Diversity of symptom phenotypes in SARS-CoV-2 community infections observed in multiple large datasets

Variability in case severity and in the range of symptoms experienced has been apparent from the earliest months of the COVID-19 pandemic. From a clinical perspective, symptom variability might indicate various routes/mechanisms by which infection leads to disease, with different routes requiring potentially different treatment approaches. For public health and control of transmission, symptoms in community cases were the prompt on which action such as PCR testing and isolation was taken. However, interpreting symptoms presents challenges, for instance in balancing sensitivity and specificity of individual symptoms with the need to maximise case finding, whilst managing demand for limited resources such as testing. For both clinical and transmission control reasons, we require an approach that allows for the possibility of distinct symptom phenotypes, rather than assuming variability along a single dimension. Here we address this problem by bringing together four large and diverse datasets deriving from routine testing, a population-representative household survey and participatory smartphone surveillance in the United Kingdom. Through use of cutting-edge unsupervised classification techniques from statistics and machine learning, we characterise symptom phenotypes among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive community cases, making comparisons across datasets and by age bands. While we observe separation due to the total number of symptoms experienced by cases, we also see a separation of symptoms into gastrointestinal, respiratory and other types, and different symptom co-occurrence patterns at the extremes of age. In this way, we are able to demonstrate the deep structure of symptoms of COVID-19 without usual biases due to study design.Comment: 52 pages; 25 figure

The plasmidome associated with Gram-negative bloodstream infections: a large-scale observational study using complete plasmid assembliess

Plasmids carry genes conferring antimicrobial resistance and other clinically important traits, and contribute to the rapid dissemination of such genes. Previous studies using complete plasmid assemblies, which are essential for reliable inference, have been small and/or limited to plasmids carrying antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). In this study, we sequenced 1,880 complete plasmids from 738 isolates from bloodstream infections in Oxfordshire, UK. The bacteria had been originally isolated in 2009 (194 isolates) and 2018 (368 isolates), plus a stratified selection from intervening years (176 isolates). We demonstrate that plasmids are largely, but not entirely, constrained to a single host species, although there is substantial overlap between species of plasmid gene-repertoire. Most ARGs are carried by a relatively small number of plasmid groups with biological features that are predictable. Plasmids carrying ARGs (including those encoding carbapenemases) share a putative ‘backbone’ of core genes with those carrying no such genes. These findings suggest that future surveillance should, in addition to tracking plasmids currently associated with clinically important genes, focus on identifying and monitoring the dissemination of high-risk plasmid groups with the potential to rapidly acquire and disseminate these genes

Ct threshold values, a proxy for viral load in community SARS-CoV-2 cases, demonstrate wide variation across populations and over time.

BACKGROUND: Information on SARS-CoV-2 in representative community surveillance is limited, particularly cycle threshold (Ct) values (a proxy for viral load). METHODS: We included all positive nose and throat swabs 26 April 2020 to 13 March 2021 from the UK's national COVID-19 Infection Survey, tested by RT-PCR for the N, S, and ORF1ab genes. We investigated predictors of median Ct value using quantile regression. RESULTS: Of 3,312,159 nose and throat swabs, 27,902 (0.83%) were RT-PCR-positive, 10,317 (37%), 11,012 (40%), and 6550 (23%) for 3, 2, or 1 of the N, S, and ORF1ab genes, respectively, with median Ct = 29.2 (~215 copies/ml; IQR Ct = 21.9-32.8, 14-56,400 copies/ml). Independent predictors of lower Cts (i.e. higher viral load) included self-reported symptoms and more genes detected, with at most small effects of sex, ethnicity, and age. Single-gene positives almost invariably had Ct > 30, but Cts varied widely in triple-gene positives, including without symptoms. Population-level Cts changed over time, with declining Ct preceding increasing SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Of 6189 participants with IgG S-antibody tests post-first RT-PCR-positive, 4808 (78%) were ever antibody-positive; Cts were significantly higher in those remaining antibody negative. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variation in community SARS-CoV-2 Ct values suggests that they could be a useful epidemiological early-warning indicator. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care, National Institutes of Health Research, Huo Family Foundation, Medical Research Council UK; Wellcome Trust

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey

Background: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. Methods: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated cross-sectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. Findings: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280 327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29–0·54) to 0·06% (0·04–0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17–24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17–24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45–68%, dependent on calendar time. Interpretation: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards. Funding: Department of Health and Social Care

Effect of Delta variant on viral burden and vaccine effectiveness against new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK

The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines against new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections requires continuous re-evaluation, given the increasingly dominant B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant. In this study, we investigated the effectiveness of these vaccines in a large, community-based survey of randomly selected households across the United Kingdom. We found that the effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 against infections (new polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive cases) with symptoms or high viral burden is reduced with the B.1.617.2 variant (absolute difference of 10–13% for BNT162b2 and 16% for ChAdOx1) compared to the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) variant. The effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection. The dynamics of immunity after second doses differed significantly between BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1, with greater initial effectiveness against new PCR-positive cases but faster declines in protection against high viral burden and symptomatic infection with BNT162b2. There was no evidence that effectiveness varied by dosing interval, but protection was higher in vaccinated individuals after a prior infection and in younger adults. With B.1.617.2, infections occurring after two vaccinations had similar peak viral burden as those in unvaccinated individuals. SARS-CoV-2 vaccination still reduces new infections, but effectiveness and attenuation of peak viral burden are reduced with B.1.617.2

Tracking the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 alpha variant in the United Kingdom

No abstract available

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey

Background: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. Methods: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated crosssectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. Findings: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29–0·54) to 0·06% (0·04–0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17–24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17–24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45–68%, dependent on calendar time. Interpretation: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards

COVID-19 vaccination, risk-compensatory behaviours, and contacts in the UK

The physiological effects of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) are well documented, yet the behavioural effects not well known. Risk compensation suggests that gains in personal safety, as a result of vaccination, are offset by increases in risky behaviour, such as socialising, commuting and working outside the home. This is potentially important because transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by contacts, which could be amplified by vaccine-related risk compensation. Here, we show that behaviours were overall unrelated to personal vaccination, but—adjusting for variation in mitigation policies—were responsive to the level of vaccination in the wider population: individuals in the UK were risk compensating when rates of vaccination were rising. This effect was observed across four nations of the UK, each of which varied policies autonomously

Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in 45,965 adults from the general population of the United Kingdom

We report that in a cohort of 45,965 adults, who were receiving either the ChAdOx1 or the BNT162b2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, in those who had no prior infection with SARS-CoV-2, seroconversion rates and quantitative antibody levels after a single dose were lower in older individuals, especially in those aged >60 years. Two vaccine doses achieved high responses across all ages. Antibody levels increased more slowly and to lower levels with a single dose of ChAdOx1 compared with a single dose of BNT162b2, but waned following a single dose of BNT162b2 in older individuals. In descriptive latent class models, we identified four responder subgroups, including a ‘low responder’ group that more commonly consisted of people aged >75 years, males and individuals with long-term health conditions. Given our findings, we propose that available vaccines should be prioritized for those not previously infected and that second doses should be prioritized for individuals aged >60 years. Further data are needed to better understand the extent to which quantitative antibody responses are associated with vaccine-mediated protection

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection during multiple Omicron variant waves in the UK general population

SARS-CoV-2 reinfections increased substantially after Omicron variants emerged. Large-scale community-based comparisons across multiple Omicron waves of reinfection characteristics, risk factors, and protection afforded by previous infection and vaccination, are limited. Here we studied ~45,000 reinfections from the UK’s national COVID-19 Infection Survey and quantified the risk of reinfection in multiple waves, including those driven by BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5, and BQ.1/CH.1.1/XBB.1.5 variants. Reinfections were associated with lower viral load and lower percentages of self-reporting symptoms compared with first infections. Across multiple Omicron waves, estimated protection against reinfection was significantly higher in those previously infected with more recent than earlier variants, even at the same time from previous infection. Estimated protection against Omicron reinfections decreased over time from the most recent infection if this was the previous or penultimate variant (generally within the preceding year). Those 14–180 days after receiving their most recent vaccination had a lower risk of reinfection than those >180 days from their most recent vaccination. Reinfection risk was independently higher in those aged 30–45 years, and with either low or high viral load in their most recent previous infection. Overall, the risk of Omicron reinfection is high, but with lower severity than first infections; both viral evolution and waning immunity are independently associated with reinfection