SARS-CoV-2 infection and transmission in educational settings : cross-sectional analysis of clusters and outbreaks in England

BACKGROUND: Understanding severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and transmission in educational settings is crucial for ensuring the safety of staff and children during the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks among staff and students in educational settings during the summer half-term (June-July, 2020) in England. METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional analysis, Public Health England initiated enhanced national surveillance in educational settings in England that had reopened after the first national lockdown, from June 1 to July 17, 2020. Educational settings were categorised as early years settings (<5-year-olds), primary schools (5-11-year-olds; only years 1 and 6 allowed to return), secondary schools (11-18-year-olds; only years 10 and 12), or mixed-age settings (spanning a combination of the above). Further education colleges were excluded. Data were recorded in HPZone, an online national database for events that require public health management. RT-PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 event rates and case rates were calculated for staff and students, and direction of transmission was inferred on the basis of symptom onset and testing dates. Events were classified as single cases, coprimary cases (at least two confirmed cases within 48 h, typically within the same household), and outbreaks (at least two epidemiologically linked cases, with sequential cases diagnosed within 14 days in the same educational setting). All events were followed up for 28 days after educational settings closed for the summer holidays. Negative binomial regression was used to correlate educational setting events with regional population, population density, and community incidence. FINDINGS: A median of 38 000 early years settings (IQR 35 500-41 500), 15 600 primary schools (13 450-17 300), and 4000 secondary schools (3700-4200) were open each day, with a median daily attendance of 928 000 students (630 000-1 230 000) overall. There were 113 single cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection, nine coprimary cases, and 55 outbreaks. The risk of an outbreak increased by 72% (95% CI 28-130) for every five cases per 100 000 population increase in community incidence (p<0·0001). Staff had higher incidence than students (27 cases [95% CI 23-32] per 100 000 per day among staff compared with 18 cases [14-24] in early years students, 6·0 cases [4·3-8·2] in primary schools students, and 6·8 cases [2·7-14] in secondary school students]), and most cases linked to outbreaks were in staff members (154 [73%] staff vs 56 [27%] children of 210 total cases). Probable direction of transmission was staff to staff in 26 outbreaks, staff to student in eight outbreaks, student to staff in 16 outbreaks, and student to student in five outbreaks. The median number of secondary cases in outbreaks was one (IQR 1-2) for student index cases and one (1-5) for staff index cases. INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 infections and outbreaks were uncommon in educational settings during the summer half-term in England. The strong association with regional COVID-19 incidence emphasises the importance of controlling community transmission to protect educational settings. Interventions should focus on reducing transmission in and among staff. FUNDING: Public Health England

Adverse Events of Interest Following Influenza Vaccination in the First Season of Adjuvanted Trivalent Immunization:Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective form of prevention of seasonal influenza; the United Kingdom has a national influenza vaccination program to cover targeted population groups. Influenza vaccines are known to be associated with some common minor adverse events of interest (AEIs), but it is not known if the adjuvanted trivalent influenza vaccine (aTIV), first offered in the 2018/2019 season, would be associated with more AEIs than other types of vaccines. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the incidence of AEIs associated with different types of seasonal influenza vaccines offered in the 2018/2019 season. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective cohort study using computerized medical record data from the Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre sentinel network database. We extracted data on vaccine exposure and consultations for European Medicines Agency–specified AEIs for the 2018/2019 influenza season. We used a self-controlled case series design; computed relative incidence (RI) of AEIs following vaccination; and compared the incidence of AEIs associated with aTIV, the quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and the live attenuated influenza vaccine. We also compared the incidence of AEIs for vaccinations that took place in a practice with those that took place elsewhere. RESULTS: A total of 1,024,160 individuals received a seasonal influenza vaccine, of which 165,723 individuals reported a total of 283,355 compatible symptoms in the 2018/2019 season. Most AEIs occurred within 7 days following vaccination, with a seasonal effect observed. Using aTIV as the reference group, the quadrivalent influenza vaccine was associated with a higher incidence of AEIs (RI 1.46, 95% CI 1.41-1.52), whereas the live attenuated influenza vaccine was associated with a lower incidence of AEIs (RI 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.83). No effect of vaccination setting on the incidence of AEIs was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Routine sentinel network data offer an opportunity to make comparisons between safety profiles of different vaccines. Evidence that supports the safety of newer types of vaccines may be reassuring for patients and could help improve uptake in the future

Bias assessment of a test-negative design study of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness used in national policymaking

National test-negative-case-control (TNCC) studies are used to monitor COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in the UK. A questionnaire was sent to participants from the first published TNCC COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness study conducted by the UK Health Security Agency, to assess for potential biases and changes in behaviour related to vaccination. The original study included symptomatic adults aged ≥70 years testing for COVID-19 between 08/12/2020 and 21/02/2021. A questionnaire was sent to cases and controls tested from 1-21 February 2021. In this study, 8648 individuals responded to the questionnaire (36.5% response). Using information from the questionnaire to produce a combined estimate that accounted for all potential biases decreased the original vaccine effectiveness estimate after two doses of BNT162b2 from 88% (95% CI: 79-94%) to 85% (95% CI: 68-94%). Self-reported behaviour demonstrated minimal evidence of riskier behaviour after vaccination. These findings offer reassurance to policy makers and clinicians making decisions based on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness TNCC studies

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 against SARS-CoV-2 household transmission: a prospective cohort study in England

Background: The ability of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines to protect against infection and onward transmission determines whether immunisation can control global circulation. We estimated the effectiveness of Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2) and Oxford AstraZeneca adenovirus vector vaccine (ChAdOx1) vaccines against acquisition and transmission of the Alpha and Delta variants in a prospective household study in England. Methods: Households were recruited based on adult purported index cases testing positive after reverse transcription-quantitative (RT-q)PCR testing of oral-nasal swabs. Purported index cases and their household contacts took oral-nasal swabs on days 1, 3 and 7 after enrolment and a subset of the PCR-positive swabs underwent 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. Results: Between 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 1.53 times the risk (95% Credible Interval: 1.04 – 2.20) of transmission than Alpha; contacts older than 18 years old were 1.48 (1.20 – 1.91) and 1.02 (0.93 – 1.16) times more likely to acquire an Alpha or Delta infection than children. Effectiveness of two doses of BNT162b2 against transmission of Delta was 36% (-1%, 66%) and 49% (18%, 73%) for ChAdOx1, similar to their effectiveness for Alpha. Protection against infection with Alpha was higher than for Delta, 69% (9%, 95%) vs. 18% (-11%, 59%), respectively, for BNT162b2 and 24% (-41%, 72%) vs. 9% (-15%, 42%), respectively, for ChAdOx1.Conclusions: BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 reduce transmission of the Delta variant from breakthrough infections in the household setting, although their protection against infection within this setting is low

Association between COVID-19 Vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Household Contacts of Infected Individuals: A Prospective Household Study in England.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether COVID-19 vaccination reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among adult household contacts of COVID-19 index cases during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron waves in England. METHODS: Between February 2021 and February 2022, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR nasal swabs were collected from COVID-19-confirmed index cases aged ≥20 years and their household contacts at enrolment and three and seven days thereafter. Generalized Estimating Equations models were fitted with SARS-CoV-2 positivity as the outcome and household contacts' vaccination status as the main exposure while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 238/472 household contacts (50.4%) aged ≥20 years. The adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) of infection in vaccinated versus unvaccinated household contacts was 0.50 (0.35-0.72) and 0.69 (0.53-0.90) for receipt of two doses 8-90 and >90 days ago, respectively, and 0.34 (0.23-0.50) for vaccination with three doses 8-151 days ago. Primary vaccination protected household contacts against infection during the Alpha and Delta waves, but only three doses protected during the Omicron wave. Vaccination with three doses in the index case independently reduced contacts' infection risk: 0.45 (0.23-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Vaccination of household contacts reduces their risk of infection under conditions of household exposure though, for Omicron, only after a booster dose

Effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines on covid-19 related symptoms, hospital admissions, and mortality in older adults in England : test negative case-control study

Objective To estimate the real world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths. Design Test negative case-control study. Setting Community testing for covid-19 in England. Participants 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System. Interventions Vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were polymerase chain reaction confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, admissions to hospital for covid-19, and deaths with covid-19. Results Participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19. Conclusion Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death of people in clinical risk groups during the Delta variant period: English primary care network cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against hospitalisation and death following COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates against severe endpoints among individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of critical disease are limited. METHODS: We used English primary care medical record data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre sentinel network (N > 18 million). Data were linked to the National Immunisation Management Service database, Second Generation Surveillance System for virology test data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. We estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against COVID-19 infection followed by hospitalisation and death among individuals in specific clinical risk groups using a cohort design during the delta-dominant period. We also report mortality statistics and results from our antibody surveillance in this population. FINDINGS: aVE against severe endpoints was high, 14-69d following a third dose aVE was 96.4% (95.1%-97.4%) and 97.9% (97.2%-98.4%) for clinically vulnerable people given a Vaxzevria and Comirnaty primary course respectively. Lower aVE was observed in the immunosuppressed group: 88.6% (79.1%-93.8%) and 91.9% (85.9%-95.4%) for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty respectively. Antibody levels were significantly lower among the immunosuppressed group than those not in this risk group across all vaccination types and doses. The standardised case fatality rate within 28 days of a positive test was 3.9/1000 in people not in risk groups, compared to 12.8/1000 in clinical risk groups. Waning aVE with time since 2nd dose was also demonstrated, for example, Comirnaty aVE against hospitalisation reduced from 96.0% (95.1-96.7%) 14-69days post-dose 2-82.9% (81.4-84.2%) 182days+ post-dose 2. INTERPRETATION: In all clinical risk groups high levels of vaccine effectiveness against severe endpoints were seen. Reduced vaccine effectiveness was noted among the immunosuppressed group

Regional employment and individual worklessness during the Great Recession and the health of the working-age population: cross-national analysis of 16 European countries

Studies from single countries suggest that local labour market conditions, including rates of employment, tend to be associated with the health of the populations residing in those areas, even after adjustment for individual characteristics including employment status. The aim of this study is to strengthen the cross-national evidence base on the influence of regional employment levels and individual worklessness on health during the period of the Great Recession. We investigate whether higher regional employment levels are associated with better health over and above individual level employment. Individual level data (N = 23,078 aged 15–64 years) were taken from 16 countries (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom) participating in the 2014 European Social Survey. Regional employment rates were extracted from Eurostat, corresponding with the start (2008) and end (2013) of the Great Recession. Health outcomes included self-reported heart or circulation problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, self-rated health, depression, obesity and allergies (as a falsification test). We calculated multilevel Poisson regression models, which included individuals nested within regions, controlling for potential confounding variables and country fixed effects. After adjustment for individual level socio-demographic factors, higher average regional employment rates (from 2008 to 2013) were associated with better health outcomes. Individual level worklessness was associated with worsened health outcomes, most strongly with poor self-rated health. In models including both individual worklessness and the average regional employment rate, regional employment remained associated with heart and circulation problems, depression and obesity. There was evidence of an interaction between individual worklessness and regional employment for poor self-rated health and depression. The findings suggest that across 16 European countries, for some key outcomes, higher levels of employment in the regional labour market may be beneficial for the health of the local population

UK prevalence of underlying conditions which increase the risk of severe COVID-19 disease: a point prevalence study using electronic health records

AbstractBackgroundThis study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom in 2019.MethodsWe used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to describe the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status.FindingsOn 5 March 2019, 24·4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8·3% of school-aged children, 19·6% of working-aged adults, and 66·2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7·1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1·6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past five years.InterpretationThe population at risk of severe COVID-19 (aged ≥70 years, or with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals.FundingNIHR HPRU in ImmunisationResearch in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched Pubmed for peer-reviewed articles, preprints, and research reports on the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID. We used the terms (1) risk factor or co-morbidity or similar (2) COVID or SARS or similar and (3) prevalence to search for studies aiming to quantify the COVID-19 at-risk UK population published in the previous year to 19 July 2020, with no language restrictions. We found one study which modelled prevalence of risk factors based on the Global Burden of Disease (which included the UK) and one study which estimated that 8.4 million individuals aged ≥30 years in the UK were at risk based on prevalence of a subset of relevant conditions in England. There were no studies which described the complete COVID-19 at-risk population across the UK.Added value of this studyWe used a large, nationally-representative dataset based on electronic health records to estimate prevalence of increased risk of severe COVID-19 across the United Kingdom, including all conditions in national guidance. We stratified by age, sex and region to enable regionally-tailored prediction of COVID-19-related healthcare burden and interventions to reduce transmission of infection, and planning and modelling of vaccination of the at-risk population. We also quantified the value of linked secondary care records to supplement primary care records.Implications of all the available evidenceIndividuals at moderate or high risk of severe COVID-19 according to current national guidance (aged ≥70 years, or with a specified underlying health condition) comprise 18·5 million individuals in the United Kingdom, rather than the 8.43 million previously estimated.The 8·3% of school-aged children and 19·6% of working-aged adults considered at-risk according to national guidance emphasises the need to consider younger at-risk individuals in shielding policies and when re-opening schools and workplaces, but also supports prioritising vaccination based on age and condition-specific mortality risk, rather than targeting all individuals with underlying conditions, who form a large population even among younger age groups.Among individuals aged ≥70 years, 66·2% had at least one underlying health condition, suggesting an age-targeted approach to vaccination may efficiently target individuals at risk of severe COVID-19.These national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates and age-targeted vaccination strategies in other countries.</jats:sec

Serum HCoV-spike specific antibodies do not protect against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and adolescents

SARS-CoV-2 infections in children are generally asymptomatic or mild and rarely progress to severe disease and hospitalization. Why this is so remains unclear. Here we explore the potential for protection due to pre-existing cross-reactive seasonal coronavirus antibodies and compare the rate of antibody decline for nucleocapsid and spike protein in serum and oral fluid against SARS-CoV-2 within the pediatric population. No differences in seasonal coronaviruses antibody concentrations were found at baseline between cases and controls, suggesting no protective effect from pre-existing immunity against seasonal coronaviruses. Antibodies against seasonal betacoronaviruses were boosted in response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. In serum, anti-nucleocapsid antibodies fell below the threshold of positivity more quickly than anti-spike protein antibodies. These findings add to our understanding of protection against infection with SARS-CoV-2 within the pediatric population, which is important when considering pediatric SARS-CoV-2 immunization policies