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

BackgroundMental 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. MethodsWe 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. FindingsOverall, 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. InterpretationA 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. FundingZoe Limited, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Medical Research Council UK

Diet quality and risk and severity of COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

ObjectivePoor metabolic health and certain lifestyle factors have been associated with risk and severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but data for diet are lacking. We aimed to investigate the association of diet quality with risk and severity of COVID-19 and its intersection with socioeconomic deprivation. DesignWe used data from 592,571 participants of the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study. Diet quality was assessed using a healthful plant-based diet score, which emphasizes healthy plant foods such as fruits or vegetables. Multivariable Cox models were fitted to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for COVID-19 risk and severity defined using a validated symptom-based algorithm or hospitalization with oxygen support, respectively. ResultsOver 3,886,274 person-months of follow-up, 31,815 COVID-19 cases were documented. Compared with individuals in the lowest quartile of the diet score, high diet quality was associated with lower risk of COVID-19 (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88-0.94) and severe COVID-19 (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74). The joint association of low diet quality and increased deprivation on COVID-19 risk was higher than the sum of the risk associated with each factor alone (Pinteraction=0.005). The corresponding absolute excess rate for lowest vs highest quartile of diet score was 22.5 (95% CI, 18.8-26.3) and 40.8 (95% CI, 31.7-49.8; 10,000 person-months) among persons living in areas with low and high deprivation, respectively. ConclusionsA dietary pattern characterized by healthy plant-based foods was associated with lower risk and severity of COVID-19. These association may be particularly evident among individuals living in areas with higher socioeconomic deprivation.

App-based COVID-19 surveillance and prediction: The COVID Symptom Study Sweden

The app-based COVID Symptom Study was launched in Sweden in April 2020 to contribute to real-time COVID-19 surveillance. We enrolled 143,531 study participants ([≥]18 years) who contributed 10.6 million daily symptom reports between April 29, 2020 and February 10, 2021. Data from 19,161 self-reported PCR tests were used to create a symptom-based model to estimate the individual probability of symptomatic COVID-19, with an AUC of 0.78 (95% CI 0.74-0.83) in an external dataset. These individual probabilities were used to estimate daily regional COVID-19 prevalence, which were in turn used together with current hospital data to predict next week COVID-19 hospital admissions. We found that this hospital prediction model demonstrated a lower median absolute percentage error (MdAPE: 25.9%) across the five most populated regions in Sweden during the first pandemic wave than a model based on case notifications (MdAPE: 30.3%). During the second wave, the error rates were similar. When applying the same model to an English dataset, not including local COVID-19 test data, we observed MdAPEs of 22.3% and 19.0%, respectively, highlighting the transferability of the prediction model.

Aspirin and NSAID use and the risk of COVID-19

Early reports raised concern that use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) disease (COVID-19). Users of the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application reported use of aspirin and other NSAIDs between March 24 and May 8, 2020. Users were queried daily about symptoms, COVID-19 testing, and healthcare seeking behavior. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the risk of COVID-19 among according to aspirin or non-aspirin NSAID users. Among 2,736,091 individuals in the U.S., U.K., and Sweden, we documented 8,966 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 60,817,043 person-days of follow-up. Compared to non-users and after stratifying by age, sex, country, day of study entry, and race/ethnicity, non-aspirin NSAID use was associated with a modest risk for testing COVID-19 positive (HR 1.23 [1.09, 1.32]), but no significant association was observed among aspirin users (HR 1.13 [0.92, 1.38]). After adjustment for lifestyle factors, comorbidities and baseline symptoms, any NSAID use was not associated with risk (HR 1.02 [0.94, 1.10]). Results were similar for those seeking healthcare for COVID-19 and were not substantially different according to lifestyle and sociodemographic factors or after accounting for propensity to receive testing. Our results do not support an association of NSAID use, including aspirin, with COVID-19 infection. Previous reports of a potential association may be due to higher rates of comorbidities or use of NSAIDs to treat symptoms associated with COVID-19. One Sentence SummaryNSAID use is not associated with COVID-19 risk.

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

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines show excellent efficacy in clinical trials and real-world data, but some people still contract SARS-CoV-2 despite vaccination. This study sought to identify risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection post-vaccination and describe characteristics of post-vaccination illness. MethodsAmongst 1,102,192 vaccinated UK adults from the COVID Symptom Study, 2394 (0.2%) cases of post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified between 8th December 2020 and 1st May 2021. Using a control group of vaccinated individuals testing negative, we assessed the associations of age, frailty, comorbidity, area-level deprivation and lifestyle factors with infection. Illness profile post-vaccination was assessed using a second control group of unvaccinated cases. FindingsOlder adults with frailty (OR=2.78, 95% CI=[1.98-3.89], p-value<0.0001) and individuals living in most deprived areas (OR=1.22 vs. intermediate group, CI[1.04-1.43], p-value=0.01) had increased odds of post-vaccination infection. Risk was lower in individuals without obesity (OR=0.6, CI[0.44-0.82], p-value=0.001) and those reporting healthier diet (OR=0.73, CI[0.62-0.86], p-value<0.0001). Vaccination was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation (OR=0.36, CI[0.28-0.46], p-value<0.0001), and high acute-symptom burden (OR=0.51, CI[0.42-0.61], p-value<0.0001). In older adults, risk of [≥]28 days illness was lower following vaccination (OR=0.72, CI[0.51-1.00], p-value=0.05). Symptoms were reported less in positive-vaccinated vs. positive-unvaccinated individuals, except sneezing, which was more common post-vaccination (OR=1.24, CI[1.05-1.46], p-value=0.01). InterpretationOur findings suggest that older individuals with frailty and those living in most deprived areas are at increased risk of infection post-vaccination. We also showed reduced symptom burden and duration in those infected post-vaccination. Efforts to boost vaccine effectiveness in at-risk populations, and to targeted infection control measures, may still be appropriate to minimise SARS-CoV-2 infection. FundingThis work is supported by UK Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) award to Guys & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with Kings College London and Kings College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and via a grant to ZOE Global; the Wellcome Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Centre for Medical Engineering at Kings College London (WT 203148/Z/16/Z). Investigators also received support from the Chronic Disease Research Foundation, the Medical Research Council (MRC), British Heart Foundation, the UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging & Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the Wellcome Flagship Programme (WT213038/Z/18/Z and Alzheimers Society (AS-JF-17-011), and the Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR). Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo identify existing evidence for risk factors and characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection post-vaccination, we searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published between December 1, 2020 and May 18, 2021 using keywords ("COVID-19" OR "SARS-CoV-2") AND ("Vaccine" OR "vaccination") AND ("infection") AND ("risk factor*" OR "characteristic*"). We did not restrict our search by language or type of publication. Of 202 articles identified, we found no original studies on individual risk and protective factors for COVID-19 infection following vaccination nor on nature and duration of symptoms in vaccinated, community-based individuals. Previous studies in unvaccinated populations have shown that social and occupational factors influence risk of SARS-CoV-2infection, and that personal factors (age, male sex, multiple morbidities and frailty) increased risk for adverse outcomes in COVID-19. Phase III clinical trials have demonstrated good efficacy of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection, confirmed in published real-world data, which additionally showed reduced risk of adverse outcomes including hospitalisation and death. Added value of this studyThis is the first observational study investigating characteristics of and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection after COVID-19 vaccination. We found that vaccinated individuals with frailty had higher rates of infection after vaccination than those without. Adverse determinants of health such as increased social deprivation, obesity, or a less healthy diet were associated with higher likelihood of infection after vaccination. In comparison with unvaccinated individuals, those with post-vaccination infection had fewer symptoms of COVID-19, and more were entirely asymptomatic. Fewer vaccinated individuals experienced five or more symptoms, required hospitalisation, and, in the older adult group, fewer had prolonged illness duration (symptoms lasting longer than 28 days). Implications of all the available evidenceSome individuals still contract COVID-19 after vaccination and our data suggest that frail older adults and those living in more deprived areas are at higher risk. However, in most individuals illness appears less severe, with reduced need for hospitalisation and lower risk of prolonged illness duration. Our results are relevant for health policy post-vaccination and highlight the need to prioritise those most at risk, whilst also emphasising the balance between the importance of personal protective measures versus adverse effects from ongoing social restrictions. Strategies such as timely prioritisation of booster vaccination and optimised infection control could be considered for at-risk groups. Research is also needed on how to enhance the immune response to vaccination in those at higher risk.

Racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake

BackgroundRacial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy and limited access may result in disparities in uptake. MethodsWe performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 24, 2020-February 16, 2021). We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy (unsure/not willing) and receipt. ResultsIn the U.S. (n=87,388), compared to White non-Hispanic participants, the multivariable ORs of vaccine hesitancy were 3.15 (95% CI: 2.86 to 3.47) for Black participants, 1.42 (1.28 to 1.58) for Hispanic participants, 1.34 (1.18 to 1.52) for Asian participants, and 2.02 (1.70 to 2.39) for participants reporting more than one race/other. In the U.K. (n=1,254,294), racial and ethnic minorities had similarly elevated hesitancy: compared to White participants, their corresponding ORs were 2.84 (95% CI: 2.69 to 2.99) for Black participants, 1.66 (1.57 to 1.76) for South Asian participants, 1.84 (1.70 to 1.98) for Middle East/East Asian participants, and 1.48 (1.39 to 1.57) for participants reporting more than one race/other. Among U.S. participants, the OR of vaccine receipt was 0.71 (0.64 to 0.79) for Black participants, a disparity that persisted among individuals who specifically endorsed a willingness to obtain a vaccine. In contrast, disparities in uptake were not observed in the U.K. ConclusionsCOVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was greater among racial and ethnic minorities, and Black participants living in the U.S. were less likely to receive a vaccine than White participants. Lower uptake among Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout is attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access.

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

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December 2020 in England. It is not known if the new variant presents with variation in symptoms or disease course, if previously infected individuals may become reinfected with the new variant, or how the variants increased transmissibility affects measures to reduce its spread. MethodsUsing longitudinal symptom reports from 36,920 users of the COVID Symptom Study app testing positive for Covid-19 between 28 September and 27 December 2020, we performed an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of B.1.1.7 and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. FindingsWe found no evidence for changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. We found a likely reinfection rate of 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 R(t) fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of B.1.1.7. InterpretationThe lack of change in symptoms indicates existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the new variant, and the reinfection findings suggest that vaccines are likely to remain effective against the new variant. FundingZoe Global Limited, Department of Health, Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, MRC, Alzheimers Society. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo identify existing evidence on SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 we searched PubMed and Google Scholar for articles between 1 December 2020 and 1 February 2021 using the keywords Covid-19 AND B.1.1.7, finding 281 results. We did not find any studies that investigated B.1.1.7-associated changes in the symptoms experienced, their severity and duration, but found one study showing B.1.1.7 did not change the ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic infections. We found six articles describing laboratory-based investigations of the responses of B.1.1.7 to vaccine-induced immunity to B.1.1.7, but no work investigating what this means for natural immunity and the likelihood of reinfection outside of the lab. We found five articles demonstrating the increased transmissibility of B.1.1.7. Added value of this studyTo our knowledge, this is the first study to explore changes in symptom type and duration, as well as community reinfection rates, associated with B.1.1.7. The work uses self-reported symptom logs from 36,920 users of the COVID Symptom Study app reporting positive test results between 28 September and 27 December 2020. We find that B.1.1.7 is not associated with changes in the symptoms experienced in Covid-19, nor their duration. Building on existing lab studies, our work suggests that natural immunity developed from previous infection provides similar levels of protection to B.1.1.7. We add to the emerging consensus that B.1.1.7 exhibits increased transmissibility. Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings suggest that existing criteria for obtaining a Covid-19 test in the community need not change for the rise of B.1.1.7. The fact that immunity developed from infection by wild type variants protects against B.1.1.7 provides an indication that vaccines will remain effective against B.1.1.7. R(t) fell below 1 during the UKs national lockdown, even in regions with high levels of B.1.1.7, but further investigation is required to establish the factors that enabled this, to facilitate countries seeking to control the spread of B.1.1.7.

Meeting Report: Translational Advances in Cancer Prevention Agent Development Meeting

The Division of Cancer Prevention of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Office of Disease Prevention of the National Institutes of Health co-sponsored the Translational Advances in Cancer Prevention Agent Development Meeting on August 27 to 28, 2020. The goals of this meeting were to foster the exchange of ideas and stimulate new collaborative interactions among leading cancer prevention researchers from basic and clinical research; highlight new and emerging trends in immunoprevention and chemoprevention as well as new information from clinical trials; and provide information to the extramural research community on the significant resources available from the NCI to promote prevention agent development and rapid translation to clinical trials. The meeting included two plenary talks and five sessions covering the range from pre-clinical studies with chemo/immunopreventive agents to ongoing cancer prevention clinical trials. In addition, two NCI informational sessions describing contract resources for the preclinical agent development and cooperative grants for the Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Network were also presented.

Meeting Report: Translational Advances in Cancer Prevention Agent Development Meeting

The Division of Cancer Prevention of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Office of Disease Prevention of the National Institutes of Health co-sponsored the Translational Advances in Cancer Prevention Agent Development Meeting on August 27 to 28, 2020. The goals of this meeting were to foster the exchange of ideas and stimulate new collaborative interactions among leading cancer prevention researchers from basic and clinical research; highlight new and emerging trends in immunoprevention and chemoprevention as well as new information from clinical trials; and provide information to the extramural research community on the significant resources available from the NCI to promote prevention agent development and rapid translation to clinical trials. The meeting included two plenary talks and five sessions covering the range from pre-clinical studies with chemo/immunopreventive agents to ongoing cancer prevention clinical trials. In addition, two NCI informational sessions describing contract resources for the preclinical agent development and cooperative grants for the Cancer Prevention Clinical Trials Network were also presented.

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

BackgroundMultiple 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. MethodsFour 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. FindingsAnosmia/ageusia was the strongest, most consistent symptom associated with a positive COVID-19 test, based on 658,325 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. InterpretationThe 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. FundingNIH, NIHR, Alzheimers Society, Wellcome Trust Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSAs the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, testing capacity expanded and governmental guidelines adapted, generally encouraging testing with a broader set of symptoms, not just fever with respiratory symptoms. In parallel, multiple large-scale citizen science digital surveillance platforms launched to complement knowledge from laboratory and somewhat smaller clinical studies. Symptoms such as loss of sense of smell have been identified as strongly predictive of COVID-19 infection in both clinical and syndromic surveillance analyses, and have therefore been used to inform these testing policy changes and access expansion. Added value of this studyThis study identifies symptoms that are or are not consistently associated with SARS-CoV-2 test positivity over time and across three country-based COVID-19 surveillance platforms in the United States, United Kingdom and Israel. These platforms are website and smartphone based, as well as cross-sectional and longitudinal. The study period of 4 months covers fluctuating COVID-19 prevalence during the fall of the first wave and, in some areas, rise of the second wave. In addition, the study period overlaps expansion of test access and test seeking. Importantly, these analyses track and highlight the value of individual symptoms to predict SARS-CoV-2 test positivity under a range of conditions. Implications of all the available evidenceDespite differences in surveillance methodology, access to SARS-CoV-2 testing and disease prevalence, loss of sense of smell or taste was consistently the strongest predictor of COVID-19 infection across all platforms over time. As access to testing broadened, the relevance of COVID-like symptoms and consistency of their predictive ability became apparent. However, confidence bounds generally widened with a fall in COVID-19 incidence. Therefore, for the most robust symptom-based COVID-19 prediction models should consider surveillance data during periods of higher incidence and improved test access, and effect estimates that replicate across different epidemiologic conditions and platforms.

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

ObjectivesDietary 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. DesignLongitudinal app-based community survey and nested case control study. SettingSubscribers 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 ExposureSelf-reported regular dietary supplement usage since the beginning of the pandemic. Main Outcome MeasuresSARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by viral RNA polymerase chain reaction test (RT-PCR) or serology test. A secondary outcome was new-onset anosmia. ResultsIn 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). ConclusionWe 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.

Identifying optimal combinations of symptoms to trigger diagnostic work-up of suspected COVID-19 cases in vaccine trials: analysis from a community-based, prospective, observational cohort

ObjectivesDiagnostic work-up following any COVID-19 associated symptom will lead to extensive testing, potentially overwhelming laboratory capacity whilst primarily yielding negative results. We aimed to identify optimal symptom combinations to capture most cases using fewer tests with implications for COVID-19 vaccine developers across different resource settings and public health. MethodsUK and US users of the COVID-19 Symptom Study app who reported new-onset symptoms and an RT-PCR test within seven days of symptom onset were included. Sensitivity, specificity, and number of RT-PCR tests needed to identify one case (test per case [TPC]) were calculated for different symptom combinations. A multi-objective evolutionary algorithm was applied to generate combinations with optimal trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity. FindingsUK and US cohorts included 122,305 (1,202 positives) and 3,162 (79 positive) individuals. Within three days of symptom onset, the COVID-19 specific symptom combination (cough, dyspnoea, fever, anosmia/ageusia) identified 69% of cases requiring 47 TPC. The combination with highest sensitivity (fatigue, anosmia/ageusia, cough, diarrhoea, headache, sore throat) identified 96% cases requiring 96 TPC. InterpretationWe confirmed the significance of COVID-19 specific symptoms for triggering RT-PCR and identified additional symptom combinations with optimal trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity that maximize case capture given different resource settings. HighlightsO_LIWidely recommended symptoms identified only [~]70% COVID-19 cases C_LIO_LIAdditional symptoms increased case finding to > 90% but tests needed doubled C_LIO_LIOptimal symptom combinations maximise case capture considering available resources C_LIO_LIImplications for COVID-19 vaccine efficacy trials and wider public health C_LI

Association of social distancing and masking with risk of COVID-19

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.

Detecting COVID-19 infection hotspots in England using large-scale self-reported data from a mobile application

BackgroundAs many countries seek to slow the spread of COVID-19 without reimposing national restrictions, it has become important to track the disease at a local level to identify areas in need of targeted intervention. MethodsWe performed modelling on longitudinal, self-reported data from users of the COVID Symptom Study app in England between 24 March and 29 September, 2020. Combining a symptom-based predictive model for COVID-19 positivity and RT-PCR tests provided by the Department of Health we were able to estimate disease incidence, prevalence and effective reproduction number. Geographically granular estimates were used to highlight regions with rapidly increasing case numbers, or hotspots. FindingsMore than 2.8 million app users in England provided 120 million daily reports of their symptoms, and recorded the results of 170,000 PCR tests. On a national level our estimates of incidence and prevalence showed similar sensitivity to changes as two national community surveys: the ONS and REACT-1 studies. On 28 September 2020 we estimated 15,841 (95% CI 14,023-17,885) daily cases, a prevalence of 0.53% (95% CI 0.45-0.60), and R(t) of 1.17 (95% credible interval 1.15-1.19) in England. On a geographically granular level, on 28 September 2020 we detected 15 of the 20 regions with highest incidence according to Government test data, with indications that our method may be able to detect rapid case increases in regions where Government testing provision is more limited. InterpretationSelf-reported data from mobile applications can provide an agile resource to inform policymakers during a fast-moving pandemic, serving as an independent and complementary resource to more traditional instruments for disease surveillance. FundingZoe Global Limited, Department of Health, Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, MRC, Alzheimers Society. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo identify instances of the use of digital tools to perform COVID-19 surveillance, we searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles between 1 January and 14 October 2020, using the keywords COVID-19 AND ((mobile application) OR (web tool) OR (digital survey)). Of the 382 results, we found eight that utilised user-reported data to ascertain a users COVID-19 status. Of these, none sought to provide disease surveillance on a national level, or to compare these predictions to other tools to ascertain their accuracy. Furthermore, none of these papers sought to use their data to highlight geographical areas of concern. Added value of this studyTo our knowledge, we provide the first demonstration of mobile technology to provide national-level disease surveillance. Using over 120 million reports from more than 2.8 million users across England, we estimate incidence, prevalence, and the effective reproduction number. We compare these estimates to those from national community surveys to understand the effectiveness of these digital tools. Furthermore, we demonstrate the large number of users can be used to provide disease surveillance with high geographical granularity, potentially providing a valuable source of information for policymakers seeking to understand the spread of the disease. Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings suggest that mobile technology can be used to provide real-time data on the national and local state of the pandemic, enabling policymakers to make informed decisions in a fast-moving pandemic.

Attributes and predictors of Long-COVID: analysis of COVID cases and their symptoms collected by the Covid Symptoms Study App

Reports of "Long-COVID", are rising but little is known about prevalence, risk factors, or whether it is possible to predict a protracted course early in the disease. We analysed data from 4182 incident cases of COVID-19 who logged their symptoms prospectively in the COVID Symptom Study app. 558 (13.3%) had symptoms lasting >=28 days, 189 (4.5%) for >=8 weeks and 95 (2.3%) for >=12 weeks. Long-COVID was characterised by symptoms of fatigue, headache, dyspnoea and anosmia and was more likely with increasing age, BMI and female sex. Experiencing more than five symptoms during the first week of illness was associated with Long-COVID, OR=3.53 [2.76;4.50]. A simple model to distinguish between short and long-COVID at 7 days, which gained a ROC-AUC of 76%, was replicated in an independent sample of 2472 antibody positive individuals. This model could be used to identify individuals for clinical trials to reduce long-term symptoms and target education and rehabilitation services.

SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection in pregnant women: characterization of symptoms and syndromes predictive of disease and severity through real-time, remote participatory epidemiology.

BackgroundFrom the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women have been considered at greater risk of severe morbidity and mortality. However, data on hospitalized pregnant women show that the symptom profile and risk factors for severe disease are similar to those among women who are not pregnant, although preterm birth, Cesarean delivery, and stillbirth may be more frequent and vertical transmission is possible. Limited data are available for the cohort of pregnant women that gave rise to these hospitalized cases, hindering our ability to quantify risk of COVID-19 sequelae for pregnant women in the community. ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that pregnant women in community differ in their COVID-19 symptoms profile and disease severity compared to non-pregnant women. This was assessed in two community-based cohorts of women aged 18-44 years in the United Kingdom, Sweden and the United States of America. Study designThis observational study used prospectively collected longitudinal (smartphone application interface) and cross-sectional (web-based survey) data. Participants in the discovery cohort were drawn from 400,750 UK, Sweden and US women (79 pregnant who tested positive) who self-reported symptoms and events longitudinally via their smartphone, and a replication cohort drawn from 1,344,966 USA women (162 pregnant who tested positive) cross-sectional self-reports samples from the social media active user base. The study compared frequencies of symptoms and events, including self-reported SARS-CoV-2 testing and differences between pregnant and non-pregnant women who were hospitalized and those who recovered in the community. Multivariable regression was used to investigate disease severity and comorbidity effects. ResultsPregnant and non-pregnant women positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection drawn from these community cohorts were not different with respect to COVID-19-related severity. Pregnant women were more likely to have received SARS-CoV-2 testing than non-pregnant, despite reporting fewer clinical symptoms. Pre-existing lung disease was most closely associated with the severity of symptoms in pregnant hospitalized women. Heart and kidney diseases and diabetes were additional factors of increased risk. The most frequent symptoms among all non-hospitalized women were anosmia [63% in pregnant, 92% in non-pregnant] and headache [72%, 62%]. Cardiopulmonary symptoms, including persistent cough [80%] and chest pain [73%], were more frequent among pregnant women who were hospitalized. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea and vomiting, were different among pregnant and non-pregnant women who developed severe outcomes. ConclusionsAlthough pregnancy is widely considered a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes, and was associated with higher propensity for testing, the profile of symptom characteristics and severity in our community-based cohorts were comparable to those observed among non-pregnant women, except for the gastrointestinal symptoms. Consistent with observations in non-pregnant populations, comorbidities such as lung disease and diabetes were associated with an increased risk of more severe SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy. Pregnant women with pre-existing conditions require careful monitoring for the evolution of their symptoms during SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Racial and ethnic determinants of Covid-19 risk

BackgroundRacial and ethnic minorities have disproportionately high hospitalization rates and mortality related to the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). There are comparatively scant data on race and ethnicity as determinants of infection risk. MethodsWe used a smartphone application (beginning March 24, 2020 in the United Kingdom [U.K.] and March 29, 2020 in the United States [U.S.]) to recruit 2,414,601 participants who reported their race/ethnicity through May 25, 2020 and employed logistic regression to determine the adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for a positive Covid-19 test among racial and ethnic groups. ResultsWe documented 8,858 self-reported cases of Covid-19 among 2,259,841 non-Hispanic white; 79 among 9,615 Hispanic; 186 among 18,176 Black; 598 among 63,316 Asian; and 347 among 63,653 other racial minority participants. Compared with non-Hispanic white participants, the risk for a positive Covid-19 test was increased across racial minorities (aORs ranging from 1.24 to 3.51). After adjustment for socioeconomic indices and Covid-19 exposure risk factors, the associations (aOR [95% CI]) were attenuated but remained significant for Hispanic (1.58 [1.24-2.02]) and Black participants (2.56 [1.93-3.39]) in the U.S. and South Asian (1.52 [1.38-1.67]) and Middle Eastern participants (1.56 [1.25-1.95]) in the U.K. A higher risk of Covid-19 and seeking or receiving treatment was also observed for several racial/ethnic minority subgroups. ConclusionsOur results demonstrate an increase in Covid-19 risk among racial and ethnic minorities not completely explained by other risk factors for Covid-19, comorbidities, and sociodemographic characteristics. Further research investigating these disparities are needed to inform public health measures.

Symptom clusters in Covid19: A potential clinical prediction tool from the COVID Symptom study app

As no one symptom can predict disease severity or the need for dedicated medical support in COVID-19, we asked if documenting symptom time series over the first few days informs outcome. Unsupervised time series clustering over symptom presentation was performed on data collected from a training dataset of completed cases enlisted early from the COVID Symptom Study Smartphone application, yielding six distinct symptom presentations. Clustering was validated on an independent replication dataset between May 1-May 28th, 2020. Using the first 5 days of symptom logging, the ROC-AUC of need for respiratory support was 78.8%, substantially outperforming personal characteristics alone (ROC-AUC 69.5%). Such an approach could be used to monitor at-risk patients and predict medical resource requirements days before they are required. One sentence summaryLongitudinal clustering of symptoms can predict the need for respiratory support in severe COVID-19.

Risk of symptomatic Covid-19 among frontline healthcare workers

BackgroundData for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. FindingsAmong 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11{middle dot}6 (95% CI: 10{middle dot}9 to 12{middle dot}3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3{middle dot}40 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}37 to 3{middle dot}43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1{middle dot}46 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}21 to 1{middle dot}76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1{middle dot}31 (95% CI: 1{middle dot}10 to 1{middle dot}56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4{middle dot}83 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}99 to 5{middle dot}85) if they had adequate PPE, 5{middle dot}06 (95% CI: 3{middle dot}90 to 6{middle dot}57) for reused PPE, and 5{middle dot}91 (95% CI: 4{middle dot}53 to 7{middle dot}71) for inadequate PPE. InterpretationFrontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. FundingZoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimers Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe prolonged course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with sustained challenges supplying adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers (HCW), have strained global healthcare systems in an unprecedented fashion. Despite growing awareness of this problem, there are few data to inform policy makers on the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs and the impact of PPE on their disease burden. Prior reports of HCW infections are based on cross sectional data with limited individual-level information on risk factors for infection. A PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 using the terms "covid-19", "healthcare workers", and "personal protective equipment," yielded no population-scale investigations exploring this topic. Added value of this studyIn a prospective study of 2,135,190 individuals, frontline HCWs may have up to a 12-fold increased risk of reporting a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with those who reported adequate availability of PPE, frontline HCWs with inadequate PPE had a 31% increase in risk. However, adequate availability of PPE did not completely reduce risk among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients. Implications of all the available evidenceBeyond ensuring adequate availability of PPE, additional efforts to protect HCWs from COVID-19 are needed, particularly as lockdown is lifted in many regions of the world.

Cancer and risk of COVID-19 through a general community survey

BackgroundData are limited on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among individuals with cancer and whether cancer-related therapy exacerbates this risk. MethodsWe evaluated the risk for COVID-19 among patients living with cancer compared to the general community and whether cancer-related treatments influence this risk. Data were collected from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application since March 24, 2020 (United Kingdom), March 29 (U.S.), and April 29, 2020 (Sweden) through May 8, 2020. We used multivariate-adjusted odds ratios (aORs) of a positive COVID-19 test as well as predicted COVID-19 infection using a validated symptom model. ResultsAmong 23,266 participants with cancer and 1,784,293 without cancer, we documented 10,404 reports of a positive COVID-19 test. Compared to participants without cancer, those living with cancer had 62% increased risk of a positive COVID-19 test (95% CI: 1.37-1.91). Among patients with cancer, current treatment with chemotherapy/immunotherapy was associated with a nearly 2.5-fold increased risk of a positive test (aOR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.81-3.25). The association between cancer and COVID-19 positivity was stronger among participants >65 years (aOR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.51-2.46) compared to younger participants (aOR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.06-1.64; Pinteraction <0.001); and among amles (aOR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.36-2.15) compared to females (aOR; 95% CI: 1.14-1.79; Pinteraction =0.02). ConclusionsIndividuals with cancer had a significantly increased risk of infection compared to the general community. Those treated with chemotherapy or immunotherapy were particularly at-risk of infection. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04331509