delta, 69% (9%, 95%) vs. 18% (-11%, 59%), respectively, for BNT162b2 and 24% (-41%, 72%) vs. 9% (-15%, 42%), respectively, for ChAdOx1. Conclusions: : BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 reduce transmission of the Delta variant from breakthrough infections in the household setting, although their protection against infection within this setting is low.

Effectiveness of Covid-19 Vaccines against the B.1.617.2 (Delta) Variant.

BACKGROUND: The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to a surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against this variant has been unclear. METHODS: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain (B.1.1.7, or alpha variant) over the period that the delta variant began circulating. Variants were identified with the use of sequencing and on the basis of the spike (S) gene status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of Covid-19 in England were used to estimate the proportion of cases with either variant according to the patients' vaccination status. RESULTS: Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant. CONCLUSIONS: Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations. (Funded by Public Health England.).

Methods for modelling excess mortality across England during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Excess mortality is an important measure of the scale of the coronavirus-2019 pandemic. It includes both deaths caused directly by the pandemic, and deaths caused by the unintended consequences of containment such as delays to accessing care or postponements of healthcare provision in the population. In 2020 and 2021, in England, multiple groups have produced measures of excess mortality during the pandemic. This paper describes the data and methods used in five different approaches to estimating excess mortality and compares their estimates.The fundamental principles of estimating excess mortality are described, as well as the key commonalities and differences between five approaches. Two of these are based on the date of registration: a quasi-Poisson model with offset and a 5-year average; and three are based on date of occurrence: a Poisson model without offset, the European monitoring of excess mortality model and a synthetic controls model. Comparisons between estimates of excess mortality are made for the period March 2020 through March 2021 and for the two waves of the pandemic that occur within that time-period.Model estimates are strikingly similar during the first wave of the pandemic though larger differences are observed during the second wave. Models that adjusted for reduced circulation of winter infection produced higher estimates of excess compared with those that did not. Models that do not adjust for reduced circulation of winter infection captured the effect of reduced winter illness as a result of mobility restrictions during the period. None of the estimates captured mortality displacement and therefore may underestimate excess at the current time, though the extent to which this has occurred is not yet identified. Models use different approaches to address variation in data availability and stakeholder requirements of the measure. Variation between estimates reflects differences in the date of interest, population denominators and parameters in the model relating to seasonality and trend.

Protection against symptomatic infection with delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) BA.1 and BA.2 SARS-CoV-2 variants after previous infection and vaccination in adolescents in England, August, 2021-March, 2022: a national, observational, test-negative, case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection following previous infection with specific individual SARS-CoV-2 variants, COVID-19 vaccination, and a combination of previous infection and vaccination (hybrid immunity) in adolescents. We aimed to estimate protection against symptomatic PCR-confirmed infection with the delta (B.1.617.2) and omicron (B.1.1.529) variants in adolescents with previous infection, mRNA vaccination, and hybrid immunity. METHODS: We conducted an observational, test-negative, case-control study using national SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 mRNA vaccination data in England. Symptomatic adolescents aged 12-17 years who were unvaccinated or had received primary BNT162b2 immunisation at symptom onset and had a community SARS-CoV-2 PCR test were included. Vaccination and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status in adolescents with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 (cases) were compared with vaccination and previous infection status in adolescents who had a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test (controls). Vaccination data were collected from the National Immunisation Management System, and were linked to PCR testing data. The primary outcome was protection against SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron infection (defined as 1 - odds of vaccination or previous infection in cases divided by odds of vaccination or previous infection in controls). FINDINGS: Between Aug 9, 2021, and March 31, 2022, 1 161 704 SARS-CoV-2 PCR tests were linked to COVID-19 vaccination status, including 390 467 positive tests with the delta variant and 212 433 positive tests with the omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2. In unvaccinated adolescents, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection with wildtype, alpha (B.1.1.7), or delta strains provided greater protection against subsequent delta infection (>86·1%) than against subsequent omicron infection (<52·4%); previous delta or omicron infection provided similar protection against omicron reinfection (52·4% [95% CI 50·9-53·8] vs 59·3% [46·7-69·0]). In adolescents with no previous infection, vaccination provided lower protection against omicron infection than against delta infection, with omicron protection peaking at 64·5% (95% CI 63·6-65·4) at 2-14 weeks after dose two and 62·9% (60·5-65·1) at 2-14 weeks after dose three, with waning protection after each dose. Adolescents with hybrid immunity from previous infection and vaccination had the highest protection, irrespective of the SARS-CoV-2 strain in the primary infection. The highest protection against omicron infection was observed in adolescents with vaccination and previous omicron infection, reaching 96·4% (95% CI 84·4-99·1) at 15-24 weeks after vaccine dose two. INTERPRETATION: Previous infection with any SARS-CoV-2 variant provided some protection against symptomatic reinfection, and vaccination added to this protection. Vaccination provides low-to-moderate protection against symptomatic omicron infection, with waning protection after each dose, while hybrid immunity provided the most robust protection. Although more data are needed to investigate longer-term protection and protection against infection with new variants, these data question the need for additional booster vaccine doses for adolescents in populations with already high protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection. FUNDING: None.

Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization

Emerging in November 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern exhibited marked immune evasion resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic disease. Most vaccine effectiveness data on Omicron are derived from the first Omicron subvariant, BA.1, which caused large waves of infection in many parts of the world within a short period of time. BA.1, however, was replaced by BA.2 within months, and later by BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/5). These later Omicron subvariants exhibited additional mutations in the spike protein of the virus, leading to speculation that they might result in even lower vaccine effectiveness. To address this question, the World Health Organization hosted a virtual meeting on December 6, 2022, to review available evidence for vaccine effectiveness against the major Omicron subvariants up to that date. Data were presented from South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as the results of a review and meta-regression of studies that evaluated the duration of the vaccine effectiveness for multiple Omicron subvariants. Despite heterogeneity of results and wide confidence intervals in some studies, the majority of studies showed vaccine effectiveness tended to be lower against BA.2 and especially against BA.4/5, compared to BA.1, with perhaps faster waning against severe disease caused by BA.4/5 after a booster dose. The interpretation of these results was discussed and both immunological factors (i.e., more immune escape with BA.4/5) and methodological issues (e.g., biases related to differences in the timing of subvariant circulation) were possible explanations for the findings. COVID-19 vaccines still provide some protection against infection and symptomatic disease from all Omicron subvariants for at least several months, with greater and more durable protection against severe disease.

Assessing COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against Omicron subvariants: Report from a meeting of the World Health Organization.

Emerging in November 2021, the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant of concern exhibited marked immune evasion resulting in reduced vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptomatic disease. Most vaccine effectiveness data on Omicron are derived from the first Omicron subvariant, BA.1, which caused large waves of infection in many parts of the world within a short period of time. BA.1, however, was replaced by BA.2 within months, and later by BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/5). These later Omicron subvariants exhibited additional mutations in the spike protein of the virus, leading to speculation that they might result in even lower vaccine effectiveness. To address this question, the World Health Organization hosted a virtual meeting on December 6, 2022, to review available evidence for vaccine effectiveness against the major Omicron subvariants up to that date. Data were presented from South Africa, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as the results of a review and meta-regression of studies that evaluated the duration of the vaccine effectiveness for multiple Omicron subvariants. Despite heterogeneity of results and wide confidence intervals in some studies, the majority of studies showed vaccine effectiveness tended to be lower against BA.2 and especially against BA.4/5, compared to BA.1, with perhaps faster waning against severe disease caused by BA.4/5 after a booster dose. The interpretation of these results was discussed and both immunological factors (i.e., more immune escape with BA.4/5) and methodological issues (e.g., biases related to differences in the timing of subvariant circulation) were possible explanations for the findings. COVID-19 vaccines still provide some protection against infection and symptomatic disease from all Omicron subvariants for at least several months, with greater and more durable protection against severe disease.

Monitoring the COVID-19 immunisation programme through a national immunisation Management system - England's experience.

BACKGROUND: In England routine vaccinations are recorded in either the patients General Practice record or in series of sub-national vaccine registers that are not interoperable. During the COVID-19 pandemic it was established that COVID vaccines would need to be delivered in multiple settings where current vaccine registers do not exist. We describe how a national vaccine register was created to collect data on COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: The National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) was developed by a range of health and digital government agencies. Vaccinations delivered are entered on an application which is verified by individual National Health Service number in a centralised system. UKHSA receive a feed of this data to use for monitoring vaccine coverage, effectiveness, and safety. To validate the vaccination data, we compared vaccine records to self-reported vaccination dose, manufacturer, and vaccination date from the enhanced surveillance system from 11 February 2021 to 24 August 2021. RESULTS: With the Implementation of NIMS, we have been able to successfully record COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in multiple settings. Of 1,129 individuals, 97.8% were recorded in NIMS as unvaccinated compared to those who self-reported as unvaccinated. One hundred percent and 99.3% of individuals recorded in NIMS as having at least one dose and two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were also self-reported as having at least one and two doses, respectively. Of the 100% reporting at least one dose, 98.3% self-reported the same vaccination date as NIMS. A total of 98.8% and 99.3% had the same manufacturer information for their first dose and second dose as that which was self-reported, respectively. DISCUSSION: Daily access to individual-level vaccine data from NIMS has allowed UKHSA to estimate vaccine coverage and provide some of the world's first vaccine effectiveness estimates rapidly and accurately.

Effectiveness of ChAdOx1-S COVID-19 booster vaccination against the Omicron and Delta variants in England.

Despite the availability of the ChAdOx1-S booster vaccine, little is known about the real-world effectiveness although clinical trials have demonstrated enhanced immunity following a ChAdOx1-S booster. In England 43,171 individuals received a ChAdOx1-S booster whilst 13,038,908 individuals received BNT162b2 in the same period. ChAdOx1-S booster recipients 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 clinically extremely vulnerable group (adjusted OR 1.84 (1.79-1.89)) or severely immunosuppressed (adjusted OR 2.05 (1.96-2.13)). The effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 boosters is estimated here using a test-negative case-control study. Protection against symptomatic disease with the Omicron variant peaks at 66.1% (16.6 to 86.3%) and 68.5% (65.7 to 71.2%) for the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 boosters in older adults. Protection against hospitalisation peaks at 82.3% (64.2 to 91.3%) and 90.9% (88.7 to 92.7%). For Delta, effectiveness against hospitalisation is 80.9% (15.6% to 95.7%) and 93.9% (92.8% to 94.9%) after ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 booster vaccination. This study supports the consideration of ChAdOx1-S booster vaccination for protection against severe COVID-19 in settings yet to offer boosters and suggests that individuals who received a ChAdOx1-S booster do not require re-vaccination ahead of others.

Effect of priming interval on reactogenicity, peak immunological response, and waning after homologous and heterologous COVID-19 vaccine schedules: exploratory analyses of Com-COV, a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca). METHODS: Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020-005085-33). FINDINGS: Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77-89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1-1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2-1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3-2·1) for BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7-3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17-0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules. INTERPRETATION: These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron and Delta hospitalisation, a test negative case-control study.

The Omicron variant has been associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild disease with rapid waning. Meanwhile Omicron has also been associated with milder disease. Protection against severe disease has been substantially higher than protection against infection with previous variants. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate VE against hospitalisation with the Omicron and Delta variants using PCR testing linked to hospital records. We investigated the impact of increasing the specificity and severity of hospitalisation definitions on VE. Among 18-64-year-olds using cases admitted via emergency care, VE after a 3rd dose peaked at 82.4% and dropped to 53.6% by 15+ weeks after the 3rd dose; using all admissions for > = 2 days stay with a respiratory code in the primary diagnostic field VE ranged from 90.9% to 67.4%; further restricting to those on oxygen/ventilated/intensive care VE ranged from 97.1% to 75.9%. Among 65+ year olds the equivalent VE estimates were 92.4% to 76.9%; 91.3% to 85.3% and 95.8% to 86.8%. Here we show that with milder Omicron disease contamination of hospitalisations with incidental cases is likely to reduce VE estimates. VE estimates increase, and waning is reduced, when specific hospitalisation definitions are used.

Live-attenuated influenza vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization in children aged 2-6 years, the first three seasons of the childhood influenza vaccination program in England, 2013/14-2015/16.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, the United Kingdom began to roll-out a universal annual influenza vaccination program for children. An important component of any new vaccination program is measuring its effectiveness. Live-attenuated influenza vaccines (LAIVs) have since shown mixed results with vaccine effectiveness (VE) varying across seasons and countries elsewhere. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of influenza vaccination in children against severe disease during the first three seasons of the LAIV program in England. METHODS: Using the screening method, LAIV vaccination coverage in children hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza infection was compared with vaccination coverage in 2-6-year-olds in the general population to estimate VE in 2013/14-2015/16. RESULTS: The overall LAIV VE, adjusted for age group, week/month and geographical area, for all influenza types pooled over the three influenza seasons was 50.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 31.2, 63.8). By age, there was evidence of protection against hospitalization from influenza vaccination in both the pre-school (2-4-year-olds) (48.1%, 95% CI 27.2, 63.1) and school-aged children (5-6-year-olds) (62.6%, 95% CI 2.6, 85.6) over the three seasons. CONCLUSION: LAIV vaccination in children provided moderate annual protection against laboratory-confirmed influenza-related hospitalization in England over the three influenza seasons. This study contributes further to the limited literature to date on influenza VE against severe disease in children.