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

BackgroundThe 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. MethodsThis 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. Findings3,581 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{middle dot}47) transmissible than Alpha. Re-infections were low in all UK regions. Vaccination markedly (69-84%) reduced risk of Delta infection. InterpretationCOVID-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. FundingUK 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, Alzheimers Society, and ZOE Limited. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo identify existing evidence for differences (including illness, transmissibility, and vaccine effectiveness) from SARS-CoV-2 infection due to Alpha (B.1.1.7) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants, we searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles and medRxiv for preprint publications between March 1 and November 18, 2021 using keywords ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19") AND ("delta variant" OR "B.1.617.2") AND (symptom* OR transmiss* OR "disease duration" OR "illness duration" OR "symptom* duration"). Searches were not restricted by language. Among 169 identified PubMed articles, we found evidence that Delta variant has increased replication capacity (from 4-fold, up to 21-fold, compared with wild-type) and greater transmissibility (estimated between +20% and +97%), compared with previous strains. Currently available vaccines may have 2- to 5-fold lower neutralizing response to Delta vs. previous variants, depending on vaccine formulation, although their protective effect against severe disease and death appears to remain strong. REACT-1 study found that in UK infections were increasing exponentially in the 5-17-year old children in September 2021, coinciding with the start of the autumn school term in England. This was interpreted as an effect of the relatively low rate of vaccinated individuals in this age group. Other studies found that in unvaccinated individuals, Delta variant may be associated with higher odds of pneumonia, oxygen requirement, emergency care requests, ICU admission, and death. In a study of 27 (mainly young) cases, 22 persons were symptomatic, with fever (41%), cough (33%), headache (26%), and sore throat (26%) the commonest symptoms. We found no studies, beyond case series, investigating symptom and/or illness duration due to Delta variant infection otherwise. Added value of this studyUsing data from one of the largest UK citizen science epidemiological initiatives, we describe and compare illness (symptom duration, burden, profile, risk of long illness, and hospital attendance) in symptomatic community-based adults presenting when either the Alpha or Delta variant was the predominant circulating strain of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. We assess evidence of transmission, reinfection, and vaccine effectiveness. Our data show that the seven most common symptoms with Delta infection were the same as with Alpha infection. Risks of illness duration [≥]7 days and [≥]28 days, and of requiring hospital care, were not increased. In line with previous research, we found increased transmissibility of Delta vs. previous variants; and no evidence of increased re-infection rates. Our data support high vaccine efficacy of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 formulations against Delta variant infection. Overall, our study adds quantitative information regarding meaningful clinical differences in COVID-19 due to Delta vs. other variants. Implications of all the available evidenceOur observational data confirm that COVID-19 disease in UK in adults is generally comparable to infection with the Alpha variant, including in elderly individuals. Our data contribute to epidemiological surveillance from the wider UK population and may capture information from COVID-19 presentation within the community that might be missed in healthcare-based surveillance. Our data may be useful in informing healthcare service planning, vaccination policies, and measures for social protection.

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

BackgroundThe Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variant became the predominant UK circulating strain in May 2021. Whether COVID-19 from Delta infection differs to infection with other variants in children is unknown. MethodsThrough 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. Findings694 (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. InterpretationCOVID-19 in UK school-aged children due to SARS-CoV-2 Delta strain B.1.617.2 resembles illness due to the Alpha variant B.1.1.7., with short duration and similar symptom burden. FundingZOE Limited, 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 and Alzheimers Society. EthicsEthics approval was granted by KCL Ethics Committee (reference LRS-19/20-18210). Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo identify existing evidence for differences in COVID-19 due to infection with Alpha (B.1.1.7) or Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 variants, we searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles and medRxiv for preprint publications between March 1, and September 17, 2021 using keywords ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19") AND (children OR p?ediatric*) AND ("delta variant" OR "B.1.617.2"). We did not restrict our search by language. Of twenty published articles identified in PubMed, we found one case study describing disease presentation associated with Delta variant infection in a child. Another study examining the increase in hospitalization rates of paediatric cases in USA from August 1, 2020 to August 27, 2021 stated that "It is not known whether the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant [...] causes different clinical outcomes in children and adolescents compared with variants that circulated earlier." Four studies reported cases of transmission of the Delta variant in school and community contexts; and two discussed screening testing in school-aged children (thus not directly relevant to the research question here). Remaining papers did not target paediatric age specifically. We found no studies investigating differences in COVID-19 presentation (e.g., duration, burden, individual symptoms) in school-aged children either in the UK or world-wide. Added value of this studyWe describe and compare illness profiles in symptomatic UK school-aged children (aged 5-17 years) with COVID-19 when either Alpha or Delta strains were the predominant circulating SARS-CoV-2 variant. Our data, collected through one of the largest UK citizen science epidemiological initiatives, show that symptom profile and illness duration of COVID-19 are broadly similar between the strains. Although there were slightly more symptoms with Delta than with Alpha, particularly in older children, this was offset by similar symptom duration (whether considered for symptoms individually or for illness overall). Our study adds quantitative information to the debate on whether there are meaningful clinical differences in COVID-19 due to Alpha vs. Delta variants; and contributes to the discussion regarding rationale for vaccinating children (particularly younger children) against SARS-CoV-2. Implications of all the available evidenceOur data confirm that COVID-19 in UK school-aged children is usually of short duration and similar symptom burden, whether due to Delta or Alpha. Our data contribute to epidemiological surveillance from the wider UK population, and we capture common and generally mild paediatric presentations of COVID-19 that might be missed using clinician-based surveillance alone. Our data will also be useful for the vaccination debate.

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.

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

BackgroundSymptomatic 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. MethodsWe 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). FindingsThe 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]). InterpretationDespite 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. FundingZoe Global Limited, Department of Health, Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, MRC, Alzheimers Society, Facebook Sponsored Research Agreement. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSTo assess current evidence on test uptake in symptomatic testing programmes, and the reasons for not testing, we searched PubMed from database inception for research using the keywords (COVID-19) AND (testing) AND ((access) OR (uptake)). We did not find any work reporting on levels of test uptake amongst symptomatic individuals. We found three papers investigating geographic barriers to testing. We found one US based survey reporting on knowledge barriers to testing, and one UK based survey reporting on barriers in the period March - August 2020. Neither of these studies were able to combine testing behaviour with prospectively collected symptom reports from the users surveyed. Added value of this studyThrough prospective collection of symptom and test reports, we were able to estimate testing uptake amongst individuals with test-qualifying symptoms in the UK. Our results indicate that whilst testing has improved since the start of the pandemic, there remains a considerable testing gap. Investigating this gap we find that individuals with just one test-qualifying symptom or short symptom duration are less likely to get tested. We also find knowledge barriers to testing: a substantial proportion of individuals do not know which symptoms qualify them for a COVID-19 test, and do not know where to seek testing. We find a larger knowledge gap in individuals with older age and fewer years of education. Implications of all the available evidenceDespite the UK having a simple set of symptom-based testing criteria, with tests made freely available through nationalised healthcare, a quarter of individuals with qualifying symptoms do not get tested. Our findings suggest testing uptake may be limited by individuals not acting on mild or transient symptoms, not recognising the testing criteria, and not knowing where to get tested. Improved messaging may help address this testing gap, with opportunities to target individuals of older age or fewer years of education. Messaging may prove even more valuable in countries with more fragmented testing infrastructure or more nuanced testing criteria, where knowledge barriers are likely to be greater.

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.

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

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.

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.

Key predictors of attending hospital with COVID19: An association study from the COVID Symptom Tracker App in 2,618,948 individuals

ObjectivesWe aimed to identify key demographic risk factors for hospital attendance with COVID-19 infection. DesignCommunity survey SettingThe COVID Symptom Tracker mobile application co-developed by physicians and scientists at Kings College London, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston and Zoe Global Limited was launched in the UK and US on 24th and 29th March 2020 respectively. It captured self-reported information related to COVID-19 symptoms and testing. Participants2,618,948 users of the COVID Symptom Tracker App. UK (95.7%) and US (4.3%) population. Data cut-off for this analysis was 21st April 2020. Main outcome measuresVisit to hospital and for those who attended hospital, the need for respiratory support in three subgroups (i) self-reported COVID-19 infection with classical symptoms (SR-COVID-19), (ii) selfreported positive COVID-19 test results (T-COVID-19), and (iii) imputed/predicted COVID-19 infection based on symptomatology (I-COVID-19). Multivariate logistic regressions for each outcome and each subgroup were adjusted for age and gender, with sensitivity analyses adjusted for comorbidities. Classical symptoms were defined as high fever and persistent cough for several days. ResultsOlder age and all comorbidities tested were found to be associated with increased odds of requiring hospital care for COVID-19. Obesity (BMI >30) predicted hospital care in all models, with odds ratios (OR) varying from 1.20 [1.11; 1.31] to 1.40 [1.23; 1.60] across population groups. Pre-existing lung disease and diabetes were consistently found to be associated with hospital visit with a maximum OR of 1.79 [1.64,1.95] and 1.72 [1.27; 2.31]) respectively. Findings were similar when assessing the need for respiratory support, for which age and male gender played an additional role. ConclusionsBeing older, obese, diabetic or suffering from pre-existing lung, heart or renal disease placed participants at increased risk of visiting hospital with COVID-19. It is of utmost importance for governments and the scientific and medical communities to work together to find evidence-based means of protecting those deemed most vulnerable from COVID-19. Trial registrationThe App Ethics have been approved by KCL ethics Committee REMAS ID 18210, review reference LRS-19/20-18210