Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 21
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
1.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22279444

ABSTRACT

The Omicron sub-lineages BA.4 and BA.5 were first detected in England in April 2022. A case surge followed despite England having recently experienced waves with BA.1 and BA.2. This study used a whole population test-negative case-control study design to estimate the effectiveness of the vaccines currently in use as part of the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme against hospitalisation following infection with BA.4 and BA.5 as compared to BA.2 during a period of co-circulation. Incremental VE was estimated in those vaccinated with either a third or fourth dose as compared to individuals with waned immunity who had received their second dose at least 25 weeks prior. Vaccination status was included as an independent variable and effectiveness was defined as 1-odds of vaccination in cases/odds of vaccination in controls. During the study period, there were 32,845 eligible tests from hospitalised individuals. Of these, 25,862 were negative (controls), 3,432 were BA.2, 273 were BA.4, 947 were BA.5 and 2,331 were either BA.4 or BA.5 cases. There was no evidence of reduced VE against hospitalisation for BA.4 or BA.5 as compared to BA.2. The incremental VE was 56.8% (95% C.I.; 24.0-75.4%), 59.9% (95% C.I.; 45.6-70.5%) and 52.4% (95% C.I.; 43.2-60.1%) for BA.4, BA.5 and BA.2, respectively, at 2 to 14 weeks after a third or fourth dose. VE against hospitalisation with BA.4/5 or BA.2 was slightly higher for the mRNA-1273 booster than the BNT162b2 booster at all time-points investigated, but confidence intervals overlapped. These data provide reassuring evidence of the protection conferred by the current vaccines against severe disease with BA.4 and BA.5.

2.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22278987

ABSTRACT

BackgroundLittle is known about the protection following prior infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants, COVID-19 vaccination, and a combination of the two (hybrid immunity) in adolescents. MethodsWe used national SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 mRNA vaccination data in England to estimate protection following previous infection and vaccination against symptomatic PCR-confirmed delta and omicron BA.1/BA.2 variants in 11-17-year-olds using a test-negative case-control design. FindingsBy 31 March 2022, 63.6% of 16-17-year-olds and 48.2% of 12-15-year-olds had received [≥]1 COVID-19 mRNA vaccine dose.Between 08 August 2021 and 31 March 2022, 1,161,704 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-tests were successfully linked to COVID-19 vaccination status. In unvaccinated adolescents, prior infection with wildtype, alpha or delta provided greater protection against subsequent delta infection than subsequent omicron; prior omicron infection provided had the highest protection against omicron reinfection (59.3%; 95%CI: 46.7-69.0). In infection-naive adolescents, vaccination provided lower protection against symptomatic omicron infection than delta, peaking at 64.5% (95%CI; 63.6-65.4) 2-14 days after dose two and 62.9% (95%CI; 60.5-65.1) 2-14 weeks after dose three, with rapidly waning protection after each dose. Previously infected and vaccinated adolescents had the highest protection, irrespective of primary infecting SARS-CoV-2 strain. The highest protection against omicron was observed in vaccinated adolescents with prior omicron infection, reaching 96.4% (95%CI, 84.4-99.1) at 15-24 weeks post dose two. InterpretationAll variants provide some protection against symptomatic reinfection and vaccination adds to protection. Vaccination provides low-to-moderate protection against symptomatic omicron infection, with waning protection after each dose, while hybrid immunity provides the most robust protection. FundingNone Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe have previously reported COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in previously uninfected adolescents. There are, however, limited data on the protection offered by natural infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants, and the added value of vaccination in previously-infected adolescents. Most studies have focused on adults and show significant protection from previous infection against re-infection with pre-omicron variants, but lower protection against omicron variants, with hybrid immunity providing the most robust protection. Added value of this studyUsing national SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19 mRNA vaccination data in England, we were able to estimate protection afforded by previous infection, vaccination, and a combination of the two using a test-negative case-control design against PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19. We found that protection against symptomatic infection with the delta variant was greater than protection against symptomatic omicron infection in those previously infected with wild-type, alpha or delta variants. Similar trends were observed in previously uninfected but vaccinated individuals. Prior omicron infection along with vaccination provided the greatest protection against further omicron variant infections. Implications of all the available evidenceAll variants provide some protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection, as does COVID-19 mRNA vaccination. Our findings demonstrate, for the first time in adolescents, the additional protection afforded by hybrid immunity. In the context of the UKs recent waves of omicron infections, our findings provide important evidence of only modest short-term protection against mild disease with omicron variants following vaccination. This has important implications for the consideration of future adolescent COVID-19 vaccination and booster programmes.

3.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22274483

ABSTRACT

BackgroundDespite the potential widespread global use of the ChAdOx1-S booster, to date there are no published data on the real-world effectiveness. VE studies have found one and two doses of the ChAdOx1-S vaccine to be highly effective, and clinical trial data have demonstrated enhanced immunity following a ChAdOx1-S booster. In England, some individuals received a ChAdOx1-S booster where vaccination with mRNA vaccines was clinically contraindicated. MethodsThe demographic characteristics of those who received a ChAdOx1-S booster were compared to those who received a BNT162b2 booster. A test-negative case control design was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S booster against symptomatic disease and hospitalisation in England. FindingsThose who received a ChAdOx1-S booster were more likely to be female (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.67 (1.64-1.71)), in a clinical risk group (adjusted OR 1.58 (1.54-1.63)), in the CEV group (adjusted OR 1.84 (1.79-1.89)) or severely immunosuppressed (adjusted OR 2.05 (1.96-2.13)). Protection against symptomatic disease in those aged 65 years and older peaked at 66.1% (16.6 to 86.3%) and 68.5% (65.7 to 71.2%) amongst those who received the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 booster vaccines, respectively. Protection waned to 44.5% (22.4 to 60.2%) and 54.1% (50.5 to 57.5%) after 5-9 weeks. Protection against hospitalisation following Omicron infection peaked at 82.3% (64.2 to 91.3%) after receiving a ChAdOx1-S booster, as compared to 90.9% (88.7 to 92.7%) for those who received a BNT162b2 booster. InterpretationDifferences in the population boosted with ChAdOx1-S in England renders direct comparison of vaccine effectiveness by manufacturer challenging. Nonetheless, this study supports the use of the ChAdOx1-S booster for protection against severe disease with COVID-19 in settings that have not yet offered booster doses and suggests that those who received ChAdOx1-S as a booster in England do not require re-vaccination ahead of others. FundingUKHSA

4.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22273281

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has been associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection and mild disease with rapid waning, even after a third dose, nevertheless omicron has also been associated with milder disease than previous variants. With previous variants protection against severe disease has been substantially higher than protection against infection. MethodsWe used a test-negative case-control design to estimate VE against hospitalisation with the omicron and delta variants using community and in hospital testing linked to hospital records. As a milder disease, there may be an increasing proportion of hospitalised individuals with Omicron as an incidental finding. We therefore investigated the impact of using more specific and more severe hospitalisation indicators on VE. ResultsAmong 18-64 year olds using all Covid-19 cases admitted via emergency care VE after a booster peaked at 82.4% and dropped to 53.6% by 15+ weeks after the booster; using all admissions for >= 2 days stay with a respiratory code in the primary diagnostic field VE ranged from 90.9% down to 67.4%; further restricting to those on oxygen/ventilated/on intensive care VE ranged from 97.1% down to 75.9%. Among 65+ year olds the equivalent VE estimates were 92.4% down to 76.9%; 91.3% down to 85.3% and 95.8% down to 86.8%. ConclusionsWith generally milder disease seen with Omicron, in particular in younger adults, contamination of hospitalisations with incidental cases is likely to reduce VE estimates against hospitalisation. VE estimates improve and waning and waning is more limited when definitions of hospitalisation that are more specific to severe respiratory disease are used.

5.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22272691

ABSTRACT

The BA.1 sub-lineage of the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant, first detected in the UK in mid-November 2021, rapidly became the dominant strain partly due to reduced vaccine effectiveness. An increase in a second Omicron sub-lineage BA.2 was observed in early January 2022. In this study we use a test-negative case control study design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease with BA.1 and BA.2 after one or two doses of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1-S or mRNA-1273, and after booster doses of BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 during a period of co-circulation. Overall, there was no evidence that vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease is reduced following infection with the BA.2 sub-lineage as compared to BA.1. Furthermore, similar rates of waning were observed after the second and booster dose for each sub-lineage. These data provide reassuring evidence of the effectiveness of the vaccines currently in use against symptomatic disease caused by BA.2.

6.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22268896

ABSTRACT

The duration of immunity after first SARS-CoV-2 infection and the extent to which prior immunity prevents reinfection is uncertain and remains an important question within the context of new variants. Using a retrospective population-based matched observational study approach, we identified cases with a first PCR positive test between 01 March 2020 and 30 September 2020 and cases were matched by age, sex, upper tier local authority of residence and testing route to individuals testing negative in the same week (controls) by PCR. After a 90-day pre-follow up period for cases and controls, any subsequent positive tests up to 31 December 2020 and deaths within 28 days of testing positive were identified, this encompassed an essentially vaccine-free period. There were 517,870 individuals in the matched cohort with 2,815 reinfection cases and 12,098 first infections. The protective effect of a prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episode was 78% (OR 0.22, 0.21-0.23). Protection rose to 82% (OR 0.18, 0.17-0.19) after a sensitivity analysis excluded 934 individuals with a first test between March and May and a subsequent positive test between June and September 2020. Amongst individuals testing positive by PCR during follow-up, reinfection cases had 77% lower odds of symptoms at the second episode (adjusted OR 0.23, 0.20-0.26) and 45% lower odds of dying in the 28 days after reinfection (adjusted OR 0.55, 0.42-0.71). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection offered protection against reinfection in this population. There was some evidence that reinfections increased with the Alpha variant compared to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 variant highlighting the importance of continued monitoring as new variants emerge.

7.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21267615

ABSTRACT

BackgroundA rapid increase in cases due to the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant in highly vaccinated populations has raised concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines. MethodsWe used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against symptomatic disease caused by the Omicron and Delta variants in England. VE was calculated after primary immunisation with two BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 doses, and at 2+ weeks following a BNT162b2 booster. ResultsBetween 27 November and 06 December 2021, 581 and 56,439 eligible Omicron and Delta cases respectively were identified. There were 130,867 eligible test-negative controls. There was no effect against Omicron from 15 weeks after two ChAdOx1 doses, while VE after two BNT162b2 doses was 88.0% (95%CI: 65.9 to 95.8%) 2-9 weeks after dose 2, dropping to between 34 and 37% from 15 weeks post dose 2.From two weeks after a BNT162b2 booster, VE increased to 71.4% (95%CI: 41.8 to 86.0%) for ChAdOx1 primary course recipients and 75.5% (95%CI: 56.1 to 86.3%) for BNT162b2 primary course recipients. For cases with Delta, VE was 41.8% (95%CI: 39.4-44.1%) at 25+ weeks after two ChAdOx1 doses, increasing to 93.8% (95%CI: 93.2-94.3%) after a BNT162b2 booster. With a BNT162b2 primary course, VE was 63.5% (95%CI: 61.4 to 65.5%) 25+ weeks after dose 2, increasing to 92.6% (95%CI: 92.0-93.1%) two weeks after the booster. ConclusionsPrimary immunisation with two BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 doses provided no or limited protection against symptomatic disease with the Omicron variant. Boosting with BNT162b2 following either primary course significantly increased protection.

8.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21267408

ABSTRACT

Adolescents in the UK were recommended to have their first dose of mRNA vaccine during a period of high community transmission due to the highly transmissible Delta variant, followed by a second dose at an extended interval of 8-12 weeks. We used national SARS-CoV-2 testing, vaccination and hospitalisation data to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) using a test-negative case-control design, against PCR-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 in England. BNT162b2 vaccination in 12-15-year-olds and 16-17-year-olds was associated with lower VE against symptomatic COVID-19 caused by Omicron compared to Delta. Data shows a rapid increase in VE against symptomatic COVID-19 after the second dose for both Delta and Omicron, although this declines to 23% against Omicron after 70+ days. Very high protection was achieved for Delta against hospitalisation after one dose. Our data highlight the importance of the second vaccine dose for protection against symptomatic COVID-19 and raise important questions about the objectives of an adolescent immunisation programme. If prevention of infection is the primary aim, then regular COVID-19 vaccine boosters will be required.

9.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21266401

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe ability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect against infection and onward transmission determines whether immunisation can control global circulation. We estimated effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against acquisition and transmission of the Alpha and Delta variants in a prospective household study in England. MethodsAdult index cases in the community and their household contacts took oral-nasal swabs on days 1, 3 and 7 after enrolment. Swabs were tested by RT-qPCR with genomic sequencing conducted on a subset. We used Bayesian logistic regression to infer vaccine effectiveness against acquisition and transmission, adjusted for age, vaccination history and variant. FindingsBetween 2 February 2021 and 10 September 2021 213 index cases and 312 contacts were followed up. After excluding households lacking genomic proximity (N=2) or with unlikely serial intervals (N=16), 195 households with 278 contacts remained of whom 113 (41%) became PCR positive. Delta lineages had 1.64 times the risk (95% Credible Interval: 1.15 - 2.44) of transmission than Alpha; contacts older than 18 years were 1.19 times (1.04 - 1.52) more likely to acquire infection than children. Effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against transmission of Delta was 31% (-3%, 61%) and 42% (14%, 69%) for ChAdOx1, similar to their effectiveness for Alpha. Protection against infection with Alpha was higher than for Delta, 71% (12%,95%) vs 24% (-2%, 64%) respectively for BNT162b2 and 26% (-39%, 73%) vs 14% (-5%, 46%) respectively for ChAdOx1. InterpretationBNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 reduce transmission of the Delta variant from breakthrough infections in the household setting though their protection against infection is low. FundingThis study was funded by the UK Health Security Agency (formerly Public Health England) as part of the COVID-19 response.

10.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21266341

ABSTRACT

BackgroundIn September 2021, the UK Government introduced a booster programme targeting individuals over 50 and those in a clinical risk group. Individuals were offered either a full dose of the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine or a half dose of the mRNA-1273 (Spikevax, Moderna) vaccine, irrespective of the vaccine received as the primary course MethodsWe used a test-negative case-control design to estimate the Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) of the booster dose BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) in those aged over 50 against symptomatic disease in post booster time intervals compared to individuals at least 140 days post a second dose with no booster dose recorded. In a secondary analysis, we also compared to unvaccinated individuals and to the 2 to 6 day period after a booster dose was received. Analyses were stratified by which primary doses had been received and any mixed primary courses were excluded. ResultsThe relative VE estimate in the 14 days after the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) booster dose, compared to individuals that received a two-dose primary course, was 87.4 (95% confidence interval 84.9-89.4) in those individuals who received two doses ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca) as a primary course and 84.4 (95% confidence interval 82.8-85.8) in those individuals who received two doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) as a primary course. Using the 2-6 day period post the booster dose as the baseline gave similar results. The absolute VE from 14 days after the booster, using the unvaccinated baseline, was 93.1(95% confidence interval 91.7-94.3) in those with ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria, AstraZeneca) as their primary course and 94.0 (93.4-94.6) for BNT162b2 (Comirnaty, Pfizer-BioNTech) as their primary course. ConclusionsOur study provides real world evidence of significant increased protection from the booster vaccine dose against symptomatic disease in those aged over 50 year of age irrespective of which primary course was received.

11.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21265497

ABSTRACT

1.In March 2020, the Rare and Imported Pathogens Laboratory at Public Health England, Porton Down, was tasked by the Department of Health and Social Care with setting up a national surveillance laboratory facility to study SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses and population-level sero-surveillance in response to the growing SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. In the following 12 months, the laboratory tested more than 160,000 samples, facilitating a wide range of research and informing PHE, DHSC and UK government policy. Here we describe the implementation and use of the Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and provide an extended evaluation of its performance. We present a markedly improved sensitivity of 91.39% ([≥]14 days 92.74%, [≥]21 days 93.59%) compared to our small-scale early study, and a specificity of 98.56%. In addition, we detail extended characteristics of the Euroimmun assay: intra- and inter-assay precision, correlation to neutralisation and assay linearity.

12.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21263578

ABSTRACT

In England, the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) has been used to deliver COVID-19 vaccinations across England, monitor vaccine coverage, and assess vaccine effectiveness and safety. The NIMS was developed by a joint collaboration between a range of health and digital government agencies. Vaccinations delivered at large vaccination sites, pharmacies, hospitals and in primary care are entered on a point of care application which is verified using the unique NHS number in a centralised system containing information for everyone resident and registered with a GP in England. Vaccination details and additional data from hospital and GP records (such as priority groups) are sent to NHS Digital for data linkage. The NIMS constantly receives updated details from NHS Digital for all individuals and these data are provided to Public Health England (PHE) in a secure environment. PHE primarily use the NIMS for vaccine coverage, vaccine effectiveness and safety. Daily access to individual-level vaccine data has allowed PHE to rapidly and accurately estimate vaccine coverage and provide some of the worlds first vaccine effectiveness estimates. Other countries evaluating the roll-out and effect of COVID-19 vaccine programmes should consider a vaccine register or immunisation information system similar to the NIMS.

13.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21263583

ABSTRACT

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines have been used for 9 months in the UK. Real world data have demonstrated the vaccines to be highly effective against COVID-19, severe disease and death. Here, we estimate vaccine effectiveness over time since the second dose of Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax in England. MethodsWe used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and mortality by age, comorbidity status and over time after the second dose to investigate waning separately for Alpha and Delta variants. ResultsVaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease peaked in the early weeks after the second dose and then fell to 47.3 (95% CI 45 to 49.6) and 69.7 (95% CI 68.7 to 70.5) by 20+ weeks against the Delta variant for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty, respectively. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was greater for 65+ year-olds compared to 40-64 year-olds. Vaccine effectiveness fell less against hospitalisations to 77.0 (70.3 to 82.3) and 92.7 (90.3 to 94.6) beyond 20 weeks post-vaccination and 78.7 (95% CI 52.7 to 90.4) and 90.4 (95% CI 85.1 to 93.8) against death for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty, respectively. Greater waning was observed among 65+ year-olds in a clinically extremely vulnerable group and 40-64-year olds with underlying medical conditions compared to healthy adults. ConclusionsWe observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death more than 20 weeks post-vaccination with Vaxzevria or Comirnaty. Waning was greater in older adults and those in a clinical risk group, suggesting that these individuals should be prioritised for booster doses.

14.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21262422

ABSTRACT

ObjectiveTo determine characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage among individuals aged 50 years and above in England since the beginning of the programme. DesignObservational cross-sectional study assessed by logistic regression and mean prevalence margins. SettingCOVID-19 vaccinations delivered in England from 08 December 2020 - 17 May 2021. Participants30,624,257/ 61,967,781 (49.4%) and 17,360,045/ 61,967,781 (28.1%) individuals in England were recorded as vaccinated in the National Immunisation Management System with a first dose and a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, respectively. InterventionsVaccination status with COVID-19 vaccinations. Main Outcome MeasuresProportion, adjusted odds ratios and mean prevalence margins for individuals not vaccinated with dose 1 among those aged 50-69 years old and dose 1 and 2 among those aged 70 years old and above. ResultsAmong individuals aged 50 years and above, Black/African/Caribbean ethnic group was the least likely of all ethnic groups to be vaccinated with dose 1 of the COVID-19 vaccine. However, among those aged 70 years and above, the odds of not having dose 2 was 5.53 (95% CI 5.42 to 5.63) and 5.36 (90% CI 5.29 to 5.43) greater among Pakistani and Black/African/Caribbean compared to White British ethnicity, respectively. The odds of not receiving dose 2 was 1.18 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.20) higher among individuals who lived in a care home compared to those who did not. This was the opposite to that observed for dose 1, where the odds of not being vaccinated was significantly higher among those not living in a care home (0.89 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.91)). ConclusionsWe found that there are characteristics associated with low COVID-19 vaccine coverage. Inequalities, such as ethnicity are a major contributor to suboptimal coverage and tailored interventions are required to improve coverage and protect the population from SARS-CoV-2. Article summaryO_ST_ABSStrengths and Limitations of this studyC_ST_ABSO_LIThis is the is the first study assessing characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage for all individuals aged 50 years and above in England. C_LIO_LIThis study uses data from the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) which is based on all individuals in England with a registered NHS number. C_LIO_LIThis centralised national system captures individual level data for both vaccination status and demographic characteristics and allows for linkage to other datasets such as health care worker and care home resident status. C_LIO_LIThis study does not include those without an NHS number and, therefore, it is possible we have underestimated the number of vaccines delivered and odds of not being vaccinated for characteristics such as ethnic groups where we have seen the greatest impact. C_LIO_LIResidual errors in data entry on the point of care apps at the vaccination sites may have also occurred, though these errors are not likely to be widespread. C_LI

15.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21260121

ABSTRACT

Seroepidemiological studies to monitor antibody kinetics are important for assessing the extent and spread of SARS-CoV-2 in a population. Non-invasive sampling methods are advantageous to reduce the need for venepuncture, which may be a barrier to investigations particularly in paediatric populations. Oral Fluids are obtained by gingiva-crevicular sampling from children and adults and are very well accepted. ELISA based on these samples have acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to conventional serum-based antibody ELISAs and are suitable for population-based surveillance. We describe the development and evaluation of SARS-COV-2 IgG ELISAs using SARS-CoV-2 viral nucleoprotein (NP) and spike (S) proteins in IgG isotype capture format and an indirect receptor-binding-domain (RBD) IgG ELISA, intended for use in children. All three assays were assessed using a panel of 1999 paired serum and oral fluids from children and adults participating in national primary school SARS-CoV-2 surveillance studies during and after the first and second pandemic wave in the UK. The anti NP IgG capture assay was the best candidate, with an overall sensitivity of 75% (95% CI: 71-79%) specificity of 99% (95% CI: 78-99%) when compared with paired serum antibodies measured using a commercial assay SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein IgG assay (Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA). Higher sensitivity was observed in children (80%, 95% CI: 71-88%) compared to adults (67%, CI: 60%-74%). Oral fluid assays using spike protein and RBD antigens were also 99% specific and achieved reasonable but lower sensitivity in the target population (78%, 95% CI (68%-86%) and 53%, 95% CI (43%-64%), respectively). Conclusion statementOral Fluid assays based on the detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are a suitable tool for population based seroepidemiology studies in children.

16.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21257658

ABSTRACT

BackgroundThe B.1.617.2 COVID-19 variant has contributed to the surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the UK. We estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines against this variant. MethodsA test negative case control design was used to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease with both variants over the period that B.1.617.2 began circulating with cases identified based on sequencing and S-gene target status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of COVID-19 in England was used to estimate the proportion of cases with B.1.617.2 compared to the predominant strain (B.1.1.7) by vaccination status. ResultsEffectiveness was notably lower after 1 dose of vaccine with B.1.617.2 cases 33.5% (95%CI: 20.6 to 44.3) compared to B.1.1.7 cases 51.1% (95%CI: 47.3 to 54.7) with similar results for both vaccines. With BNT162b2 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 93.4% (95%CI: 90.4 to 95.5) with B.1.1.7 to 87.9% (95%CI: 78.2 to 93.2) with B.1.617.2. With ChAdOx1 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 66.1% (95% CI: 54.0 to 75.0) with B.1.1.7 to 59.8% (95%CI: 28.9 to 77.3) with B.1.617.2. Sequenced cases detected after 1 or 2 doses of vaccination had a higher odds of infection with B.1.617.2 compared to unvaccinated cases (OR 1.40; 95%CI: 1.13-1.75). ConclusionsAfter 2 doses of either vaccine there were only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness with the B.1.617.2 variant. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked with dose 1. This would support maximising vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable groups.

17.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21257218

ABSTRACT

We estimated risk of death in vaccinated compared to unvaccinated COVID-19 cases. Cases vaccinated with 1 dose of BNT162b2 had 44% reduced risk of death, 55% with 1 dose of ChAdOx1, and 69% with 2 doses of BNT162b2. This is on top of the protection provided against becoming a case.

18.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21253633

ABSTRACT

BackgroundMost individuals with COVID-19 will recover without sequelae, but some will develop long-term multi-system impairments. The definition, duration, prevalence and symptoms associated with long COVID, however, have not been established. MethodsPublic Health England (PHE) initiated longitudinal surveillance of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers for monthly assessment and blood sampling for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in March 2020. Eight months after enrolment, participants completed an online questionnaire including 72 symptoms in the preceding month. Symptomatic mild-to-moderate cases with confirmed COVID-19 were compared with asymptomatic, seronegative controls. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent symptoms associated with long COVID. FindingsAll 2,147 participants were contacted and 1,671 (77.8%) completed the questionnaire, including 140 (8.4%) cases and 1,160 controls. At a median of 7.5 (IQR 7.1-7.8) months after infection, 20 cases (14.3%) had ongoing (4/140, 2.9%) or episodic (16/140, 11.4%) symptoms. We identified three clusters of symptoms associated with long COVID, those affecting the sensory (ageusia, anosmia, loss of appetite and blurred vision), neurological (forgetfulness, short-term memory loss and confusion/brain fog) and cardiorespiratory (chest tightness/pain, unusual fatigue, breathlessness after minimal exertion/at rest, palpitations) systems. The sensory cluster had the highest association with being a case (aOR 5.25, 95% CI 3.45-8.01). Dermatological, gynaecological, gastrointestinal or mental health symptoms were not significantly different between cases and controls. InterpretationMost persistent symptoms reported following mild COVID-19 were equally common in cases and controls. While all three clusters identified had a strong association with cases, the sensory cluster had the highest specificity and strength of association, and therefore, most likely to be characteristic of long COVID. FundingPHE. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWe searched PubMed using search terms "long covid*" OR "post COVID*" in adults for studies including cohort, case reports, randomised control trials, cross-sectional and systematic reviews published up to 12 March 2020 without any language restrictions. Most reports included a small number of cases. Larger studies included very specific cohorts, including hospitalised cases and self-selected participants with COVID-19. A systematic review identified 15 studies and, using a broad case definition, concluded that 80% (95% CI 65-92) of patients with SARS-CoV-2 developed one or more long-term symptoms. The five most common symptoms were fatigue (58%), headache (44%), attention disorder (27%), hair loss (25%), and dyspnea (24%), but no assessment was made of these symptoms in uninfected adults. Added value of this studyIn a prospective, longitudinal cohort of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers recruited at the start of the pandemic, we found that most self-reported symptoms were as common in 140 adults who developed mild-to-moderate COVID-19 more than 6 months previously compared to 1,160 controls who were asymptomatic and SARS-CoV-2 antibody negative throughout the surveillance period. Compared to controls, we identified three clusters of symptoms affecting the sensory, neurological and cardiorespiratory systems that were more prevalent among cases. Notably, symptoms affecting other organ systems were as prevalent among cases as controls. The high proportion of cases and controls reporting mental health symptoms highlights the toll that the pandemic has had on healthcare workers Implications of all the available evidenceOur findings highlight the importance of including a representative cohort of cases to assess long-term outcomes of COVID-19 as well as appropriate controls to estimate the relative prevalence of self-reported symptoms to accurately define this new syndrome. Our study adds to the evidence-base for long COVID in adults with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 who contribute to the vast majority of 120+ million infections worldwide. This information is not only important for clinicians, patients and the public, but also for policy makers and healthcare providers who are investing heavily in long-term provisions for COVID-19 survivors.

19.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-21252652

ABSTRACT

ObjectivesTo estimate the real-world effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and Astrazeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine against Confirmed COVID-19, hospitalisations and deaths. To estimate effectiveness on the UK variant of concern. DesignTest negative case control design SettingCommunity COVID-19 PCR testing in England ParticipantsAll adults in England aged 70 years and older (over 7.5 million). All COVID-19 testing in the community among eligible individuals who reported symptoms between 8th December 2020 and 19th February 2021 was included in the analysis. InterventionsOne and two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. One dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine. Main outcome measuresSymptomatic PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisations and deaths with COVID-19. ResultsIndividuals aged >=80 years vaccinated with BNT162b2 prior to 4th January, had a higher odds of testing positive in the first 9 days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95%CI 1.23-1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore estimated relative to the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted from 10-13 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 59-78%) from 28-34 days, then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccine effectiveness of 89% (95%CI: 85-93%) was seen. Individuals aged >=70 years vaccinated from 4th January had a similar underlying risk of COVID-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (95%CI 51-69%) from 28-34 days after vaccination then plateaued. With the ChAdOx1 vaccine, vaccine effects were seen from 14-20 days after vaccination reaching an effectiveness of 60% (95%CI 41-73%) from 28-34 days and further increasing to 73% (95%CI 27-90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, cases who had been vaccinated with one dose of BNT162b2 had an additional 43% (95%CI 33-52%) lower risk of emergency hospitalisation and an additional 51% (95%CI 37-62%) lower risk of death. Cases who had been vaccinated with one dose of ChAdOx1 had an additional 37% (95% CI 3-59%) lower risk of emergency hospitalisation. There was insufficient follow-up to assess the effect of ChAdOx1 on mortality due to the later rollout of this vaccine. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, this indicates that a single dose of either vaccine is approximately 80% effective at preventing hospitalisation and a single dose of BNT162b2 is 85% effective at preventing death with COVID-19. ConclusionVaccination with either a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic SARS-CoV2 positive cases in older adults with even greater protection against severe disease. Both vaccines show similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 provides further protection against symptomatic disease but second doses of ChAdOx1 have not yet been rolled out in England. There is a clear effect of the vaccines against the UK variant of concern.

20.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-20189647

ABSTRACT

Background: The potential impact of COVID-19 alongside influenza on morbidity, mortality and health service capacity is a major concern as the Northern Hemisphere winter approaches. This study investigates the interaction between influenza and COVID-19 during the latter part of the 2019-20 influenza season in England. Methods: Individuals tested for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 were extracted from national surveillance systems between 20/01/2020 and 25/04/2020. To estimate influenza infection on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, univariable and multivariable analyses on the odds of SARS-CoV-2 in those who tested positive for influenza compared to those who tested negative for influenza. To assess whether a coinfection was associated with severe SARS-CoV-2 outcome, univariable and multivariable analyses on the odds of death adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity and coinfection status. Findings: The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 68% lower among influenza positive cases, suggesting possible pathogenic competition between the two viruses. Patients with a coinfection had a risk of death of 5.92 (95% CI, 3.21-10.91) times greater than among those with neither influenza nor SARS-CoV-2 suggesting possible synergistic effects in coinfected individuals. The odds of ventilator use or death and ICU admission or death was greatest among coinfection patients showing strong evidence of an interaction effect compared to SARS-CoV-2/influenza acting independently. Interpretation: Cocirculation of these viruses could have a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and health service demand. Testing for influenza alongside SARS-CoV-2 and maximising influenza vaccine uptake should be prioritised to mitigate these risks.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...