Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 in UK school-aged children and young people decreases infection rates and reduces COVID-19 symptoms

BackgroundWe aimed to explore the effectiveness of one-dose BNT162b2 vaccination upon SARS-CoV-2 infection, its effect on COVID-19 presentation, and post-vaccination symptoms in children and young people (CYP) in the UK during periods of Delta and Omicron variant predominance. MethodsIn this prospective longitudinal cohort study, we analysed data from 115,775 CYP aged 12-17 years, proxy-reported through the Covid Symptom Study (CSS) smartphone application. We calculated post-vaccination infection risk after one dose of BNT162b2, and described the illness profile of CYP with post-vaccination SARS- CoV-2 infection, compared to unvaccinated CYP, and post-vaccination side-effects. FindingsBetween August 5, 2021 and February 14, 2022, 25,971 UK CYP aged 12-17 years received one dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. Vaccination reduced (proxy-reported) infection risk (-80{middle dot}4% and -53{middle dot}7% at 14-30 days with Delta and Omicron variants respectively, and -61{middle dot}5% and -63{middle dot}7% after 61-90 days). The probability of remaining infection-free diverged soon after vaccination, and was greater in CYP with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccinated CYP who contracted SARS-CoV-2 during the Delta period had milder disease than unvaccinated CYP; during the Omicron period this was only evident in children aged 12-15 years. Overall disease profile was similar in both vaccinated and unvaccinated CYP. Post-vaccination local side-effects were common, systemic side-effects were uncommon, and both resolved quickly. InterpretationOne dose of BNT162b2 vaccine reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 90 days in CYP aged 12-17 years. Vaccine protection varied for SARS-CoV-2 variant type (lower for Omicron than Delta variant), and was enhanced by pre-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection. Severity of COVID-19 presentation after vaccination was generally milder, although unvaccinated CYP also had generally mild disease. Overall, vaccination was well-tolerated. FundingUK Government Department of Health and Social Care, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, The 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, and ZOE Limited. Research in context Evidence before this studyWe searched PubMed database for peer-reviewed articles and medRxiv for preprint papers, published between January 1, 2021 and February 15, 2022 using keywords ("SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19") AND (child* OR p?ediatric* OR teenager*) AND ("vaccin*" OR "immunization campaign") AND ("efficacy" OR "effectiveness" OR "symptoms") AND ("delta" or "omicron" OR "B.1.617.2" OR "B.1.1.529"). The PubMed search retrieved 36 studies, of which fewer than 30% specifically investigated individuals <18 years. Eleven studies explored SARS-CoV-2 viral transmission: seroprevalence in children (n=4), including age-dependency of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=1), SARS-CoV-2 transmission in schools (n=5), and the effect of school closure on viral transmission (n=1). Eighteen documents reported clinical aspects, including manifestation of infection (n=13), symptomatology, disease duration, and severity in children. Other studies estimated emergency department visits, hospitalization, need for intensive care, and/or deaths in children (n=4), and explored prognostic factors (n=1). Thirteen studies explored vaccination-related aspects, including vaccination of children within specific paediatric co-morbidity groups (e.g., children with Down syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, and cancer survivors, n=4), mRNA vaccine efficacy in children and adolescents from the general population (n=7), and the relation between vaccination and severity of disease and hospitalization cases (n=2). Four clinical trials were conducted using mRNA vaccines in minors, also exploring side effects. Sixty percent of children were found to have side effects after BNT162b2 vaccination, and especially after the second dose; however, most symptoms were mild and transient apart from rare uncomplicated skin ulcers. Two studies focused on severe adverse effects and safety of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in children, reporting on myocarditis episodes and two cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome. All other studies were beyond the scope of our research. Added value of this studyWe assessed multiple components of the UK vaccination campaign in a cohort of children and young people (CYP) aged 12-17 years drawn from a large UK community-based citizen-science study, who received a first dose of BNT162b2 vaccine. We describe a variant-dependent protective effect of the first dose against both Delta and Omicron, with additional protective effect of pre-vaccination SARS- CoV-2 infection on post-vaccination re-infection. We compare the illness profile in CYP infected post-vaccination with that of unvaccinated CYP, demonstrating overall milder disease with fewer symptoms for vaccinated CYP. We describe local and systemic side-effects during the first week following first-dose vaccination, confirming that local symptoms are common, systemic symptoms uncommon, and both usually transient. Implications of all the available evidenceOur data confirm that first dose BNT162b2 vaccination in CYP reduces risk of infection by SARS-CoV-2 variants, with generally local and brief side-effects. If infected after vaccination, COVID-19 is milder, if manifest at all. The study aims to contribute quantitative evidence to the risk-benefit evaluation of vaccination in CYP to inform discussion regarding rationale for their vaccination and the designing of national immunisation campaigns for this age group; and applies citizen-science approaches in the conduct of epidemiological surveillance and data collection in the UK community. Importantly, this study was conducted during Delta and Omicron predominance in UK; specificity of vaccine efficacy to variants is also illustrated; and results may not be generalizable to future SARS-CoV-2 strains.

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.

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.

Illness duration and symptom profile in a large cohort of symptomatic UK school-aged children tested for SARS-CoV-2

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.

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.

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.

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

Given the continued burden of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) disease (COVID-19) across the U.S., there is a high unmet need for data to inform decision-making regarding social distancing and universal masking. We examined the association of community-level social distancing measures and individual masking with risk of predicted COVID-19 in a large prospective U.S. cohort study of 198,077 participants. Individuals living in communities with the greatest social distancing had a 31% lower risk of predicted COVID-19 compared with those living in communities with poor social distancing. Self-reported masking was associated with a 63% reduced risk of predicted COVID-19 even among individuals living in a community with poor social distancing. These findings provide support for the efficacy of mask-wearing even in settings of poor social distancing in reducing COVID-19 transmission. In the current environment of relaxed social distancing mandates and practices, universal masking may be particularly important in mitigating risk of infection.

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

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

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

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

Estrogen and COVID-19 symptoms: associations in women from the COVID Symptom Study

BackgroundMen and older women have been shown to be at higher risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes. Animal model studies of SARS-CoV and MERS suggest that the age and sex difference in COVID-19 symptom severity may be due to a protective effect of the female sex hormone estrogen. Females have shown an ability to mount a stronger immune response to a variety of viral infections because of more robust humoral and cellular immune responses. ObjectivesWe sought to determine whether COVID-19 positivity increases in women entering menopause. We also aimed to identify whether premenopausal women taking exogenous hormones in the form of the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) and post-menopausal women taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have lower predicted rates of COVID-19, using our published symptom-based model. DesignThe COVID Symptom Study developed by Kings College London and Zoe Global Limited was launched in the UK on 24th March 2020. It captured self-reported information related to COVID-19 symptoms. Data used for this study included records collected between 7th May - 15th June 2020. Main outcome measuresWe investigated links between COVID-19 rates and 1) menopausal status, 2) COCP use and 3) HRT use, using symptom-based predicted COVID-19, tested COVID-19, and disease severity based on requirement for hospital attendance or respiratory support. ParticipantsFemale users of the COVID Symptom Tracker Application in the UK, including 152,637 women for menopause status, 295,689 for COCP use, and 151,193 for HRT use. Analyses were adjusted for age, smoking and BMI. ResultsPost-menopausal women aged 40-60 years had a higher rate of predicted COVID (P=0.003) and a corresponding range of symptoms, with consistent, but not significant trends observed for tested COVID-19 and disease severity. Women aged 18-45 years taking COCP had a significantly lower predicted COVID-19 (P=8.03E-05), with a reduction in hospital attendance (P=0.023). Post-menopausal women using HRT or hormonal therapies did not exhibit consistent associations, including increased rates of predicted COVID-19 (P=2.22E-05) for HRT users alone. ConclusionsOur findings support a protective effect of estrogen on COVID-19, based on positive association between predicted COVID-19 and menopausal status, and a negative association with COCP use. HRT use was positively associated with COVID-19 symptoms; however, the results should be considered with caution due to lack of data on HRT type, route of administration, duration of treatment, and potential comorbidities. Trial registrationThe App Ethics has been approved by KCL ethics Committee REMAS ID 18210, review reference LRs-19/20-18210

Estimates of the rate of infection and asymptomatic COVID-19 disease in a population sample from SE England

BackgroundUnderstanding of the true asymptomatic rate of infection of SARS-CoV-2 is currently limited, as is understanding of the population-based seroprevalence after the first wave of COVID-19 within the UK. The majority of data thus far come from hospitalised patients, with little focus on general population cases, or their symptoms. MethodsWe undertook enzyme linked immunosorbent assay characterisation of IgM and IgG responses against SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and nucleocapsid protein of 431 unselected general-population participants of the TwinsUK cohort from South-East England, aged 19-86 (median age 48; 85% female). 382 participants completed prospective logging of 14 COVID-19 related symptoms via the COVID Symptom Study App, allowing consideration of serology alongside individual symptoms, and a predictive algorithm for estimated COVID-19 previously modelled on PCR positive individuals from a dataset of over 2 million. FindingsWe demonstrated a seroprevalence of 12% (51participants of 431). Of 48 seropositive individuals with full symptom data, nine (19%) were fully asymptomatic, and 16 (27%) were asymptomatic for core COVID-19 symptoms: fever, cough or anosmia. Specificity of anosmia for seropositivity was 95%, compared to 88% for fever cough and anosmia combined. 34 individuals in the cohort were predicted to be Covid-19 positive using the App algorithm, and of those, 18 (52%) were seropositive. InterpretationSeroprevalence amongst adults from London and South-East England was 12%, and 19% of seropositive individuals with prospective symptom logging were fully asymptomatic throughout the study. Anosmia demonstrated the highest symptom specificity for SARS-CoV-2 antibody response. FundingNIHR BRC, CDRF, ZOE global LTD, RST-UKRI/MRC

Effects of environmental factors on severity and mortality of COVID-19

BackgroundMost respiratory viruses show pronounced seasonality, but for SARS-CoV-2 this still needs to be documented. MethodsWe examined the disease progression of COVID-19 in 6,914 patients admitted to hospitals in Europe and China. In addition, we evaluated progress of disease symptoms in 37,187 individuals reporting symptoms into the COVID Symptom Study application. FindingsMeta-analysis of the mortality risk in eight European hospitals estimated odds ratios per one day increase in the admission date to be 0.981 (0.973-0.988, p<0.001) and per increase in ambient temperature of one degree Celsius to be 0.854 (0.773-0.944, p=0.007). Statistically significant decreases of comparable magnitude in median hospital stay, probability of transfer to Intensive Care Unit and need for mechanical ventilation were also observed in most, but not all hospitals. The analysis of individually reported symptoms of 37,187 individuals in the UK also showed the decrease in symptom duration and disease severity with time. InterpretationSeverity of COVID-19 in Europe decreased significantly between March and May and the seasonality of COVID-19 is the most likely explanation. Mucosal barrier and mucociliary clearance can significantly decrease viral load and disease progression, and their inactivation by low relative humidity of indoor air might significantly contribute to severity of the disease.

Diagnostic value of skin manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 infection

SARS-CoV-2 causes multiple immune-related reactions at various stages of the disease. The wide variety of skin presentations has delayed linking these to the virus. Previous studies had attempted to look at the prevalence and timing of SARS-COV-2 rashes but were based on mostly hospitalized severe cases and had little follow up. Using data collected on a subset of 336,847 eligible UK users of the COVID Symptom Study app, we observed that 8.8% of the swab positive cases (total: 2,021 subjects) reported either a body rash or an acral rash, compared to 5.4% of those with a negative swab test (total: 25,136). Together, these two skin presentations showed an odds ratio (OR) of 1.67 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.41-1.96) for being swab positive. Skin rashes were also predictive in the larger untested group of symptomatic app users (N=54,652), as 8.2% of those who had reported at least one classical COVID-19 symptom, i.e., fever, persistent cough, and/or anosmia, also reported a rash. Data from an independent online survey of 11,546 respondents with a rash showed that in 17% of swab positive cases, the rash was the initial presentation. Furthermore, in 21%, the rash was the only clinical sign. Skin rashes cluster with other COVID-19 symptoms, are predictive of a positive swab test and occur in a significant number of cases, either alone or before other classical symptoms. Recognising rashes is important in identifying new and earlier COVID-19 cases.

Who should we test for COVID-19?A triage model built from national symptom surveys

The gold standard for COVID-19 diagnosis is detection of viral RNA in a reverse transcription PCR test. Due to global limitations in testing capacity, effective prioritization of individuals for testing is essential. Here, we devised a model that estimates the probability of an individual to test positive for COVID-19 based on answers to 9 simple questions regarding age, gender, presence of prior medical conditions, general feeling, and the symptoms fever, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat and loss of taste or smell, all of which have been associated with COVID-19 infection. Our model was devised from a subsample of a national symptom survey that was answered over 2 million times in Israel over the past 2 months and a targeted survey distributed to all residents of several cities in Israel. Overall, 43,752 adults were included, from which 498 self-reported as being COVID-19 positive. We successfully validated the model on held-out individuals from Israel where it achieved a positive predictive value (PPV) of 46.3% at a 10% sensitivity and demonstrated its applicability outside of Israel by further validating it on an independently collected symptom survey dataset from the U.K., U.S. and Sweden, where it achieved a PPV of 34.7% at 10% sensitivity. Moreover, evaluating the models performance on this latter independent dataset on entries collected one week prior to the PCR test and up to the day of the test we found the highest performance on the day of the test. As our tool can be used online and without the need of exposure to suspected patients, it may have worldwide utility in combating COVID-19 by better directing the limited testing resources through prioritization of individuals for testing, thereby increasing the rate at which positive individuals can be identified and isolated.

Current tobacco smoking and risk from COVID-19: results from a population symptom app in over 2.4 million people

BackgroundThe association between current tobacco smoking, the risk of developing COVID-19 and the severity of illness is an important information gap. MethodsUK users of the COVID Symptom Study app provided baseline data including demographics, anthropometrics, smoking status and medical conditions, were asked to log symptoms daily from 24th March 2020 to 23rd April 2020. Participants reporting that they did not feel physically normal were taken through a series of questions, including 14 potential COVID-19 symptoms and any hospital attendance. The main study outcome was the association between current smoking and the development of "classic" symptoms of COVID-19 during the pandemic defined as fever, new persistent cough and breathlessness. The number of concurrent COVID-19 symptoms was used as a proxy for severity. In addition, association of subcutaneous adipose tissue expression of ACE2, both the receptor for SARS-CoV-2 and a potential mediator of disease severity, with smoking status was assessed in a subset of 541 twins from the TwinsUK cohort. ResultsData were available on 2,401,982 participants, mean(SD) age 43.6(15.1) years, 63.3% female, overall smoking prevalence 11.0%. 834,437 (35%) participants reported being unwell and entered one or more symptoms. Current smokers were more likely to develop symptoms suggesting a diagnosis of COVID-19; classic symptoms adjusted OR[95%CI] 1.14[1.10 to 1.18]; >5 symptoms 1.29[1.26 to 1.31]; >10 symptoms 1.50[1.42 to 1.58]. Smoking was associated with reduced ACE2 expression in adipose tissue (Beta(SE)=-0.395(0.149); p=7.01x10-3). InterpretationThese data are consistent with smokers having an increased risk from COVID-19. FundingZoe provided in kind support for all aspects of building, running and supporting the app and service to all users worldwide. The study was also supported by grants from the Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation and British Heart Foundation. RESEARCH IN CONTEXTO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSThe interaction between current smoking and COVID-19 is unclear. Smoking is known to increase susceptibility to viral infections and appears to be associated with worse outcomes in people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. However, case series have reported relatively low levels of current smoking among individuals admitted to hospital with the condition, raising the possibility that smoking has a protective effect against the disease. Added value of this studyData from a large UK population who are users of a symptom reporting app during the pandemic supports the hypothesis that smokers are more likely to develop symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and that they have an increased symptom burden. Implications of all the available evidenceThese population data, combined with evidence of a worse outcome in smokers hospitalised with the condition, support the contention that smoking increases individual risk from COVID-19. Support to help people to quit smoking should therefore form part of efforts to deal with the pandemic.

Risk of symptomatic Covid-19 among frontline healthcare workers

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