Tracking COVID-19 in England and Wales: Insights from Virus Watch - a prospective community cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundVirus Watch is a prospective community cohort study of COVID-19 of 28{square},527 households in England and Wales designed to estimate the incidence of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in those with respiratory presentations and examine symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviour. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 infection survey (CIS) was the largest regular survey of COVID-19 infections and antibodies in the UK and included 227,797 households. In this analysis, we aimed to compare incidence rate estimates from the two studies to understand differences in estimates from the two study designs. MethodsWe used the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study to estimate the overall SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate and incidence rate by age in England and Wales from June 2020 to February 2023. Virus Watch data consisted of self-reported laboratory COVID-19 test results and linkage to the Second Generation Surveillance System, the UK national database for COVID-19 testing. We compared our findings with modelled incidence rates from ONS CIS using 3-day rolling Pearsons correlation to measure synchrony. Results58,628 participants were recruited into the Virus Watch study between June 2020 and March 2022, of whom 52,526 (90%) were reported to be living in England and 1,532 (2.6%) in Wales. COVID-19 incidence rates were initially similar across age groups until the Delta wave when rates increased at different magnitudes. During the Omicron BA.1, the 0-14 age group had the highest incidence rates, which shifted to the 25-44 age group with Omicron BA.2, 4, and 5 dominance. We found strong synchrony between Virus Watch and ONS CIS COVID-19 incidence estimates for England and Wales, both with and without the incorporation of linked national testing data into the Virus Watch study. In particular, the magnitude and trend of Virus Watch- and ONS-estimated rates for England were generally consistent, although Virus Watch-estimated peaks of infection during the Omicron BA.1 and 2 waves were found to be lower than estimates from the ONS. ConclusionOur findings suggest that the Virus Watch research approach is a low-cost and effective method for on-going surveillance of COVID-19 regardless of the availability of national testing in the UK. Similar approaches can also be utilised by low-resource settings to provide accurate incidence rate estimates to better monitor and respond to COVID-19 as well as other acute respiratory diseases in the future.

Comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infections in England and Wales: A cohort analysis using trial emulation in the Virus Watch community data (preprint)

Introduction: Infections of SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated individuals have been increasing globally. Understanding the associations between vaccine type and a post-vaccination infection could help prevent further COVID-19 waves. In this paper, we use trial emulation to understand the impact of a phased introduction of the vaccine in the UK driven by vulnerability and exposure status. We estimate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2) against post-vaccination infections of SARS-CoV-2 in a community setting in England and Wales. Method: Trial emulation was conducted by pooling results from six cohorts whose recruitment was staggered between 1st January 2021 and 31st March 2021 and followed until 12th November 2021. Eligibility for each trial was based upon age (18+ at the time of vaccination), without prior signs of infection or an infection within the first 14 days of the first dose. Time from vaccination of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 until SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow test after 14 of the vaccination) was modelled using Cox proportional hazards model for each cohort and adjusted for age at vaccination, gender, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerable status and index of multiple deprivation quintile. For those without SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, follow-up was until loss-of-follow-up or end of study (12th November 2021). Pooled hazard ratios were generated using random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Across six cohorts, there were a total of 21,283 participants who were eligible and vaccinated with either ChAdOx1 (n = 13,813) or BNT162b2 (n = 7,470) with a median follow-up time of 266 days (IQR: 235 - 282). By November 12th 2021, 750 (5.4%) adults who had ChAdOx1 as their vaccine experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to 296 (4.0%) who had BNT162b2. We found that people who received ChAdOx1 vaccinations had 10.54 per 1000 people higher cumulative incidence for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to BNT162b2 for infections during a maximum of 315 days of follow-up. When adjusted for age at vaccination, sex, minority ethnic status, index of multiple deprivation, and clinical vulnerability status, we found a pooled adjusted hazard ratio of 1.35 [HR: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15 - 1.58], demonstrating a 35% increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections in people who received ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2. Discussion: We found evidence of greater effectiveness of receiving BNT162b2 compared to ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Wales during a time period when Delta became the most prevalent variant of concern. Our findings demonstrate the importance of booster (third) doses to maintain protection and suggest that these should be prioritised to those who received ChAdOx1 as their primary course.

Changes in mobility pre and post first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: findings from a prospective community cohort study including GPS movement tracking in England and Wales (Virus Watch) (preprint)

Abstract Background: Some evidence suggests that individuals may change adherence to public health policies aimed at reducing contact, transmission and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus after they receive their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. In this study, we aim to estimate the rate of change in average daily travel distance from a participant's registered address before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Method: Participants were recruited into Virus Watch starting in June 2020. Weekly surveys were sent out to participants and vaccination status was collected from January 2021 onwards. Between September 2020 and February 2021, we invited 13,120 adult Virus Watch participants to contribute towards our tracker sub-cohort which uses the Global Positioning System (GPS) to collect data on movement. We used segmented linear regression to estimate the median daily travel distance before and after the first self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. Results: We analysed the daily travel distance of 228 vaccinated adults. Between 157 days prior to vaccination until the day before vaccination, the median daily travel distance travelled was 8.9km (IQR: 3.50km, 24.17km). Between the day of vaccination and 100 days after vaccination, the median daily travel distance travelled was 10.30km (IQR: 4.11, 27.53km). Between 157 days prior to vaccination and the vaccination date, there was a daily median decrease in mobility of 40m (95%CI: -51m, -31m, p-value <0.001) per day. After the removal of outlier data, and between the vaccination date and 99 days after vaccination, there was a median daily increase in movement of 45.0m (95%CI: 25m, 65m, p-value = <0.001). Restricting the analysis to the 3rd national lockdown (4th of January 2021 to the 5th of April 2021), we found a median daily movement increase of 9m (95%CI: -25m, 45m, p = 0.57) in the 30 days prior to vaccination and the vaccination date, and a median daily movement increase of 10m (95%CI: -60m, 94m, p-value = 0.69) in the 30 days after vaccination. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting high volume geolocation data as part of research projects, and the utility of these for understanding public health issues. Our results are consistent with both an increase and decrease in movement after vaccination and suggest that, amongst Virus Watch participants, any changes in movement distances post-vaccination are small.

Household overcrowding and risk of SARS-CoV-2: analysis of the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales (preprint)

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across cultures and countries. Limited data exist in England and Wales linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and infection to pandemic coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England & Wales that began recruitment in June 2020. We calculated the persons per room for each household and classified accommodation as overcrowded when the number of roomswas fewer than the number of people. We considered two primary outcomes - PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (Roche Elecsys anti-N total immunoglobulin assay). We used mixed effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (6.6%; 73/1,102) and lowest in the under-occupied group (2.9%; 682/23,219). In a mixed effects logistic regression model that included age, sex, ethnicity, household income and geographical region as fixed effects, and a household-level random effect, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of having a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (Odds Ratio 3.67; 95% CI: 1.91, 7.06; p-value < 0.001) and increased odds of having a positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (2.99; 95% CI: 1.14, 7.81; p-value =0.03) compared to people living in under-occupied houses. Discussion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the much greater risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission. There is an urgent need to better recognise housing as a leading determinant of health in the context of a pandemic and beyond.

Trends, patterns and psychological influences on COVID-19 vaccination intention: findings from a large prospective community cohort study in England and Wales (Virus Watch) (preprint)

ObjectivesTo assess trends in intention to accept a COVID-19 vaccine between 1 December 2020 and 25 February 2021, explore associations between socio-demographic factors and vaccination intention and investigate how COVID-19 vaccine- and illness-related attitudes, beliefs and emotions influence vaccination intention. DesignProspective household community cohort study of COVID-19 infection (Virus Watch). SettinOnline survey of Virus Watch study participants in the community across England and Wales. ParticipantsIndividuals could enrol in Virus Watch if all household members agreed to participate and at least one household member had access to the internet, an email address, and could read English. All Virus Watch participants aged 16 years and over who responded to questions relating to COVID-19 vaccine intention in questionnaires between December 2020 and February 2021 were included in this analysis. Main outcome measuresVaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?, collected between 1-14 December 2020 and 17-25 February 2021. Possible responses were Yes, No and Unsure (December 2020 &February 2021) and Already had a COVID-19 vaccine (February 2021 only). Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected between 4-11 January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences (attitudes, beliefs and emotions) on vaccination intention. ResultsSurvey response rate was 56% (20,792/36,998) in December 2020 and 52% (20,284/38,727) in February 2021, with 14,713 adults reporting across both time points. Of participants reporting across both timepoints, 13,281 (90%) answered Yes and 1,432 (10%) responded No or Unsure in December 2020. Of those answering No or Unsure in December 2020, 1,233 (86%) went on to answer Yes or Already had a COVID-19 vaccine in February 2021. The magnitude of this shift was consistent across all ethnic groups measured and all levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16-24-year-olds more likely to respond "No" or "Unsure" than those aged 75+ in December 2020 (RR: 4.32, 95% CI: 2.40-7.78 &2.93 95% CI: 2.19-3.92, respectively) and February 2021 (RR: 5.30 95% CI: 1.39-20.20 &20.21 95%CI: 7.19-56.78). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention has weakened, but not disappeared, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. ConclusionsOver four in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned on accepting, or had already accepted, a vaccine.