Social determinants of recovery from ongoing symptoms following COVID-19 in two UK longitudinal studies: a prospective cohort study (preprint)

BackgroundSocial gradients in COVID-19 exposure, illness severity, and mortality have been observed in multiple international contexts. Whether pre-existing social factors affect recovery from ongoing symptoms following COVID-19 and long COVID is less well understood. MethodsWe analysed data on self-perceived recovery following self-reported COVID-19 illness in two United Kingdom community-based cohorts, COVID Symptom Study Biobank (CSSB) (N = 2548) and TwinsUK (N = 1334). Composite variables quantifying socio-demographic advantage and disadvantage prior to the COVID-19 pandemic were generated from sex, ethnic group, education, local area deprivation and employment status. Associations between self-perceived recovery and composite variables were tested with multivariable logistic regression models weighted for inverse probability of study participation, adjusting for potential confounding by age, region and pre- pandemic health factors, and potential mediation by COVID-19 illness characteristics and adverse experiences during the pandemic. Further analyses tested associations between recovery and individual socio-demographic variables reflecting status prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. FindingsSocio-demographic gradients in recovery were observed, with unadjusted recovery rate varying between 50% and 80% in CSSB and 70% and 90% in TwinsUK based on composite socio-demographic variables. Likelihood of recovery was lower for individuals with more indicators of pre-pandemic social disadvantage in both cohorts (CSSB: odds ratio, OR = 0.74, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.62-0.88, TwinsUK: OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.98 per disadvantage) and higher with more social advantages (CSSB: OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.08-1.47, TwinsUK: OR = 1.36, 95% CI: 1.09-1.70 per advantage). Associations were neither explained by differences in COVID-19 illness severity or timing, nor adverse social experiences during the pandemic, which were themselves inversely associated with recovery. InterpretationStrong social inequalities in the likelihood of recovery from COVID-19 were observed, with ongoing symptoms several months after coronavirus infection more likely for individuals with multiple indicators of social disadvantage. Work is needed to identify modifiable biopsychosocial factors to enable interventions that address inequalities. FundingChronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Medical Research Council, Wellcome LEAP, Wellcome Trust, Engineering & Physical Sciences Research Council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Commission, Zoe Ltd. Plain language summaryAcross the world acute COVID-19 illness has affected the most disadvantaged in society the most. However, we have not looked in detail whether peoples social circumstances affect their recovery from COVID-19. In our study, we asked people from two UK-based health studies if they still had symptoms after having COVID-19. We looked at how advantaged or disadvantaged they were at the start of the pandemic, based on information about their sex, ethnic group, education level, local area, and employment. In both studies, people who were more disadvantaged were more likely to still have symptoms long after having COVID-19. In contrast, more advantaged people were more likely to have fully recovered. We also saw that people who had negative experiences during the pandemic such as losing their job, being unable to afford their bills or not being able to access health & social care services were less likely to recover. More work is needed to understand how and why recovery was so different for people with different circumstances. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo search for previous reports on associations between recovery from COVID-19 and socio-demographic factors, we screened abstracts identified from the PubMed search query on December 21, 2023: "((COVID-19) AND ((recovery) OR (convalescence) OR (" ongoing symptoms")) AND ((socioeconomic) OR (sociodemographic) OR (social) OR (gradient))) AND LitCLONGCOVID[filter]", where LitCLONGCOVID is a filter for articles relating to long COVID (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/help/#covid19-article-filters), which returned 210 results published between July, 2020 and December, 2023. A small number (N = 11) of studies contained direct measures of recovery from COVID-19 in terms of presence/absence of ongoing symptoms relating to COVID-19 illness, either as perceived by the individual or inferred from current symptom reports. Of these, most focused on associations with COVID-19 illness factors such as severity and symptomatology, and prior health indicators. Socio-demographics were mostly used for sample description and adjustments in models rather than as exposures of interest. Of the few studies (N = 8) that tested associations with socio-demographic variables, the range of socio-demographics tested was limited and/or follow-up time typically restricted to 6-12 months since symptom onset. In these studies, associations with recovery were reported for age (N = 4), sex (N = 7), race/ethnicity (N = 2), local area deprivation (N = 1), and education level (N = 1). Associations between long-term symptoms and education or income have been reported in single separate studies. Monthly bulletins up to March 2023 from the UK Coronavirus Infection Survey highlighted prevalence of individuals reporting current effects on daily activities due to long COVID was associated with age, sex, race/ethnicity, local area deprivation and economic activity. No studies were identified that tested for associations of multiple socio-demographics in combination with the likelihood of recovery following COVID-19. Added value of this studyThis is the first study to testing the effects of multiple socio-demographics on self-perceived recovery in combination. Measures that attempt to quantify social advantage and disadvantage were generated from multiple known social determinants of health. We tested a wider range of socio-demographic factors than previous studies, including UK geographic region, educational qualification level, employment status and income. Our study has a longer follow-up time than previous comparable reports, with most participants assessed more than one year after infection onset. Detailed data on health before the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19 illness allowed models to be adjusted extensively and mediation effects to be tested. Implications of all the available evidenceThe likelihood of full recovery following COVID-19 appears to follow a social gradient, higher for individuals with multiple indicators of social advantages and fewer disadvantages, and lower for those with multiple social disadvantages and fewer advantages prior to the coronavirus pandemic. This reflects and reaffirms the established cycle of social inequalities in health, between individuals status within social hierarchies and ill-health. More work is needed to understand the pathways through which this inequality operates so that interventions can be made.

Symptom experience before vs. after confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: a population and case control study using prospectively recorded symptom data. (preprint)

Background: Some individuals experience prolonged illness after acute COVID-19. We assessed whether pre-infection symptoms affected post-COVID illness duration. Methods Survival analysis was performed in adults (n=23,452) with community-managed SARC-CoV-2 infection prospectively self-logging data through the ZOE COVID Symptom Study app, at least weekly, from 8 weeks before to 12 weeks after COVID-19 onset, conditioned on presence vs. absence of baseline symptoms (4-8 weeks before COVID-19). A case-control study was performed in 1350 individuals with long illness ([≥]8 weeks, 906 [67.1%] with illness [≥]12 weeks), matched 1:1 (for age, sex, body mass index, testing week, prior infection, vaccination, smoking, index of multiple deprivation) with 1350 individuals with short illness (<4 weeks). Baseline symptoms were compared between the two groups; and against post-COVID symptoms. Findings: Individuals reporting baseline symptoms had longer post-COVID symptom duration (from 10 to 15 days) with baseline fatigue nearly doubling duration. Two-thirds (910 of 1350 [67.4%]) of individuals with long illness were asymptomatic beforehand. However, 440 (32.6%) had baseline symptoms, vs. 255 (18.9%) of 1350 individuals with short illness (p<0.0001). Baseline symptoms increased the odds ratio for long illness (2.14 [CI: 1.78; 2.57]). Prior comorbidities were more common in individuals with long vs. short illness. In individuals with long illness, baseline symptomatic (vs. asymptomatic) individuals were more likely to be female, younger, and have prior comorbidities; and baseline and post-acute symptoms and symptom burden correlated strongly. Interpretation: Individuals experiencing symptoms before COVID-19 have longer illness duration and increased odds of long illness. However, many individuals with long illness are well before SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Profiling post-COVID syndrome across different variants of SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Background: Self-reported symptom studies rapidly increased our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 during the pandemic and enabled the monitoring of long-term effects of COVID-19 outside the hospital setting. It is now evident that post-COVID syndrome presents with heterogeneous profiles, which need characterisation to enable personalised care among the most affected survivors. This study describes post-COVID profiles, and how they relate to different viral variants and vaccination status. Methods: In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, we analysed data from 336,652 subjects, with regular health reports through the Covid Symptom Study (CSS) smartphone application. These subjects had reported feeling physically normal for at least 30 days before testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. 9,323 individuals subsequently developed Long-COVID, defined as symptoms lasting longer than 28 days. 1,459 had post-COVID syndrome, defined as more than 12 weeks of symptoms. Clustering analysis of the time-series data was performed to identify distinct symptom profiles for post-COVID patients, across variants of SARS-CoV-2 and vaccination status at the time of infection. Clusters were then characterised based on symptom prevalence, duration, demography, and prior conditions (comorbidities). Using an independent testing sample with additional data (n=140), we investigated the impact of post-COVID symptom clusters on the lives of affected individuals. Findings: We identified distinct profiles of symptoms for post-COVID syndrome within and across variants: four endotypes were identified for infections due to the wild-type variant; seven for the alpha variant; and five for delta. Across all variants, a cardiorespiratory cluster of symptoms was identified. A second cluster related to central neurological, and a third to cases with the most severe and debilitating multi-organ symptoms. Gastrointestinal symptoms clustered in no more than two specific phenotypes per viral variant. The three main clusters were confirmed in an independent testing sample, and their functional impact was assessed. Interpretation: Unsupervised analysis identified different post-COVID profiles, characterised by differing symptom combinations, durations, and functional outcomes. Phenotypes were at least partially concordant with individuals reported experiences. Our classification may be useful to understand distinct mechanisms of the post-COVID syndrome, as well as subgroups of individuals at risk of prolonged debilitation. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, The Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging & Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value-Based Healthcare, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation and Alzheimers Society, and ZOE Limited, UK.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in UK school-aged children and young people decreases infection rates and reduces COVID-19 symptoms (preprint)

Background We aim to explore the effectiveness of one-dose BNT162b2 vaccination upon SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in children and young people (CYP) during Delta and Omicron variant predominance in the UK, and study its effect on COVID-19 presentation and post-vaccination symptoms. Methods In this prospective longitudinal cohort study, we analysed data from 115,775 CYP aged 12-17 years, proxy-reported through the Covid Symptom Study (CSS) smartphone application. We calculated post-vaccination infection risk after one dose of BNT162b2. We described the illness profile of CYP with post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to unvaccinated CYP. Findings Between August 5, 2021 and February 14, 2022, 25,971 UK CYP aged 12-17 years received one dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Vaccination reduced infection (reporting) risk (-80.4% and -53.7% at 14-30 days with Delta and Omicron variants respectively, and -61.5% and -63.7% after 61-90 days). The probability of remaining infection-free diverged after vaccination, and was more robust with prior infection. Vaccinated CYP who contracted SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta period had milder disease than unvaccinated CYP; however, during the Omicron period this was only evident in children aged 12-15 years, and overall disease profile was similar in both vaccinated and unvaccinated CYP. Post-vaccination local side-effects were common, systemic side-effects were uncommon, and both resolved quickly. Interpretation One dose of BNT162b2 vaccine reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 90 days in CYP aged 12-17 years. Vaccine protection was modulated by SARS-CoV-2 variant type (lower for Omicron than Delta variant), and was enhanced by pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection. Severity of COVID-19 presentation after vaccination is generally milder, although unvaccinated CYP also have an uncomplicated course. Overall, vaccination was well-tolerated.

Exploring graduate student roles and responsibilities in enhancing sense of belonging in residence life during COVID-19

Based on an autoethnographic study, this article aims to better understand how graduate student residence life staff made sense of their responsibilities and roles in enhancing student belonging within residence halls. The article also explores how the graduate students? own sense of belonging was impacted as a result of COVID-19 policy.

COVID-19 due to the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant compared to B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant of SARS-CoV-2: two prospective observational cohort studies (preprint)

Background The Delta (B.1.617.2) variant became the predominant UK circulating SARS-CoV-2 strain in May 2021. How Delta infection compares with previous variants is unknown. Methods This prospective observational cohort study assessed symptomatic adults participating in the app-based COVID Symptom Study who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from May 26 to July 1, 2021 (Delta overwhelmingly predominant circulating UK variant), compared (1:1, age- and sex-matched) with individuals presenting from December 28, 2020 to May 6, 2021 (Alpha (B.1.1.7) predominant variant). We assessed illness (symptoms, duration, presentation to hospital) during Alpha- and Delta-predominant timeframes; and transmission, reinfection, and vaccine effectiveness during the Delta-predominant period. Findings 3,581 individuals (aged 18 to 100 years) from each timeframe were assessed. The seven most frequent symptoms were common to both variants. Within the first 28 days of illness, some symptoms were more common with Delta vs. Alpha infection (including fever, sore throat and headache) and vice versa (dyspnoea). Symptom burden in the first week was higher with Delta vs. Alpha infection; however, the odds of any given symptom lasting [≥]7 days was either lower or unchanged. Illness duration [≥]28 days was lower with Delta vs. Alpha infection, though unchanged in unvaccinated individuals. Hospitalisation for COVID-19 was unchanged. The Delta variant appeared more (1.47) transmissible than Alpha. Re-infections were low in all UK regions. Vaccination markedly (69-84%) reduced risk of Delta infection. Interpretation COVID-19 from Delta or Alpha infections is clinically similar. The Delta variant is more transmissible than Alpha; however, current vaccines show good efficacy against disease. Funding UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging & Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer's Society, and ZOE Limited.

Illness characteristics of COVID-19 in children infected with the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant (preprint)

Background The Delta (B.1.617.2) SARSCoV2 variant became the predominant UK circulating strain in May 2021. Whether COVID19 from Delta infection differs to infection with other variants in children is unknown. Methods Through the prospective COVID Symptom Study, 109,626 UK school-aged children were proxy-reported between December 28, 2020 and July 8, 2021. We selected all symptomatic children who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and were proxy-reported at least weekly, within two timeframes: December 28, 2020 to May 6, 2021 (Alpha (B.1.1.7) the main UK circulating variant); and May 26 to July 8, 2021 (Delta the main UK circulating variant). We assessed illness profiles (symptom prevalence, duration, and burden), hospital presentation, and presence of long (>28 day) illness; and calculated odds ratios for symptoms presenting within the first 28 days of illness. Findings 694 (276 younger [5 11 years], 418 older [12 17 years]) symptomatic children tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with Alpha infection and 706 (227 younger and 479 older) children with Delta infection. Median illness duration was short with either variant (overall cohort: 5 days (IQR 2 9.75) with Alpha, 5 days (IQR 2 9) with Delta). The seven most prevalent symptoms were common to both variants. Symptom burden over the first 28 days was slightly greater with Delta compared with Alpha infection (in younger children, 3 (IQR 2 5) with Alpha, 4 (IQR 2 7) with Delta; in older children 5 (IQR 3 8) with Alpha and 6 (IQR 3 9) with Delta infection in older children). The odds of several symptoms were higher with Delta than Alpha infection, including headache and fever. Few children presented to hospital, and long illness duration was uncommon, with either variant. Interpretation COVID-19 in UK school-aged children due to SARSCoV2 Delta strain B.1.617.2 resembles illness due to the Alpha variant B.1.1.7., with short duration and similar symptom burden.

Disentangling post-vaccination symptoms from early COVID-19 (preprint)

Background Identifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app. Design We conducted a prospective observational study in UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2, aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were also recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models including UK testing criteria. Findings Differentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. A majority of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue). Interpretation Post-vaccination side-effects per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2, to prevent community spread. Funding Zoe Limited, UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Alzheimer’s Society, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR). Research in context Evidence before this study There are now multiple surveillance platforms internationally interrogating COVID-19 and/or post-vaccination side-effects. We designed a study to examine for differences between vaccination side-effects and early symptoms of COVID-19. We searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published between 1 January 2020 and 21 June 2021, using keywords: “COVID-19” AND “Vaccination” AND (“mobile application” OR “web tool” OR “digital survey” OR “early detection” OR “Self-reported symptoms” OR “side-effects”). Of 185 results, 25 studies attempted to differentiate symptoms of COVID-19 vs. post-vaccination side-effects; however, none used artificial intelligence (AI) technologies (“machine learning”) coupled with real-time data collection that also included comprehensive and systematic symptom assessment. Additionally, none of these studies attempt to discriminate the early signs of infection from side-effects of vaccination (specifically here: Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19)). Further, none of these studies sought to provide comparisons with current testing criteria used by healthcare services. Added value of this study This study, in a uniquely large community-based cohort, uses prospective data capture in a novel effort to identify individuals with COVID-19 in the immediate post-vaccination period. Our results show that early symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be differentiated from vaccination side-effects robustly. Thus, post-vaccination systemic symptoms should not be ignored, and testing should be considered to prevent COVID-19 dissemination by vaccinated individuals. Implications of all the available evidence Our study demonstrates the critical importance of testing symptomatic individuals - even if vaccinated – to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, helping to prevent future pandemic waves in the UK and elsewhere.

Anxiety and depression symptoms after COVID-19 infection: results from the COVID Symptom Study app (preprint)

Background: Mental health issues have been reported after SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, comparison to prevalence in uninfected individuals and contribution from common risk factors (e.g., obesity, comorbidities) have not been examined. We identified how COVID-19 relates to mental health in the large community-based COVID Symptom Study. Methods: We assessed anxiety and depression symptoms using two validated questionnaires in 413,148 individuals between February and April 2021; 26,998 had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. We adjusted for physical and mental pre-pandemic comorbidities, BMI, age, and sex. Findings: Overall, 26.4% of participants met screening criteria for general anxiety and depression. Anxiety and depression were slightly more prevalent in previously SARS-CoV-2 positive (30.4%) vs. negative (26.1%) individuals. This association was small compared to the effect of an unhealthy BMI and the presence of other comorbidities, and not evident in younger participants ([≤]40 years). Findings were robust to multiple sensitivity analyses. Association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and anxiety and depression was stronger in individuals with recent (<30 days) vs. more distant (>120 days) infection, suggesting a short-term effect. Interpretation: A small association was identified between SARS-CoV-2 infection and anxiety and depression symptoms. The proportion meeting criteria for self-reported anxiety and depression disorders is only slightly higher than pre-pandemic.

Post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection: risk factors and illness profile in a prospective, observational community-based case-control study (preprint)

Background: Both BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines show good efficacy in clinical trials and real-world data. However, some still contract SARS-CoV-2 post-vaccination. This study identifies risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection at least 14 days after first vaccination and describes characteristics of post-vaccination illness. Methods: Cases were UK adults reporting post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection between 8th December 2020 and 1st May 2021, reporting on the COVID Symptom Study app. We assessed the associations of age, frailty, comorbidity, area-level deprivation and lifestyle factors with infection (vaccinated cases vs. negative-vaccinated controls); and vaccination with illness profile (vaccinated cases vs positive-unvaccinated controls). Findings: Post-vaccination infection risk was substantially higher in older adults with frailty (OR= 2.78, 95% CI [1.98-3.89], p-value<0.0001) and in individuals living in most deprived areas (OR vs. intermediate group=1.22, 95%CI [1.04-1.43], p-value=0.01). Risk was lower in individuals with a healthier diet (OR=0.73, 95%CI [0.62-0.86], p-value<0.0001) and without obesity (OR=0.6, 95% CI [0.44-0.82], p-value=0.001). Vaccination was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR=0.36, 95%CI [0.28-0.46], p-value<0.0001), and high acute-symptom burden (OR=0.51, 95%CI [0.42-0.61], p-value<0.0001). In the 60+ age group, risk of >28 days illness was lower following vaccination (OR=0.72 , 95%CI [0.51-1.00], p-value=0.05). Most symptoms were reported less in positive-vaccinated vs. positive-unvaccinated individuals, except sneezing, which was more common post-vaccination (OR=1.24, 95%CI [1.05-1.46], p-value=0.01). Interpretation: Our findings highlight reduced symptom burden and duration in those infected post-vaccination. Whilst reassuring, our data should prompt efforts to boost vaccine effectiveness in at-risk populations; moreover, targeted infection control measures will still be appropriate to minimise SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Illness duration and symptom profile in a large cohort of symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2 (preprint)

Background In children, SARS-CoV-2 is usually asymptomatic or causes a mild illness of short duration. Persistent illness has been reported; however, its prevalence and characteristics are unclear. We aimed to determine illness duration and characteristics in symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2 using data from the COVID Symptom Study, the largest citizen participatory epidemiological study to date. Methods Data from 258,790 children aged 5-17 years were reported by an adult proxy between 24 March 2020 and 22 February 2021. Illness duration and symptom profiles were analysed for all children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for whom illness duration could be determined, considered overall and within younger (5-11 years) and older (12-17 years) age groups. Data from symptomatic children testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, matched 1:1 for age, gender, and week of testing, were also assessed. Findings 1,734 children (588 younger children, 1,146 older children) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and calculable duration of illness with the study time frame. The commonest symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). Median illness duration was six days (vs. three days in children testing negative); and was positively associated with age (rs 0.19, p<1.e-4) with median duration seven days in older vs. five days in younger children. Seventy-seven (4.4%) children had illness duration =>28 days (LC28); LC28 was more common in older compared with younger children (59 (5.1%) vs. 18 (3.1%), p=0.046). The commonest symptoms experienced by children with LC28 were fatigue (84.4%), headache and anosmia (both 77.9%); however, by day 28 the median symptom burden was two. Only 25 (1.8%) of 1,379 children experienced symptoms for [≥]56 days. Few children (15 children, 0.9%) in the negatively-tested cohort experienced prolonged symptom duration; however, these children experienced greater symptom burden (both throughout their illness and at day 28) than children positive for SARS-CoV-2. Interpretation Some children with COVID-19 experience prolonged illness duration; reassuringly, symptom burden in these children did not increase with time, and most recovered by day 56. Some children who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 also had persistent and burdensome illness. Thus, a holistic approach for all children with persistent illness during the pandemic is required.

Knowledge barriers in the symptomatic-COVID-19 testing programme in the UK: an observational study (preprint)

Background Symptomatic testing programmes are crucial to the COVID-19 pandemic response. We sought to examine United Kingdom (UK) testing rates amongst individuals with test-qualifying symptoms, and factors associated with not testing. Methods We analysed a cohort of untested symptomatic app users (N=1,237), nested in the Zoe COVID Symptom Study (Zoe, N= 4,394,948); and symptomatic survey respondents who wanted, but did not have a test (N=1,956), drawn from the University of Maryland-Facebook Covid-19 Symptom Survey (UMD-Facebook, N=775,746). Findings The proportion tested among individuals with incident test-qualifying symptoms rose from ~20% to ~75% from April to December 2020 in Zoe. Testing was lower with one vs more symptoms (73.0% vs 85.0%), or short vs long symptom duration (72.6% vs 87.8%). 40.4% of survey respondents did not identify all three test-qualifying symptoms. Symptom identification decreased for every decade older (OR=0.908 [95% CI 0.883-0.933]). Amongst symptomatic UMD-Facebook respondents who wanted but did not have a test, not knowing where to go was the most cited factor (32.4%); this increased for each decade older (OR=1.207 [1.129-1.292]) and for every 4-years fewer in education (OR=0.685 [0.599-0.783]). Interpretation Despite current UK messaging on COVID-19 testing, there is a knowledge gap about when and where to test, and this may be contributing to the ~25% testing gap. Risk factors, including older age and less education, highlight potential opportunities to tailor public health messages.

Vaccine after Effects and Post-Vaccine Infection in a Real World Setting: Results from the COVID Symptom Study App (preprint)

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

The effect of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 on symptomatology, re-infection and transmissibility (preprint)

The new SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was identified in December 2020 in the South-East of England, and rapidly increased in frequency and geographic spread. While there is some evidence for increased transmissibility of this variant, it is not known if the new variant presents with variation in symptoms or disease course, or if previously infected individuals may become reinfected with the new variant. Using longitudinal symptom and test reports of 36,920 users of the Covid Symptom Study app testing positive for COVID-19 between 28 September and 27 December 2020, we examined the association between the regional proportion of B.1.1.7 and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. We found no evidence for changes in reported symptoms, disease severity and disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. We found a likely reinfection rate of around 0.7% (95% CI 0.6-0.8), but no evidence that this was higher compared to older strains. We found an increase in R(t) by a factor of 1.35 (95% CI 1.02-1.69). Despite this, we found that regional and national lockdowns have reduced R(t) below 1 in regions with very high proportions of B.1.1.7.

Impact of COVID-19 on health behaviours and body weight: A prospective observational study in a cohort of 1.1 million UK and US individuals (preprint)

Evidence regarding the impact of COVID-19 on health behaviours is limited. In this prospective study including 1.1 million UK and US participants we collected diet and lifestyle data ‘pre-’ and ‘peri-’ pandemic, and computed a bi-directional health behaviour disruption index. We show that disruption was higher in the younger, female and socioeconomically deprived (p<0.001). A loss in body weight (-0.57kg) was greater in highly disrupted individuals compared to those with low disruption (0.01kg). There were large inter-individual changes observed in all 46 health and diet behaviors measured peri-pandemic versus pre-pandemic, but no mean change in the total population. Individuals most adherent to unhealthy pre-pandemic health behaviours improved their diet quality (0.93units) and weight (-0.79kg) compared with those reporting healthy pre-pandemic behaviours (0.08units and 0.04kg respectively), irrespective of relative deprivation. For a proportion of the population, the pandemic may have provided an impetus to improve health behaviours.

Individual factors underlie temperature variation in sickness and in health: influence of age, BMI and genetic factors in a multi-cohort study (preprint)

IntroductionAgeing affects immune function resulting in aberrant fever response to infection. We assess the effects of biological variables on basal temperature and temperature in COVID-19 infection, proposing an updated temperature threshold for older adults. MethodsParticipants: O_LIUnaffected twin volunteers: 1089 adult TwinsUK participants. C_LIO_LILondon hospitalised COVID-19+: 520 adults with emergency admission. C_LIO_LIBirmingham hospitalised COVID-19+: 757 adults with emergency admission. C_LIO_LICommunity-based COVID-19+: 3972 adults self-reporting a positive test using the COVID Symptom Study mobile application. C_LI AnalysisHeritability assessed using saturated and univariate ACE models; Linear mixed-effect and multivariable linear regression analysing associations between temperature, age, sex and BMI; multivariable logistic regression analysing associations between fever ([≥]37.8{degrees}C) and age; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to identify temperature threshold for adults [≥] 65 years. ResultsAmong unaffected volunteers, lower BMI (p=0.001), and older age (p<0.001) associated with lower basal temperature. Basal temperature showed a heritability of 47% (95% Confidence Interval 18-57%). In COVID-19+ participants, increasing age associated with lower temperatures in cohorts (c) and (d) (p<0.001). For each additional year of age, participants were 1% less likely to demonstrate a fever (OR 0.99; p<0.001). Combining healthy and COVID-19+ participants, a temperature of 37.4{degrees}C in adults [≥]65 years had similar sensitivity and specificity to 37.8{degrees}C in adults <65 years for discriminating fever in COVID-19. ConclusionsAgeing affects temperature in health and acute infection. Significant heritability indicates biological factors contribute to temperature regulation. Our observations indicate a lower threshold (37.4{degrees}C) should be considered for assessing fever in older adults. Key PointsO_LIOlder adults, particularly those with lower BMI, have a lower basal temperature and a lower temperature in response to infection C_LIO_LIBasal temperature is heritable, suggesting biological factors underlying temperature regulation C_LIO_LIOur findings support a lower temperature threshold of 37.4{degrees}C for identifying possible COVID-19 infection in older adults C_LIO_LIThis has implications for case detection, surveillance and isolation and could be incorporated into observation assessment C_LI

Anosmia and other SARS-CoV-2 positive test-associated symptoms, across three national, digital surveillance platforms as the COVID-19 pandemic and response unfolded: an observation study (preprint)

Background: Multiple participatory surveillance platforms were developed across the world in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, providing a real-time understanding of community-wide COVID-19 epidemiology. During this time, testing criteria broadened and healthcare policies matured. We sought to test whether there were consistent associations of symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test status across three national surveillance platforms, during periods of testing and policy changes, and whether inconsistencies could better inform our understanding and future studies as the COVID-19 pandemic progresses. Methods: Four months (1st April 2020 to 31st July 2020) of observation through three volunteer COVID-19 digital surveillance platforms targeting communities in three countries (Israel, United Kingdom, and United States). Logistic regression of self-reported symptom on self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test status (or test access), adjusted for age and sex, in each of the study cohorts. Odds ratios over time were compared to known changes in testing policies and fluctuations in COVID-19 incidence. Findings: Anosmia/ageusia was the strongest, most consistent symptom associated with a positive COVID-19 test, based on 658325 tests (5% positive) from over 10 million respondents in three digital surveillance platforms using longitudinal and cross-sectional survey methodologies. During higher-incidence periods with broader testing criteria, core COVID-19 symptoms were more strongly associated with test status. Lower incidence periods had, overall, larger confidence intervals. Interpretation: The strong association of anosmia/ageusia with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity is omnipresent, supporting its validity as a reliable COVID-19 signal, regardless of the participatory surveillance platform or testing policy. This analysis highlights that precise effect estimates, as well as an understanding of test access patterns to interpret differences, are best done only when incidence is high. These findings strongly support the need for testing access to be as open as possible both for real-time epidemiologic investigation and public health utility.

Dietary supplements during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from 1.4M users of the COVID Symptom Study app - a longitudinal app-based community survey (preprint)

Objectives: Dietary supplements may provide nutrients of relevance to ameliorate SARS-CoV-2 infection, although scientific evidence to support a role is lacking. We investigate whether the regular use of dietary supplements can reduce the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection in around 1.4M users of the COVID Symptom Study App who completed a supplement use questionnaire. Design: Longitudinal app-based community survey and nested case control study. Setting: Subscribers to an app that was launched to enable self-reported information related to SARS-CoV-2 infection for use in the general population in three countries. Main Exposure: Self-reported regular dietary supplement usage since the beginning of the pandemic. Main Outcome Measures: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by viral RNA polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) or serology test. A secondary outcome was new-onset anosmia. Results: In an analysis including 327,720 UK participants, the use of probiotics, omega-3 fatty acids, multivitamins or vitamin D was associated with a lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by 14%(95%CI: [8%,19%]), 12%(95%CI: [8%,16%]), 13%(95%CI: [10%,16%]) and 9%(95%CI: [6%,12%]), respectively, after adjusting for potential confounders. No effect was observed for vitamin C, zinc or garlic supplements. When analyses were stratified by sex, age and body mass index (BMI), the protective associations for probiotics, omega-3 fatty acids, multivitamins and vitamin D were observed in females across all ages and BMI groups, but were not seen in men. The same overall pattern of association was observed in both the US and Swedish cohorts. Results were further confirmed in a sub-analysis of 993,365 regular app users who were not tested for SARS-CoV-2 with cases (n= 126,556) defined as those with new onset anosmia (the strongest COVID-19 predictor). Conclusion: We observed a modest but significant association between use of probiotics, omega-3 fatty acid, multivitamin or vitamin D supplements and lower risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 in women. No clear benefits for men were observed nor any effect of vitamin C, garlic or zinc for men or women. Randomised controlled trials of selected supplements would be required to confirm these observational findings before any therapeutic recommendations can be made.

Association of social distancing and masking with risk of COVID-19 (preprint)

Given the continued burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) across the U.S., there is a high unmet need for data to inform decision-making regarding social distancing and universal masking. We examined the association of community-level social distancing measures and individual masking with risk of predicted COVID-19 in a large prospective U.S. cohort study of 198,077 participants. Individuals living in communities with the greatest social distancing had a 31% lower risk of predicted COVID-19 compared with those living in communities with poor social distancing. Self-reported masking was associated with a 63% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 even among individuals living in a community with poor social distancing. These findings provide support for the efficacy of mask-wearing even in settings of poor social distancing in reducing COVID-19 transmission. In the current environment of relaxed social distancing mandates and practices, universal masking may be particularly important in mitigating risk of infection.