RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Bivalent original/BA.4-5 and monovalent XBB.1.5 mRNA boosters were offered to UK healthcare workers (HCWs) in the autumn of 2023. We aimed to estimate booster vaccine effectiveness (VE) and post-infection immunity among the SIREN HCW cohort over the subsequent 6-month period of XBB.1.5 and JN.1 variant circulation. METHODS: Between October 2023 to March 2024, 2867 SIREN study participants tested fortnightly for SARS-CoV-2 and completed symptoms questionnaires. We used multi-state models, adjusted for vaccination, prior infection, and demographic covariates, to estimate protection against mild/asymptomatic and moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: Half of the participants (1422) received a booster during October 2023 (280 bivalent, 1142 monovalent), and 536 (19%) had a PCR-confirmed infection over the study period. Bivalent booster VE was 15.1% (-55.4 to 53.6%) at 0-2 months and 4.2% (-46.4 to 37.3%) at 2-4 months post-vaccination. Monovalent booster VE was 44.2% (95% CI 21.7 to 60.3%) at 0-2 months, and 24.1% (-0.7 to 42.9%) at 2-4 months. VE was greater against moderate infection than against mild/asymptomatic infection, but neither booster showed evidence of protection after 4 months. Controlling for vaccination, compared to an infection >2 years prior, infection within the past 6 months was associated with 58.6% (30.3 to 75.4%) increased protection against moderate infection and 38.5% (5.8 to 59.8%) increased protection against mild/asymptomatic infection. CONCLUSIONS: Monovalent XBB.1.5 boosters provided short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, particularly against moderate symptoms. Vaccine formulations that target the circulating variant may be suitable for inclusion in seasonal vaccination campaigns among HCWs.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Personal de Salud , Inmunización Secundaria , SARS-CoV-2 , Eficacia de las Vacunas , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/inmunología , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Masculino , Femenino , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios de Cohortes , Vacunación , Infecciones AsintomáticasRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Following SARS-CoV-2 infection, some patients experience a range of long-lasting symptoms, with a specific burden on their lives and ability to work. AIM: We describe the prevalence and impact of persistent symptoms pre-/post-vaccination in SIREN study participants. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of SARS-CoV-2 positive participants was carried out within SIREN, a frequently tested UK healthcare worker cohort with vaccination and demographic data available. Participants with a SARS-CoV-2 positive PCR or anti-SARS-CoV-2 sample between 01 March 2020 and 31 September 2022 were asked via a questionnaire about symptoms and days absent from work following infection. Responses were excluded if infection dates were inconsistent with study records or missing key data. Symptom type/duration and whether infection occurred pre-/post-vaccination and during which variant period were described. Logistic regression was used to estimate factors associated with persistent symptoms (>12 weeks), adjusting for vaccination and demographic factors. The median days absent from work were also determined. RESULTS: Of 16,599 invitations, 6677 participants responded, and 5053 were included in the analysis. The prevalence of persistent symptoms (symptoms lasting over 12 weeks) differed by infection episode; highest for first infections (32.7%; 1557/4767) compared to second (21.6%; 214/991) and third infections (21.6%; 16/74). Most frequently reported symptoms were fatigue, tiredness, shortness of breath and difficulty concentrating. A higher prevalence of persistent symptoms was reported during the Wild-type variant period compared to the other variant periods (52.9% Wild-type vs. 20.7% Omicron, for any symptom reported during their first infection). Overall, persistent symptoms were higher among unvaccinated participants (unvaccinated 38.1% vs vaccinated 22.0%). Multivariable analysis showed that participants were less likely to report persistent symptoms in infections occurring after vaccination compared to those with an infection before vaccination in the Alpha/Delta and Omicron periods (Alpha/Delta: adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 0.66, CI 95% 0.51-0.87, p = aOR 0.07, CI 95% 0.01-0.65, p = 0.02). About half of participants reported that their persistent symptoms impacted their day-to-day (51.8%) and work-related (42.1%) activities 'a little', and 24.0% and 14.4% reported that the impact was 'A lot'. 8.9% reported they had reduced their working hours, and 13.9% had changed their working pattern. DISCUSSION: Persistent symptoms were frequent in our cohort, and there was a reduction in symptom duration in those with multiple infection episodes during later variant periods and post-vaccination. The impact of persistent symptoms resulting in reducing working hours or adjusting working patterns has important implications for workforce resilience. UK healthcare workers were highly exposed during the pandemic, demonstrating a significant burden.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Personal de Salud , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios Transversales , Masculino , Femenino , Personal de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Prevalencia , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Estudios de Cohortes , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificaciónRESUMEN
Third doses of COVID-19 vaccines were widely deployed following the primary vaccine course waning and the emergence of the Omicron-variant. We investigated protection from third-dose vaccines and previous infection against SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta-variant and Omicron-variant (BA.1 & BA.2) waves in our frequently PCR-tested cohort of healthcare-workers. Relative effectiveness of BNT162b2 third doses and infection-acquired immunity was assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in boosted participants with those with waned dose-2 protection (≥254 days after dose-2), by primary series vaccination type. Follow-up time was divided by dominant circulating variant: Delta 07 September 2021 to 30 November 2021, Omicron 13 December 2021t o 28 February 2022. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment/stratification for demographic characteristics and staff-type. We explored protection associated with vaccination, infection and both. We included 19,614 participants, 29% previously infected. There were 278 primary infections (4 per 10,000 person-days of follow-up) and 85 reinfections (0.8/10,000 person-days) during the Delta period and 2467 primary infections (43/10,000 person-days) and 881 reinfections (33/10,000) during the Omicron period. Relative Vaccine Effectiveness (VE) 0-2 months post-3rd dose (3rd dose) (3-doses BNT162b2) in the previously uninfected cohort against Delta infections was 63% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 40%-77%) and was lower (35%) against Omicron infection (95% CI 21%-47%). The relative VE of 3rd dose (heterologous BNT162b2) was greater for primary course ChAdOX1 recipients, with VE 0-2 months post-3rd dose over ≥68% higher for both variants. Third-dose protection waned rapidly against Omicron, with no significant difference between two and three BNT162b2 doses observed after 4-months. Previous infection continued to provide additional protection against Omicron (67% (CI 56%-75%) 3-6 months post-infection), but this waned to about 25% after 9-months, approximately three times lower than against Delta. Infection rates surged with Omicron emergence. Third doses of BNT162b2 vaccine provided short-term protection, with rapid waning against Omicron infections. Protection associated with infections incurred before Omicron was markedly diminished against the Omicron wave. Our findings demonstrate the complexity of an evolving pandemic with the potential emergence of immune-escape variants and the importance of continued monitoring.
Asunto(s)
Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19 , Humanos , Estudios de Cohortes , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Vacunas de ARNm , Reinfección , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Background: The protection of fourth dose mRNA vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is relevant to current global policy decisions regarding ongoing booster roll-out. We aimed to estimate the effect of fourth dose vaccination, prior infection, and duration of PCR positivity in a highly-vaccinated and largely prior-COVID-19 infected cohort of UK healthcare workers. Methods: Participants underwent fortnightly PCR and regular antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 and completed symptoms questionnaires. A multi-state model was used to estimate vaccine effectiveness (VE) against infection from a fourth dose compared to a waned third dose, with protection from prior infection and duration of PCR positivity jointly estimated. Findings: 1298 infections were detected among 9560 individuals under active follow-up between September 2022 and March 2023. Compared to a waned third dose, fourth dose VE was 13.1% (95% CI 0.9 to 23.8) overall; 24.0% (95% CI 8.5 to 36.8) in the first 2 months post-vaccination, reducing to 10.3% (95% CI -11.4 to 27.8) and 1.7% (95% CI -17.0 to 17.4) at 2-4 and 4-6 months, respectively. Relative to an infection >2 years ago and controlling for vaccination, 63.6% (95% CI 46.9 to 75.0) and 29.1% (95% CI 3.8 to 43.1) greater protection against infection was estimated for an infection within the past 0-6, and 6-12 months, respectively. A fourth dose was associated with greater protection against asymptomatic infection than symptomatic infection, whilst prior infection independently provided more protection against symptomatic infection, particularly if the infection had occurred within the previous 6 months. Duration of PCR positivity was significantly lower for asymptomatic compared to symptomatic infection. Interpretation: Despite rapid waning of protection, vaccine boosters remain an important tool in responding to the dynamic COVID-19 landscape; boosting population immunity in advance of periods of anticipated pressure, such as surging infection rates or emerging variants of concern. Funding: UK Health Security Agency, Medical Research Council, NIHR HPRU Oxford, Bristol, and others.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To investigate serological correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta) infection after two vaccinations. METHODS: We performed a case-control study, where cases were Delta infections after the second vaccine dose and controls were vaccinated, never infected participants, matched by age, gender and region. Sera were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibody levels (anti-S) and neutralising antibody titres (nAbT), using live virus microneutralisation against Ancestral, Delta and Omicron (BA.1, B.1.1.529). We modelled the decay of anti-S and nAbT for both groups, inferring levels at matched calendar times since the second vaccination. We assessed differences in inferred antibody titres between groups and used conditional logistic regression to explore the relationship between titres and odds of infection. RESULTS: In total, 130 sequence-confirmed Delta cases and 318 controls were included. Anti-S and Ancestral nAbT decayed similarly between groups, but faster in cases for Delta nAbT (p = 0.02) and Omicron nAbT (p = 0.002). At seven days before infection, controls had higher anti-S levels (p < 0.0001) and nAbT (p < 0.0001; all variants) at matched calendar time. A two-fold increase in anti-S levels was associated with a 29% ([95% CI 14-42%]; p = 0.001) reduction in odds of Delta infection. Delta nAbT>40 were associated with reduced odds of Delta infection (89%, [69-96%]; p < 0.0001), with additional benefits for titres >100 (p = 0.009) and >400 (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: We have identified correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 Delta, with potential implications for vaccine deployment, development, and public health response.
Asunto(s)
Hepatitis D , Vacunas , Humanos , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes , Vacunación , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
Since June 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study has conducted routine PCR testing in UK healthcare workers and sequenced PCR-positive samples. SIREN detected increases in infections and reinfections and delected Omicron subvariant waves emergence contemporaneous with national surveillance. SIREN's sentinel surveillance methods can be used for variant surveillance.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Animales , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/epidemiología , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Personal de Salud , Reinfección , UrodelosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To investigate serological differences between SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases and contemporary controls, to identify antibody correlates of protection against reinfection. METHODS: We performed a case-control study, comparing reinfection cases with singly infected individuals pre-vaccination, matched by gender, age, region and timing of first infection. Serum samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S), anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (anti-N), live virus microneutralisation (LV-N) and pseudovirus microneutralisation (PV-N). Results were analysed using fixed effect linear regression and fitted into conditional logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 23 cases and 92 controls. First infections occurred before November 2020; reinfections occurred before February 2021, pre-vaccination. Anti-S levels, LV-N and PV-N titres were significantly lower among cases; no difference was found for anti-N levels. Increasing anti-S levels were associated with reduced risk of reinfection (OR 0·63, CI 0·47-0·85), but no association for anti-N levels (OR 0·88, CI 0·73-1·05). Titres >40 were correlated with protection against reinfection for LV-N Wuhan (OR 0·02, CI 0·001-0·31) and LV-N Alpha (OR 0·07, CI 0·009-0·62). For PV-N, titres >100 were associated with protection against Wuhan (OR 0·14, CI 0·03-0·64) and Alpha (0·06, CI 0·008-0·40). CONCLUSIONS: Before vaccination, protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was directly correlated with anti-S levels, PV-N and LV-N titres, but not with anti-N levels. Detectable LV-N titres were sufficient for protection, whilst PV-N titres >100 were required for a protective effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11041050.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Anticuerpos Antivirales , COVID-19/prevención & control , Estudios de Casos y Controles , Humanos , Reinfección/prevención & control , VacunaciónRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To describe the incidence of, risk factors for, and impact of vaccines on primary SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the covid-19 pandemic in susceptible hospital healthcare workers in England. DESIGN: Multicentre prospective cohort study. SETTING: National Health Service secondary care health organisations (trusts) in England between 1 September 2020 and 30 April 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Clinical, support, and administrative staff enrolled in the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study with no evidence of previous infection. Vaccination status was obtained from national covid-19 vaccination registries and self-reported. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction. Mixed effects logistic regression was conducted to determine demographic and occupational risk factors for infection, and an individual based mathematical model was used to predict how large the burden could have been if vaccines had not been available from 8 December 2020 . RESULTS: During England's second wave, 12.9% (2353/18 284) of susceptible SIREN participants became infected with SARS-CoV-2. Infections peaked in late December 2020 and decreased from January 2021, concurrent with the cohort's rapid vaccination coverage and a national lockdown. In multivariable analysis, factors increasing the likelihood of infection in the second wave were being under 25 years old (20.3% (132/651); adjusted odds ratio 1.35, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.69), living in a large household (15.8% (282/1781); 1.54, 1.23 to 1.94, for participants from households of five or more people), having frequent exposure to patients with covid-19 (19.2% (723/3762); 1.79, 1.56 to 2.06, for participants with exposure every shift), working in an emergency department or inpatient ward setting (20.8% (386/1855); 1.76, 1.45 to 2.14), and being a healthcare assistant (18.1% (267/1479); 1.43, 1.16 to 1.77). Time to first vaccination emerged as being strongly associated with infection (P<0.001), with each additional day multiplying a participant's adjusted odds ratio by 1.02. Mathematical model simulations indicated that an additional 9.9% of all patient facing hospital healthcare workers would have been infected were it not for the rapid vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: The rapid covid-19 vaccine rollout from December 2020 averted infection in a large proportion of hospital healthcare workers in England: without vaccines, second wave infections could have been 69% higher. With booster vaccinations being needed for adequate protection from the omicron variant, and perhaps the need for further boosters for future variants, ensuring equitable delivery to healthcare workers is essential. The findings also highlight occupational risk factors that persisted in healthcare workers despite vaccine rollout; a greater understanding of the transmission dynamics responsible for these is needed to help to optimise the infection prevention and control policies that protect healthcare workers from infection and therefore to support staffing levels and maintain healthcare provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11041050.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Vacunas , Adulto , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Modelos Teóricos , Pandemias/prevención & control , Estudios Prospectivos , SARS-CoV-2 , Medicina EstatalRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Understanding the effectiveness and durability of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by previous infection and COVID-19 is essential to inform ongoing management of the pandemic. This study aims to determine whether prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers protects against future infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort study design in staff members working in hospitals in the UK. At enrolment, participants are allocated into cohorts, positive or naïve, dependent on their prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, as measured by standardised SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing on all baseline serum samples and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Participants undergo monthly antibody testing and fortnightly viral RNA testing during follow-up and based on these results may move between cohorts. Any results from testing undertaken for other reasons (eg, symptoms, contact tracing) or prior to study entry will also be captured. Individuals complete enrolment and fortnightly questionnaires on exposures, symptoms and vaccination. Follow-up is 12 months from study entry, with an option to extend follow-up to 24 months.The primary outcome of interest is infection with SARS-CoV-2 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination during the study period. Secondary outcomes include incidence and prevalence (both RNA and antibody) of SARS-CoV-2, viral genomics, viral culture, symptom history and antibody/neutralising antibody titres. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230) on 22 May 2020; the vaccine amendment was approved on 12 January 2021. Participants gave informed consent before taking part in the study.Regular reports to national and international expert advisory groups and peer-reviewed publications ensure timely dissemination of findings to inform decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11041050.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Incidencia , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Estudios Prospectivos , ARN Viral , Reinfección , SARS-CoV-2 , Reino Unido/epidemiología , VacunaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The duration and effectiveness of immunity from infection with and vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are relevant to pandemic policy interventions, including the timing of vaccine boosters. METHODS: We investigated the duration and effectiveness of immunity in a prospective cohort of asymptomatic health care workers in the United Kingdom who underwent routine polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) testing. Vaccine effectiveness (≤10 months after the first dose of vaccine) and infection-acquired immunity were assessed by comparing the time to PCR-confirmed infection in vaccinated persons with that in unvaccinated persons, stratified according to previous infection status. We used a Cox regression model with adjustment for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status, vaccine type and dosing interval, demographic characteristics, and workplace exposure to SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: Of 35,768 participants, 27% (9488) had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine coverage was high: 95% of the participants had received two doses (78% had received BNT162b2 vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech] with a long interval between doses, 9% BNT162b2 vaccine with a short interval between doses, and 8% ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine [AstraZeneca]). Between December 7, 2020, and September 21, 2021, a total of 2747 primary infections and 210 reinfections were observed. Among previously uninfected participants who received long-interval BNT162b2 vaccine, adjusted vaccine effectiveness decreased from 85% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72 to 92) 14 to 73 days after the second dose to 51% (95% CI, 22 to 69) at a median of 201 days (interquartile range, 197 to 205) after the second dose; this effectiveness did not differ significantly between the long-interval and short-interval BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. At 14 to 73 days after the second dose, adjusted vaccine effectiveness among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine recipients was 58% (95% CI, 23 to 77) - considerably lower than that among BNT162b2 vaccine recipients. Infection-acquired immunity waned after 1 year in unvaccinated participants but remained consistently higher than 90% in those who were subsequently vaccinated, even in persons infected more than 18 months previously. CONCLUSIONS: Two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine were associated with high short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection; this protection waned considerably after 6 months. Infection-acquired immunity boosted with vaccination remained high more than 1 year after infection. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency and others; ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11041050.).
Asunto(s)
Inmunidad Adaptativa , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Inmunidad Adaptativa/inmunología , Enfermedades Asintomáticas , Vacuna BNT162/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/prevención & control , Prueba de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/uso terapéutico , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19/uso terapéutico , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Reino Unido , Vacunación/métodos , Eficacia de las VacunasRESUMEN
Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. At this time, trial data were lacking, and we addressed this in a study of United Kingdom healthcare workers. The first vaccine dose induced protection from infection from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant over several weeks. In a substudy of 589 individuals, we show that this single dose induces severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses and a sustained B and T cell response to the spike protein. NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6-14 weeks) compared with the conventional 3- to 4-week regimen, accompanied by enrichment of CD4+ T cells expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection amplified and accelerated the response. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective immunogenic protocol.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/inmunología , Vacunas Sintéticas/inmunología , Adulto , Anciano , Anticuerpos Neutralizantes/inmunología , Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , Vacuna BNT162 , COVID-19/sangre , COVID-19/inmunología , COVID-19/virología , Reactividad Cruzada/inmunología , Relación Dosis-Respuesta Inmunológica , Etnicidad , Femenino , Humanos , Inmunidad , Inmunoglobulina G/inmunología , Modelos Lineales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estándares de Referencia , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Linfocitos T/inmunología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven , Vacunas de ARNmRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. METHODS: A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. FINDINGS: From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13-0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. INTERPRETATION: A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care of the UK Government, Public Health England, The National Institute for Health Research, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales/sangre , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/inmunología , Personal de Salud , Adulto , Infecciones Asintomáticas , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Prueba de Ácido Nucleico para COVID-19 , Inglaterra , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Estudios Prospectivos , Reinfección , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. METHODS: The SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46·1 years (IQR 36·0-54·1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infections 7 days after the second dose (incidence density four infections per 10 000 person-days). In the unvaccinated cohort, 543 (56%) participants had typical COVID-19 symptoms and 140 (14%) were asymptomatic on or 14 days before their PCR positive test date, compared with 29 (36%) with typical COVID-19 symptoms and 15 (19%) asymptomatic in the vaccinated cohort. A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 55-85) 21 days after first dose and 85% (74-96) 7 days after two doses in the study population. INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that the BNT162b2 vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working-age adults. This cohort was vaccinated when the dominant variant in circulation was B1.1.7 and shows effectiveness against this variant. FUNDING: Public Health England, UK Department of Health and Social Care, and the National Institute for Health Research.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19/provisión & distribución , Personal de Salud , Enfermedades Profesionales/prevención & control , Exposición Profesional/prevención & control , ARN Mensajero , Vacuna BNT162 , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Estudios de Cohortes , Inglaterra , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Guidance for public health management of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) in in England recommends the use of antibiotic chemoprophylaxis and vaccination. We summarized clinical and epidemiological data collected during routine management of IMD clusters in England. METHODS: Data on epidemiology and operational decisions for public health management were reviewed for clusters between April 2010 and December 2015. RESULTS: Clusters were generally 2-3 cases (53/58; 91%) within a single age band <18-years. Nurseries (n = 20, 34%), households/social networks (n = 14, 24%) and schools (n = 10, 17%) were the commonest settings. Chemoprophylaxis alone was used in 36 (58%) clusters, including most serogroup B clusters (31/41; 76%). Chemoprophylaxis and vaccination was used in a further 20 (32%) clusters. Vaccine was delivered promptly (<7 days). Four clusters had cases with onset post-chemoprophylaxis; no clusters recorded cases with onset post-vaccination. No pattern was observed between interventions and setting/population at risk, and interventions were consistent with national guidance. Challenges to management included logistical issues related to intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Public health management of IMD clusters presents challenges in decision-making and implementation of interventions. Nonetheless, few cases were observed following intervention. Responses were consistent with national guidance. A systematic data collection tool should be developed to support future evaluation.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones Meningocócicas , Vacunas Meningococicas , Adolescente , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Humanos , Incidencia , Infecciones Meningocócicas/tratamiento farmacológico , Infecciones Meningocócicas/epidemiología , Infecciones Meningocócicas/prevención & control , SerogrupoRESUMEN
There is a need for innovative methods to investigate outbreaks of food-borne infection linked to produce with a complex distribution network. The investigation of a large outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 PT34 infection in the United Kingdom in 2016 indicated that catering venues associated with multiple cases had used salad leaves sourced from one supplier. Our aim was to investigate whether catering venues linked to cases were more likely to have used salad leaves from this supplier. We conducted a matched case-control study, with catering venues as the units of analysis. We compared venues linked to cases to those without known linked cases. We included 43 study pairs and obtained information on salad leaf products received by each venue. The odds of a case venue being supplied with salad leaves by Supplier A were 7.67 times (95% confidence interval: 2.30-25.53) those of control venues. This association provided statistical evidence to support the findings of the other epidemiological investigations undertaken for this outbreak. This is a novel approach which is labour-intensive but which addresses the challenge of investigating exposures to food across a complex distribution network.