ABSTRACT
BackgroundIdentifying and testing individuals likely to have SARS-CoV-2 is critical for infection control, including post-vaccination. Vaccination is a major public health strategy to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection globally. Some individuals experience systemic symptoms post-vaccination, which overlap with COVID-19 symptoms. This study compared early post-vaccination symptoms in individuals who subsequently tested positive or negative for SARS-CoV-2, using data from the COVID Symptom Study (CSS) app. DesignWe conducted a prospective observational study in UK CSS participants who were asymptomatic when vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) or Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) between 8 December 2020 and 17 May 2021, who subsequently reported symptoms within seven days (other than local symptoms at injection site) and were tested for SARS-CoV-2, aiming to differentiate vaccination side-effects per se from superimposed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The post-vaccination symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 test results were contemporaneously logged by participants. Demographic and clinical information (including comorbidities) were also recorded. Symptom profiles in individuals testing positive were compared with a 1:1 matched population testing negative, including using machine learning and multiple models including UK testing criteria. FindingsDifferentiating post-vaccination side-effects alone from early COVID-19 was challenging, with a sensitivity in identification of individuals testing positive of 0.6 at best. A majority of these individuals did not have fever, persistent cough, or anosmia/dysosmia, requisite symptoms for accessing UK testing; and many only had systemic symptoms commonly seen post-vaccination in individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 (headache, myalgia, and fatigue). InterpretationPost-vaccination side-effects per se cannot be differentiated from COVID-19 with clinical robustness, either using symptom profiles or machine-derived models. Individuals presenting with systemic symptoms post-vaccination should be tested for SARS-CoV-2, to prevent community spread. FundingZoe Limited, UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Wellcome Trust, UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council and British Heart Foundation, Alzheimers Society, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness (MassCPR). Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThere are now multiple surveillance platforms internationally interrogating COVID-19 and/or post-vaccination side-effects. We designed a study to examine for differences between vaccination side-effects and early symptoms of COVID-19. We searched PubMed for peer-reviewed articles published between 1 January 2020 and 21 June 2021, using keywords: "COVID-19" AND "Vaccination" AND ("mobile application" OR "web tool" OR "digital survey" OR "early detection" OR "Self-reported symptoms" OR "side-effects"). Of 185 results, 25 studies attempted to differentiate symptoms of COVID-19 vs. post-vaccination side-effects; however, none used artificial intelligence (AI) technologies ("machine learning") coupled with real-time data collection that also included comprehensive and systematic symptom assessment. Additionally, none of these studies attempt to discriminate the early signs of infection from side-effects of vaccination (specifically here: Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and Oxford-AstraZeneca adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19)). Further, none of these studies sought to provide comparisons with current testing criteria used by healthcare services. Added value of this studyThis study, in a uniquely large community-based cohort, uses prospective data capture in a novel effort to identify individuals with COVID-19 in the immediate post-vaccination period. Our results show that early symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 cannot be differentiated from vaccination side-effects robustly. Thus, post-vaccination systemic symptoms should not be ignored, and testing should be considered to prevent COVID-19 dissemination by vaccinated individuals. Implications of all the available evidenceOur study demonstrates the critical importance of testing symptomatic individuals - even if vaccinated - to ensure early detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, helping to prevent future pandemic waves in the UK and elsewhere.
ABSTRACT
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
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
BackgroundIn children, SARS-CoV-2 is usually asymptomatic or causes a mild illness of short duration. Persistent illness has been reported; however, its prevalence and characteristics are unclear. We aimed to determine illness duration and characteristics in symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2 using data from the COVID Symptom Study, the largest UK citizen participatory epidemiological study to date. MethodsData from 258,790 children aged 5-17 years were reported by an adult proxy between 24 March 2020 and 22 February 2021. Illness duration and symptom profiles were analysed for all children testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 for whom illness duration could be determined, considered overall and within younger (5-11 years) and older (12-17 years) groups. Data from symptomatic children testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, matched 1:1 for age, gender, and week of testing, were also assessed. Findings1,734 children (588 younger, 1,146 older children) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and calculable illness duration within the study time frame. The commonest symptoms were headache (62.2%) and fatigue (55.0%). Median illness duration was six days (vs. three days in children testing negative), and was positively associated with age (rs 0.19, p<1.e-4) with median duration of seven days in older vs. five days in younger children. Seventy-seven (4.4%) children had illness duration [≥]28 days (LC28), more commonly experienced by older vs. younger children (59 (5.1%) vs. 18 (3.1%), p=0.046). The commonest symptoms experienced by these children were fatigue (84%), headache (80%) and anosmia (80%); however, by day 28 the symptom burden was low (median, two). Only 25 (1.8%) of 1,379 children experienced symptoms for [≥]56 days. Few children (15 children, 0.9%) in the negatively-tested cohort experienced prolonged symptom duration; however, these children experienced greater symptom burden (both throughout their illness and at day 28) than children positive for SARS-CoV-2. InterpretationSome children with COVID-19 experience prolonged illness duration. Reassuringly, symptom burden in these children did not increase with time, and most recovered by day 56. Some children who tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 also had persistent and burdensome illness. A holistic approach for all children with persistent illness during the pandemic is appropriate. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSARS-CoV-2 in children is usually asymptomatic or manifests as a mild illness of short duration. Concerns have been raised regarding prolonged illness in children, with no clear resolution of symptoms several weeks after onset, as is observed in some adults. How common this might be in children, the clinical features of such prolonged illness in children, and how it might compare with illnesses from other respiratory viruses (and with general population prevalence of these symptoms) is unclear. Added value of this studyWe provide systematic description of COVID-19 in UK school-aged children. Our data, collected in a digital surveillance platform through one of the largest UK citizen science initiatives, show that long illness duration after SARS-CoV-2 infection in school-aged children does occur, but is uncommon, with only a small proportion of children experiencing illness duration beyond four weeks; and the symptom burden in these children usually decreases over time. Almost all children have symptom resolution by eight weeks, providing reassurance about long-term outcomes. Additionally, symptom burden in children with long COVID was not greater than symptom burden in children with long illnesses due to causes other than SARS-CoV-2 infection. Implications of all the available evidenceOur data confirm that COVID-19 in UK school-aged children is usually of short duration and of low symptom burden. Some children do experience longer illness duration, validating their experience; however, most of these children usually recover with time. Our findings highlight that appropriate resources will be necessary for any child with prolonged illness, whether due to COVID-19 or other illness. Our study provides timely and critical data to inform discussions around the impact and implications of the pandemic on paediatric healthcare resource allocation.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
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.
