SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B and respiratory syncytial virus positivity and association with influenza-like illness and self-reported symptoms, over the 2022/23 winter season in the UK: a longitudinal surveillance cohort (preprint)

Background Syndromic surveillance often relies on patients presenting to healthcare. Community cohorts, although more challenging to recruit, could provide additional population-wide insights, particularly with SARS-CoV-2 co-circulating with other respiratory viruses. Methods We estimated positivity and incidence of SARS-CoV-2, influenza A/B, and RSV, and trends in self-reported symptoms including influenza-like illness (ILI), over the 2022/23 winter season in a broadly representative UK community cohort (COVID-19 Infection Survey), using negative-binomial generalised additive models. We estimated associations between test positivity and each of symptoms and influenza vaccination, using adjusted logistic and multinomial models. Findings Swabs taken at 32,937/1,352,979 (2.4%) assessments tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, 181/14,939 (1.2%) for RSV and 130/14,939 (0.9%) for influenza A/B, varying by age over time. Positivity and incidence peaks were earliest for RSV, then influenza A/B, then SARS-CoV-2, and were highest for RSV in the youngest and for SARS-CoV-2 in the oldest age-groups. Many test-positives did not report key symptoms: middle-aged participants were generally more symptomatic than older or younger participants, but still only ~25% reported ILI-WHO and ~60% ILI-ECDC. Most symptomatic participants did not test positive for any of the three viruses. Influenza A/B-positivity was lower in participants reporting influenza vaccination in the current and previous seasons (odds ratio=0.55 (95% CI 0.32,0.95)) versus neither season. Interpretation Symptom profiles varied little by aetiology, making distinguishing SARS-CoV-2, influenza and RSV using symptoms challenging. Most symptoms were not explained by these viruses, indicating the importance of other pathogens in syndromic surveillance. Influenza vaccination was associated with lower rates of community influenza test positivity. Funding UK Health Security Agency, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during multiple Omicron variant waves in the UK general population (preprint)

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections increased substantially after Omicron variants emerged. Large-scale community-based comparisons across multiple Omicron waves of reinfection characteristics, risk factors, and protection afforded by previous infection and vaccination, are limited, especially after widespread national testing stopped. We studied 245,895 adults >=18y in the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey with at least one infection (identified from positive swab tests done within the study, linked from national testing programmes, or self-reported by participants, up to their last study assessment). We quantified the risk of reinfection in multiple infection waves, including those driven by BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5, and most recently BQ.1/CH.1.1/XBB.1.5 variants, in which most reinfections occurred. Reinfections had higher cycle threshold (Ct) values (lower viral load) and lower percentages self-reporting symptoms compared with first infections. Across multiple Omicron waves, protection against reinfection was significantly higher in those previously infected with more recent than earlier variants, even at the same time from previous infection. Protection against Omicron reinfections decreased over time from the most recent infection if this was the previous or penultimate variant (generally within the preceding year), but did not change or even slightly increased over time if this was with an even earlier variant (generally >1 year previously). Those 14-180 days after receiving their most recent vaccination had a lower risk of reinfection with all Omicron variants except BA.2 than those >180 days from their most recent vaccination. Reinfection risk was independently higher in those aged 30-45 years, and with either low or high Ct values in their most recent previous infection. Overall, the risk of Omicron reinfection is high, but with lower severity than first infections; reinfection risk is likely driven as much by viral evolution as waning immunity.

Correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant and anti-spike antibody responses after a third/booster vaccination or breakthrough infection in the UK general population (preprint)

Following primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, understanding the relative extent of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection from boosters or from breakthrough infections (i.e. infection in the context of previous vaccination) has important implications for vaccine policy. In this study, we investigated correlates of protection against Omicron BA.4/5 infections and anti-spike IgG antibody trajectories after a third/booster vaccination or breakthrough infection following second vaccination in 154,149 adults [≥]18y from the United Kingdom general population. We found that higher anti-spike IgG antibody levels were associated with increased protection against Omicron BA.4/5 infection and that breakthrough infections were associated with higher levels of protection at any given antibody level than booster vaccinations. Breakthrough infections generated similar antibody levels to third/booster vaccinations, and the subsequent declines in antibody levels were similar to or slightly slower than those after third/booster vaccinations. Taken together our findings show that breakthrough infection provides longer lasting protection against further infections than booster vaccinations. For example, considering antibody levels associated with 67% protection against infection, a third/booster vaccination did not provide long-lasting protection, while a Delta/Omicron BA.1 breakthrough infection could provide 5-10 months of protection against Omicron BA.4/5 reinfection. 50-60% of the vaccinated UK population with a breakthrough infection would still be protected by the end of 2022, compared to <15% of the triple-vaccinated UK population without previous infection. Although there are societal impacts and risks to some individuals associated with ongoing transmission, breakthrough infection could be an efficient immune-boosting mechanism for subgroups of the population, including younger healthy adults, who have low risks of adverse consequences from infection.

Risk of COVID-19 related deaths for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) compared with Delta (B.1.617.2) (preprint)

Objective To assess the risk of death involving COVID-19 following infection from Omicron (B.1.1.539/BA.1) relative to Delta (B.1.617.2). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting England, UK, 1 December 2021 to 25 January 2022. Participants 1,035,163 people aged 18-100 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the national surveillance programme, and had an infection identified as either Omicron- or Delta compatible. Main outcome measures Death involving COVID-19 as identified from death certification records. The exposure of interest was the SARS-CoV-2 variant identified from NHS Test and Trace PCR positive tests taken in the community (pillar 2) and analysed by Lighthouse laboratories. Cause-specific Cox proportional hazard regression models were adjusted for sex, age, vaccination status, previous infection, calendar time, ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation rank, household deprivation, university degree, keyworker status, country of birth, main language, region, disability, and comorbidities. Additionally, we tested for interactions between variant and sex, age, vaccination status and comorbidities. Results The risk of death involving COVID-19 was 67% lower for Omicron compared to Delta and the reduction in the risk of death involving COVID-19 for Omicron compared to Delta was more pronounced in males than in females and in people under 70 years old than in people aged 70 years or over. Regardless of age, reduction of the risk of death from Omicron relative to Delta more was more pronounced in people who had received a booster than in those having received only two doses. Conclusions Our results support early work showing the relative reduction in severity of Omicron compared to Delta in terms of hospitalisation and extends this research to assess COVID-19 mortality. Our work also highlights the importance of the vaccination booster campaign, where the reduction in risk of death involving COVID-19 is most pronounced in individuals who had received a booster. What is already known on this topic The Omicron variant, which refers to the whole lineage (BA.1, BA.2, BA.3) had already been shown to be more transmissible than the Delta variant, but there is emerging evidence suggests that the risk of hospitalisation and risk of death within 28 days after a SARS-COV-2 test is lower. However, with a highly transmissible infection and high levels of population testing, definition of death within 28 days is more likely to be susceptible to misclassification bias due to asymptomatic or co-incidental infection. There is no study so far comparing the risk of COVID-19 death as identified from death certification records, with the cause of death assessed by the physician who attended the patient in the last illness. What this study adds Using data from a large cohort of COVID-19 infections that occurred in December 2021, we examined the difference in the risk COVID-19 death, as identified from death certification records, between the Delta and Omicron BA.1 variant. Our study shows that risk of death involving COVID-19 was reduced by 67% following infection with the Omicron BA.1 variant relative to the Delta variant after adjusting for a wide range of potential confounders, including vaccination status and comorbidities. Importantly, we found that the relative risk of COVID-19 mortality following Omicron versus Delta infection varied by age and sex, with lower relative risk in younger individuals and for males than females. The reduction in risk of death involving COVID-19 was also most pronounced in individuals who had received a booster.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on Alpha and Delta variant transmission (preprint)

BackgroundPre-Delta, vaccination reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission from individuals infected despite vaccination, potentially via reducing viral loads. While vaccination still lowers the risk of infection, similar viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with Delta question how much vaccination prevents transmission. MethodsWe performed a retrospective observational cohort study of adult contacts of SARS-CoV-2-infected adult index cases using English contact testing data. We used multivariable Poisson regression to investigate associations between transmission and index case and contact vaccination, and how these vary with Alpha and Delta variants (classified using S-gene detection/calendar trends) and time since second vaccination. Results54,667/146,243(37.4%) PCR-tested contacts of 108,498 index cases were PCR-positive. Two doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines in Alpha index cases were independently associated with reduced PCR-positivity in contacts (aRR, adjusted rate ratio vs. unvaccinated=0.32[95%CI 0.21-0.48] and 0.48[0.30-0.78] respectively). The Delta variant attenuated vaccine-associated reductions in transmission: two BNT162b2 doses reduced Delta transmission (aRR=0.50[0.39-0.65]), more than ChAdOx1 (aRR=0.76[0.70-0.82]). Variation in Ct values (indicative of viral load) explained 7-23% of vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Transmission reductions declined over time post-second vaccination, for Delta reaching similar levels to unvaccinated individuals by 12 weeks for ChAdOx1 and attenuating substantially for BNT162b2. Protection in contacts also declined in the 3 months post-second vaccination. ConclusionsVaccination reduces transmission of Delta, but by less than the Alpha variant. The impact of vaccination decreased over time. Factors other than PCR Ct values at diagnosis are important in understanding vaccine-associated transmission reductions. Booster vaccinations may help control transmission together with preventing infections.

Estimating SARS-CoV-2 prevalence from large-scale wastewater surveillance: insights from combined analysis of 44 sites in England (preprint)

Accurate surveillance of the COVID-19 pandemic can be weakened by under-reporting of cases, particularly due to asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic infections, resulting in bias. Quantification of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in wastewater (WW) can be used to infer infection prevalence, but uncertainty in sensitivity and considerable variability has meant that accurate measurement remains elusive. Data from 44 sewage sites in England, covering 31% of the population, shows that SARS-CoV-2 prevalence is estimated to within 1.1% of estimates from representative prevalence surveys (with 95% confidence). Using machine learning and phenomenological models, differences between sampled sites, particularly the WW flow rate, influence prevalence estimation and require careful interpretation. SARS-CoV-2 signals in WW appear 4–5 days earlier in comparison to clinical testing data but are coincident with prevalence surveys suggesting that WW surveillance can be a leading indicator for asymptomatic viral infections. Wastewater-based epidemiology complements and strengthens traditional surveillance, with significant implications for public health.

Correlation of Computerized Tomography (CT) Severity Score for COVID-19 pneumonia with Clinical Outcomes (preprint)

IntroductionVarious CT severity scores have already been described in literature since the start of this pandemic. One pertinent issue with all of the previously described severity scores is their relative challenging calculation and variance in inter-observer agreement. The severity score proposed in our study is relatively simpler, easier to calculate and apart from a trained radiologist, can easily be calculated even by physicians with good inter-observer agreement. Therefore, a rapid CT severity score calculation can give a clue to physician about possible clinical outcome without being dependent on radiologist who may not be readily available especially in third world countries. ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to develop a simple CT severity score (CT-SS) with good inter-observer agreement and access its correlation with clinical outcome. MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted by the Department of Radiology and Internal Medicine, at the Aga Khan University Hospital Karachi, from April 2020 to August 2020. Non-probability consecutive sampling was used to include all patients who were positive for COVID-19 on PCR, and underwent CT chest examination at AKUH. Severity of disease was calculated in each lobe on the basis of following proposed CT severity scoring system (CT-SS). For each lobe the percentage of involvement by disease was scored - 0% involvement was scored 0, <50% involvement was scored 1 and >50% involvement was scored 2. Maximum score for one lobe was 2 and hence total maximum overall score for all lobes was 10. Continuous data was represented using mean and standard deviation, and compared using independent sample t-tests. Categorical data was represented using frequencies and percentages, and compared using Chi-squared tests. Inter-observer reliability between radiologist and COVID intensivist for the 10 point CT-SS rated on 0-10 was assessed using the Kappa statistic. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses. ResultsA total of 73 patients were included, the majority male (58.9%) with mean age 55.8 {+/-} 13.93 years. The CT-SS rated on 0-10 showed substantial inter-observer reliability between radiologist and intensivist with a Kappa statistic of 0.78. Patients with CT-SS 8-10 had a significantly higher ICU admission & intubation rate (53.8% vs. 23.5%) and mortality rate (35.9% vs. 11.8%; p = 0.017), as compared to those with CT-SS 0-7. ConclusionWe conclude that the described CT severity score (CT-SS) is a quick, effective and easily reproducible tool for prediction of adverse clinical outcome in patients with COVID 19 pneumonia. The tool shows good inter-observer agreement when calculated by radiologist and physician independently.

Increased infections, but not viral burden, with a new SARS-CoV-2 variant (preprint)

BackgroundA new variant of SARS-CoV-2, B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01, was identified in the UK in December-2020. Direct estimates of its potential to enhance transmission are limited. MethodsNose and throat swabs from 28-September-2020 to 2-January-2021 in the UKs nationally representative surveillance study were tested by RT-PCR for three genes (N, S and ORF1ab). Those positive only on ORF1ab+N, S-gene target failures (SGTF), are compatible with B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01. We investigated cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load), percentage of positives, population positivity and growth rates in SGTF vs non-SGTF positives. Results15,166(0.98%) of 1,553,687 swabs were PCR-positive, 8,545(56%) with three genes detected and 3,531(23%) SGTF. SGTF comprised an increasing, and triple-gene positives a decreasing, percentage of infections from late-November in most UK regions/countries, e.g. from 15% to 38% to 81% over 1.5 months in London. SGTF Ct values correspondingly declined substantially to similar levels to triple-gene positives. Population-level SGTF positivity remained low (<0.25%) in all regions/countries until late-November, when marked increases with and without self-reported symptoms occurred in southern England (to 1.5-3%), despite stable rates of non-SGTF cases. SGTF positivity rates increased on average 6% more rapidly than rates of non-SGTF positives (95% CI 4-9%) supporting addition rather than replacement with B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01. Excess growth rates for SGTF vs non-SGTF positives were similar in those up to high school age (5% (1-8%)) and older individuals (6% (4-9%)). ConclusionsDirect population-representative estimates show that the B.1.1.7/VOC202012/01 SARS-CoV-2 variant leads to higher infection rates, but does not seem particularly adapted to any age group.

The duration, dynamics and determinants of SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses in individual healthcare workers (preprint)

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody measurements can be used to estimate the proportion of a population exposed or infected and may be informative about the risk of future infection. Previous estimates of the duration of antibody responses vary. MethodsWe present 6 months of data from a longitudinal seroprevalence study of 3217 UK healthcare workers (HCWs). Serial measurements of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid were obtained. Bayesian mixed linear models were used to investigate antibody waning and associations with age, gender, ethnicity, previous symptoms and PCR results. ResultsIn this cohort of working age HCWs, antibody levels rose to a peak at 24 (95% credibility interval, CrI 19-31) days post-first positive PCR test, before beginning to fall. Considering 452 IgG seropositive HCWs over a median of 121 days (maximum 171 days) from their maximum positive IgG titre, the mean estimated antibody half-life was 85 (95%CrI, 81-90) days. The estimated mean time to loss of a positive antibody result was 137 (95%CrI 127-148) days. We observed variation between individuals; higher maximum observed IgG titres were associated with longer estimated antibody half-lives. Increasing age, Asian ethnicity and prior self-reported symptoms were independently associated with higher maximum antibody levels, and increasing age and a positive PCR test undertaken for symptoms with longer antibody half-lives. ConclusionIgG antibody levels to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid wane within months, and faster in younger adults and those without symptoms. Ongoing longitudinal studies are required to track the long-term duration of antibody levels and their association with immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection. SummarySerially measured SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid IgG titres from 452 seropositive healthcare workers demonstrate levels fall by half in 85 days. From a peak result, detectable antibodies last a mean 137 days. Levels fall faster in younger adults and following asymptomatic infection.

Viral load in community SARS-CoV-2 cases varies widely and temporally (preprint)

Background: Information on COVID-19 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly regarding cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for SARS-CoV-2 viral load) and symptoms. Methods: We included all positive nose and throat swabs between 26 April-11 October 2020 from the UK national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression. Results: 1892(0.22%) of 843,851 results were positive, 1362(72%), 185(10%) and 345(18%) for 3, 2 or 1 genes respectively. Ct for different genes were strongly correlated (rho=0.99) with overall median Ct 26.2 (IQR 19.7-31.1; range 10.3-37.6), corresponding to ~2,500 dC/ml (IQR 80-240,000). Ct values were independently lower in those reporting symptoms, with more genes detected, and in first (vs. subsequent) positives per-participant, with no evidence of independent effects of sex, ethnicity, age, deprivation or other test characteristics (p>0.20). Whilst single-gene positives without reported symptoms almost invariably had Ct>30, triple-gene positives without reported symptoms had widely varying Ct. Incorporating pre-test probability and Ct values, 1547(82%) and 112(6%) positives had higher or lower supporting evidence for genuine infection. Ct values, symptomatic percentages and supporting evidence changed over time. With lower positivity in the summer, there were proportionally more lower evidence positives, and higher evidence positives had higher Ct values (p<0.0001), suggesting lower viral burden. Declines in mean/median Ct values were apparent throughout August and preceded increases in positivity rates. Conclusions: Community SARS-CoV-2 infections show marked variation in viral load. Ct values could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator.