Estimated number of lives directly saved by COVID-19 vaccination programs in the WHO European Region, December 2020 to March 2023 (preprint)

BackgroundBy March 2023, 54 countries, areas and territories (thereafter "CAT") reported over 2.2 million coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) deaths to the World Health Organization (WHO) Regional Office for Europe (1). Here, we estimate how many lives were directly saved by vaccinating adults in the Region, from December 2020 through March 2023. MethodsWe estimated the number of lives directly saved by age-group, vaccine dose and circulating Variant of Concern (VOC) period, both regionally and nationally, using weekly data on COVID-19 mortality and COVID-19 vaccine uptake reported by 34 CAT, and vaccine effectiveness (VE) data from the literature. We calculated the percentage reduction in the number of expected and reported deaths. FindingsWe found that vaccines reduced deaths by 57% overall (CAT range: 15% to 75%), representing [~]1.4 million lives saved in those aged [≥]25 years (range: 0.7 million to 2.6 million): 96% of lives saved were aged [≥]60 years and 52% were aged [≥]80 years; first boosters saved 51%, and 67% were saved during the Omicron period. InterpretationOver nearly 2.5 years, most lives saved by COVID-19 vaccinationwere in older adults by first booster dose and during the Omicron period, reinforcing the importance of up-to-date vaccination among these most at-risk individuals. Further modelling work should evaluate indirect effects of vaccination and public health and social measures. FundingThis work was supported by a US Centers for Disease Control cooperative agreement (Grant number 6 NU511P000936-02-020), who had no role in data analysis or interpretation. DisclaimerThe authors affiliated with the World Health Organization (WHO) are alone responsible for the views expressed in this publication and they do not necessarily represent the decisions or policies of the WHO. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSince first identified in late 2019, COVID-19 has caused disproportionately high mortality rates in older adults. With the rapid development and licensing of novel COVID-19 vaccines, immunization campaigns across the WHO European Region started in late 2020 and early 2021, initially targeting the most vulnerable and exposed populations, including older adults, people with comorbidities and healthcare professionals. Several studies have estimated the number of lives saved by COVID-19 vaccination, both at national and multi-country level in the earlier stages of the pandemic. However, only one multi-country study has assessed the number of lives saved beyond the first year of the pandemic, particularly when the Omicron variant of concern (VOC) circulated, a period when vaccination coverage was high in many countries, areas and territories (CAT), but COVID-19 transmission was at its highest. Added value of this studyHere we quantified the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in adults by age-group, vaccine dose and period of circulation of VOC, across diverse settings, using real world data reported by 34 CAT in the WHO European Region for the period December 2020 to April 2023. We estimated that COVID-19 vaccination programs were associated with a 57% reduction (CAT range: 15% to 75%) in the number of deaths among the [≥]25 years old, representing over 1.5 million lives saved (range: 0.7 million to 2.6 million) in 34 European CAT during the first 2.5 years following vaccine introduction. The first booster savedthe most lives (721,122 / 1,408,967, (57%) of all lives saved). The [≥]60 years old age group accounted for 96% of the total lives saved (1,349,617 / 1,408,967) whereas the [≥]80 years old age group represented 52% of the total lives saved (728,858 / 1,408,967 lives saved) and 67% of all lives were saved during the Omicron period (942,571 / 1,408,967). Implications of all the available evidenceOur results reinforce the importance of up-to-date COVID-19 vaccination, particularly among older age-groups. Communication campaigns supporting COVID-19 vaccination should stress the value of COVID-19 vaccination in saving lives to ensure vulnerable groups are up-to-date with vaccination ahead of periods of potential increased transmission.

Multimodal surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 at a university enables development of a robust outbreak response framework (preprint)

Universities are particularly vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks and are also ideal environments to study transmission dynamics and evaluate mitigation and surveillance measures when outbreaks occur. Here, we introduce a SARS-CoV-2 surveillance and response framework based on high-resolution, multimodal data collected during the 2020-2021 academic year at Colorado Mesa University. We analyzed epidemiological and sociobehavioral data (demographics, contact tracing, and wifi-based co-location data) alongside pathogen surveillance data (wastewater, random, and reflexive diagnostic testing; and viral genomic sequencing of wastewater and clinical specimens) to characterize outbreak dynamics and inform policy decisions. We quantified group attributes that increased disease risk, and highlighted parallels between traditional and wifi-based contact tracing. We additionally used clinical and environmental viral sequencing to identify cryptic transmission, cluster overdispersion, and novel lineages or mutations. Ultimately, we used distinct data types to identify information that may help shape institutional policy and to develop a model of pathogen surveillance suitable for the future of outbreak preparedness.

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes associated with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and immune modifying therapies: a nationwide cohort study in the OpenSAFELY platform (preprint)

BackgroundIt is unclear if people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) (joint, bowel and skin) and on immune modifying therapy have increased risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. MethodsWith the approval of NHS England we conducted a cohort study, using OpenSAFELY, analysing routinely-collected primary care data linked to hospital admission, death and previously unavailable hospital prescription data. We used Cox regression (adjusting for confounders) to estimate hazard ratios (HR) comparing risk of COVID-19-death, death/critical care admission, and hospitalisation (March to September 2020) in: 1) people with IMIDs compared to the general population; and 2) people with IMIDs on targeted immune modifying drugs (e.g., biologics) compared to standard systemic treatment (e.g., methotrexate). FindingsWe identified 17,672,065 adults; of 1,163,438 (7%) with IMIDs, 19,119 people received targeted immune modifying drugs, and 200,813 received standard systemics. We saw evidence of increased COVID-19-death (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27), and COVID-19 hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35) in individuals with IMIDs overall compared to individuals without IMIDs of the same age, sex, deprivation and smoking status. We saw no evidence of increased COVID-19 deaths with targeted compared to standard systemic treatments (HR 1.03, 95%CI 0.80, 1.33). There was no evidence of increased COVID-19-related death in those prescribed TNF inhibitors, IL-12/23, IL7, IL-6 or JAK inhibitors compared to standard systemics. Rituximab was associated with increased COVID-19 death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56); however, this finding may relate to confounding. InterpretationCOVID-19 death and hospitalisation was higher in people with IMIDs. We saw no increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on most targeted immune modifying drugs for IMIDs compared to standard systemics. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed on May 19th, 2021, using the terms "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2" and "rheumatoid arthritis", "psoriatic arthritis" "ankylosing spondylitis", "Crohns disease" "ulcerative colitis" "hidradenitis suppurativa" and "psoriasis", to identify primary research articles examining severe COVID-19 outcome risk in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) and those on immune modifying therapy. The studies identified (including matched cohort studies and studies in disease-specific registries) were limited by small sample sizes and number of outcomes. Most studies did not show a signal of increased adverse COVID-19 outcomes in those on targeted therapies, with the exception of rituximab. Additionally, disease- specific registries are subject to selection bias and lack denominator populations. Added value of the studyIn our large population-based study of 17 million individuals, including 1 million people with IMIDs and just under 200,000 receiving immune modifying medications, we saw evidence that people with IMIDs had an increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared to the general population after adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, deprivation, smoking status) (HR 1.23, 95%CI 1.20, 1.27). We saw differences by IMID type, with COVID-19-related death being increased by the most in people with inflammatory joint disease (HR 1.47, 95%CI 1.40, 1.54). We also saw some evidence that those with IMIDs were more likely, compared to the general population, to have COVID-19-related critical care admission/death (HR 1.24, 95%CI 1.21, 1.28) and hospitalisation (HR 1.32, 95%CI 1.29, 1.35). Compared to people with IMIDs taking standard systemics, we saw no evidence of differences in severe COVID-19-related outcomes with TNF inhibitors, IL-17 inhibitors, IL-12/23 inhibitors, IL-6 inhibitors and JAK inhibitors. However, there was some evidence that rituximab was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19-related death (HR 1.68, 95%CI 1.11, 2.56) and death/critical care admission (HR 1.92, 95%CI 1.31, 2.81). We also saw evidence of an increase in COVID-19-related hospital admissions in people prescribed rituximab (HR 1.59, 95%CI 1.16, 2.18) or JAK inhibition (HR 1.81, 95%CI 1.09, 3.01) compared to those on standard systemics, although this could be related to worse underlying health rather than the drugs themselves, and numbers of events were small. This is the first study to our knowledge to use high-cost drug data on medicines supplied by hospitals at a national scale in England (to identify targeted therapies). The availability of these data fills an important gap in the medication record of those with more specialist conditions treated by hospitals creating an important opportunity to generate insights to these conditions and these medications Implications of all of the available evidenceOur study offers insights into future risk mitigation strategies and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination priorities for individuals with IMIDs, as it highlights that those with IMIDs and those taking rituximab may be at risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Critically, our study does not show a link between most targeted immune modifying medications compared to standard systemics and severe COVID-19 outcomes. However, the increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes that we saw in people with IMIDs and those treated with rituximab merits further study.

A Population-Based Threshold of Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines (preprint)

Correlates of protection for COVID-19 vaccines are urgently needed to license and deploy additional vaccines. We measured immune responses to four COVID-19 vaccines of proven efficacy using a single serological platform calibrated to the international standard. IgG anti-Spike antibodies correlated significantly with efficacies for original virus and alpha variant and were highly correlated with ID50 neutralization in a validated pseudoviral assay. The protective threshold for each vaccine was calculated for IgG anti-Spike antibody. The mean protective threshold for all vaccine studies was 154 BAU/ml (95%CI 42-559), and for the vaccine studies with antibody distributions that enabled precise estimation of thresholds (i.e. leaving out 2-dose mRNA studies) was 60 BAU/ml (95%CI 35-102). We propose that the proportion of individuals with responses above the appropriate protective threshold together with the geometric mean concentration can be used in comparative non-inferiority studies with licensed vaccines to ensure that new vaccines will be efficacious.

Post-COVID assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre analysis of symptoms and healthcare needs in 1325 individuals. (preprint)

Background. Complications following SARS-CoV-2 infection require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated Post-COVID clinical service to include both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. Methods. In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report outcomes for 1325 individuals assessed in the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Post-COVID service between April 2020 and April 2021. Demography, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation were compared by referral route ('post hospitalisation', PH; 'non-hospitalised', NH; and 'post emergency department', PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full-time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Findings. 1325 individuals were assessed (PH 547 [41.3%], PED 212 [16%], NH 566 [42.7%]. Compared with PH and PED groups, NH were younger (median 44.6 [35.6-52.8] vs 58.3 [47.0-67.7] and 48.5 [39.4-55.7] years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be from an ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) and seen later after symptom onset (median [IQR]:194 [118-298], 69 [51-111] and 76 [55-128] days) (all p<0.0001). NH patients had similar rates of onward specialist referral as PH and PED groups (18.7%, 16.1% and 18.9%, p=0.452), and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8%, 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities, and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% of optimal health (median [IQR] 70% [55%-85%]). Overall, less than half of employed individuals felt able to return to work full-time at first assessment. Interpretation. Symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection were significant in both post- and non-hospitalised patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.

Association between living with children and outcomes from COVID-19: an OpenSAFELY cohort study of 12 million adults in England (preprint)

Background: Close contact with children may provide cross-reactive immunity to SARs-CoV-2 due to more frequent prior coryzal infections from seasonal coronaviruses. Alternatively, close contact with children may increase risk of SARs-CoV-2 infection. We investigated whether risk of infection with SARs-CoV-2 and severe outcomes differed between adults living with and without children. Methods: Working on behalf of NHS England, we conducted a population-based cohort study using primary care data and pseudonymously-linked hospital and intensive care admissions, and death records, from patients registered in general practices representing 40% of England. Using multivariable Cox regression, we calculated fully-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) of outcomes from 1st February-3rd August 2020 comparing adults living with and without children in the household. Findings: Among 9,157,814 adults [≤]65 years, living with children 0-11 years was not associated with increased risks of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 related hospital or ICU admission but was associated with reduced risk of COVID-19 death (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.92). Living with children aged 12-18 years was associated with a small increased risk of recorded SARS-CoV-2 infection (HR 1.08, 95%CI 1.03-1.13), but not associated with other COVID-19 outcomes. Living with children of any age was also associated with lower risk of dying from non-COVID-19 causes. Among 2,567,671 adults >65 years there was no association between living with children and outcomes related to SARS-CoV-2. We observed no consistent changes in risk following school closure. Interpretation: For adults living with children there is no evidence of an increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. These findings have implications for determining the benefit-harm balance of children attending school in the COVID-19 pandemic. Funding This work was supported by the Medical Research Council MR/V015737/1.

OpenSAFELY: Do adults prescribed Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs have an increased risk of death from COVID-19? (preprint)

Importance: There has been speculation that non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may negatively affect coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes, yet clinical evidence is limited. Objective: To assess the association between NSAID use and deaths from COVID-19 using OpenSAFELY, a secure analytical platform. Design: Two cohort studies (1st March-14th June 2020). Setting: Working on behalf of NHS England, we used routine clinical data from >17 million patients in England linked to death data from the Office for National Statistics. Participants: Study 1: General population (people with an NSAID prescription in the last three years). Study 2: people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis. Exposures: Current NSAID prescription within the 4 months before 1st March 2020. Main Outcome and Measure: We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for COVID-19 related death in people currently prescribed NSAIDs, compared with those not currently prescribed NSAIDs, adjusting for age, sex, comorbidities and other medications. Results: In Study 1, we included 535,519 current NSAID users and 1,924,095 non-users in the general population. The crude HR for current use was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.07-1.46), versus non-use. We observed no evidence of difference in risk of COVID-19 related death associated with current use (HR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.80-1.13) in the fully adjusted model. In Study 2, we included 1,711,052 people with rheumatoid arthritis/osteoarthritis, of whom 175,631 (10%) were current NSAID users. The crude HR for current use was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.36-0.52), versus non-use. In the fully adjusted model, we observed a lower risk of COVID-19 related death (HR, 0.78, 95% CI, 0.65-0.94) associated with current use of NSAID versus non-use. Conclusion and Relevance: We found no evidence of a harmful effect of NSAIDs on COVID-19 related deaths. Risks from COVID-19 do not need to influence decisions about therapeutic use of NSAIDs.