Association between antibody responses post-vaccination and severe COVID-19 outcomes in Scotland.

Several population-level studies have described individual clinical risk factors associated with suboptimal antibody responses following COVID-19 vaccination, but none have examined multimorbidity. Others have shown that suboptimal post-vaccination responses offer reduced protection to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection; however, the level of protection from COVID-19 hospitalisation/death remains unconfirmed. We use national Scottish datasets to investigate the association between multimorbidity and testing antibody-negative, examining the correlation between antibody levels and subsequent COVID-19 hospitalisation/death among double-vaccinated individuals. We found that individuals with multimorbidity ( ≥ five conditions) were more likely to test antibody-negative post-vaccination and 13.37 [6.05-29.53] times more likely to be hospitalised/die from COVID-19 than individuals without conditions. We also show a dose-dependent association between post-vaccination antibody levels and COVID-19 hospitalisation or death, with those with undetectable antibody levels at a significantly higher risk (HR 9.21 [95% CI 4.63-18.29]) of these serious outcomes compared to those with high antibody levels.

A population-based matched cohort study of early pregnancy outcomes following COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy are limited. We conducted a national, population-based, matched cohort study assessing associations between COVID-19 vaccination and miscarriage prior to 20 weeks gestation and, separately, ectopic pregnancy. We identified women in Scotland vaccinated between 6 weeks preconception and 19 weeks 6 days gestation (for miscarriage; n = 18,780) or 2 weeks 6 days gestation (for ectopic; n = 10,570). Matched, unvaccinated women from the pre-pandemic and, separately, pandemic periods were used as controls. Here we show no association between vaccination and miscarriage (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], pre-pandemic controls = 1.02, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 0.96-1.09) or ectopic pregnancy (aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.92-1.38). We undertook additional analyses examining confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection as the exposure and similarly found no association with miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. Our findings support current recommendations that vaccination remains the safest way for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies from COVID-19.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination rates in pregnant women in Scotland.

Population-level data on COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnancy and SARS-CoV-2 infection outcomes are lacking. We describe COVID-19 vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women in Scotland, using whole-population data from a national, prospective cohort. Between the start of a COVID-19 vaccine program in Scotland, on 8 December 2020 and 31 October 2021, 25,917 COVID-19 vaccinations were given to 18,457 pregnant women. Vaccine coverage was substantially lower in pregnant women than in the general female population of 18-44 years; 32.3% of women giving birth in October 2021 had two doses of vaccine compared to 77.4% in all women. The extended perinatal mortality rate for women who gave birth within 28 d of a COVID-19 diagnosis was 22.6 per 1,000 births (95% CI 12.9-38.5; pandemic background rate 5.6 per 1,000 births; 452 out of 80,456; 95% CI 5.1-6.2). Overall, 77.4% (3,833 out of 4,950; 95% CI 76.2-78.6) of SARS-CoV-2 infections, 90.9% (748 out of 823; 95% CI 88.7-92.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with hospital admission and 98% (102 out of 104; 95% CI 92.5-99.7) of SARS-CoV-2 associated with critical care admission, as well as all baby deaths, occurred in pregnant women who were unvaccinated at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis. Addressing low vaccine uptake rates in pregnant women is imperative to protect the health of women and babies in the ongoing pandemic.

External validation of the QCovid risk prediction algorithm for risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality in adults: national validation cohort study in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: The QCovid algorithm is a risk prediction tool that can be used to stratify individuals by risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. Version 1 of the algorithm was trained using data covering 10.5 million patients in England in the period 24 January 2020 to 30 April 2020. We carried out an external validation of version 1 of the QCovid algorithm in Scotland. METHODS: We established a national COVID-19 data platform using individual level data for the population of Scotland (5.4 million residents). Primary care data were linked to reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) virology testing, hospitalisation and mortality data. We assessed the performance of the QCovid algorithm in predicting COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in our dataset for two time periods matching the original study: 1 March 2020 to 30 April 2020, and 1 May 2020 to 30 June 2020. RESULTS: Our dataset comprised 5 384 819 individuals, representing 99% of the estimated population (5 463 300) resident in Scotland in 2020. The algorithm showed good calibration in the first period, but systematic overestimation of risk in the second period, prior to temporal recalibration. Harrell's C for deaths in females and males in the first period was 0.95 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.95) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.93), respectively. Harrell's C for hospitalisations in females and males in the first period was 0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.82) and 0.82 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Version 1 of the QCovid algorithm showed high levels of discrimination in predicting the risk of COVID-19 hospitalisations and deaths in adults resident in Scotland for the original two time periods studied, but is likely to need ongoing recalibration prospectively.

Absence of association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19: Results of the European I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care project, March-August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Claims of influenza vaccination increasing COVID-19 risk are circulating. Within the I-MOVE-COVID-19 primary care multicentre study, we measured the association between 2019-20 influenza vaccination and COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre test-negative case-control study at primary care level, in study sites in five European countries, from March to August 2020. Patients presenting with acute respiratory infection were swabbed, with demographic, 2019-20 influenza vaccination and clinical information documented. Using logistic regression, we measured the adjusted odds ratio (aOR), adjusting for study site and age, sex, calendar time, presence of chronic conditions. The main analysis included patients swabbed ≤7 days after onset from the three countries with <15% of missing influenza vaccination. In secondary analyses, we included five countries, using multiple imputation with chained equations to account for missing data. RESULTS: We included 257 COVID-19 cases and 1631 controls in the main analysis (three countries). The overall aOR between influenza vaccination and COVID-19 was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.66-1.32). The aOR was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.58-1.46) and 0.92 (95% CI: 0.51-1.67) among those aged 20-59 and ≥60 years, respectively. In secondary analyses, we included 6457 cases and 69 272 controls. The imputed aOR was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79-0.95) among all ages and any delay between swab and symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that COVID-19 cases were more likely to be vaccinated against influenza than controls. Influenza vaccination should be encouraged among target groups for vaccination. I-MOVE-COVID-19 will continue documenting influenza vaccination status in 2020-21, in order to learn about effects of recent influenza vaccination.

Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II): protocol for an observational study using linked Scottish national data.

INTRODUCTION: Following the emergence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in December 2019 and the ensuing COVID-19 pandemic, population-level surveillance and rapid assessment of the effectiveness of existing or new therapeutic or preventive interventions are required to ensure that interventions are targeted to those at highest risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. We aim to repurpose and expand an existing pandemic reporting platform to determine the attack rate of SARS-CoV-2, the uptake and effectiveness of any new pandemic vaccine (once available) and any protective effect conferred by existing or new antimicrobial drugs and other therapies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational cohort will be used to monitor daily/weekly the progress of the COVID-19 epidemic and to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions in approximately 5.4 million individuals registered in general practices across Scotland. A national linked dataset of patient-level primary care data, out-of-hours, hospitalisation, mortality and laboratory data will be assembled. The primary outcomes will measure association between: (A) laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity and mortality, and demographic, socioeconomic and clinical population characteristics; and (B) healthcare burden of COVID-19 and demographic, socioeconomic and clinical population characteristics. The secondary outcomes will estimate: (A) the uptake (for vaccines only); (B) effectiveness; and (C) safety of new or existing therapies, vaccines and antimicrobials against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The association between population characteristics and primary outcomes will be assessed via multivariate logistic regression models. The effectiveness of therapies, vaccines and antimicrobials will be assessed from time-dependent Cox models or Poisson regression models. Self-controlled study designs will be explored to estimate the risk of therapeutic and prophylactic-related adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02. The study findings will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Veno-arterio-venous ECMO for septic cardiomyopathy: a single-centre experience.

INTRODUCTION: The role of extracorporeal support for patients with septic shock remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of our single-centre experience with veno-arterio-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VAV ECMO) in adult patients with severe respiratory failure and septic cardiomyopathy. Clinical data was extracted from electronic medical records including a dedicated ECMO referral and follow-up database. RESULTS: Twelve patients were commenced on VAV ECMO for septic cardiomyopathy for a median of four days (IQR 3.0 to 5.3) between 01/2014 and 12/2017. Five patients (41.7%) had a cardiac arrest prior to initiation of ECMO support. At baseline, median left ventricular ejection fraction was 16.25% (IQR 13.13 to 17.5) and median PaO2/FiO2 ratio was 9 kPa (IQR 6.5 to 12.0) [67.50 mmHg (IQR 48.75 to 90.00)]. The survival rate to hospital discharge for VAV ECMO was 75% in this cohort. None of the surviving patients died within the follow-up period (median six month). CONCLUSION: VAV ECMO is a feasible rescue strategy for a small proportion of patients with combined respiratory and cardiac failure secondary to septic shock with septic cardiomyopathy. We provide a detailed report of our experience with this technique. Further research is required comparing the different extracorporeal strategies directly to conventional resuscitation and against each other.