Long-Term Health-Related Quality of Life in Non-Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Cases With Confirmed Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection in England: Longitudinal Analysis and Cross-Sectional Comparison With Controls.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to quantify the unknown losses in health-related quality of life of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases using quality-adjusted lifedays (QALDs) and the recommended EQ-5D instrument in England. METHODS: Prospective cohort study of nonhospitalized, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive (SARS-CoV-2-positive) cases aged 12-85 years and followed up for 6 months from 1 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. Main outcomes were QALD losses; physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analyzed results using multivariable regressions with post hoc weighting by age and sex, and conditional logistic regressions for the association of each symptom and EQ-5D limitation on cases and controls. RESULTS: Of 548 cases (mean age 41.1 years; 61.5% female), 16.8% reported physical symptoms at month 6 (most frequently extreme tiredness, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, and shortness of breath). Cases reported more limitations with doing usual activities than controls. Almost half of cases spent a mean of £18.1 on nonprescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7, 17.7) QALDs, whereas those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 32.9 (95% CI: 24.5, 37.6) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 18% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in the England. CONCLUSIONS: One in 6 cases report ongoing symptoms at 6 months, and 10% report prolonged loss of function compared to pre-COVID-19 baselines. A marked health burden was observed among older COVID-19 cases and those with persistent physical symptoms.

Protective effect of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection from reinfection: a matched retrospective cohort study using PCR testing data in England.

The duration of immunity after first severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and the extent to which prior immunity prevents reinfection is uncertain and remains an important question within the context of new variants. This is a retrospective population-based matched observational study where we identified the first polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive of primary SARS-CoV-2 infection case tests between 1 March 2020 and 30 September 2020. Each case was matched by age, sex, upper tier local authority of residence and testing route to one individual testing negative in the same week (controls) by PCR. After a 90-day pre-follow-up period for cases and controls, any subsequent positive tests up to 31 December 2020 and deaths within 28 days of testing positive were identified, this encompassed an essentially vaccine-free period. We used a conditional logistic regression to analyse the results. There were 517 870 individuals in the matched cohort with 2815 reinfection cases and 12 098 first infections. The protective effect of a prior SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episode was 78% (odds ratio (OR) 0.22, 0.21-0.23). Protection rose to 82% (OR 0.18, 0.17-0.19) after a sensitivity analysis excluded 933 individuals with a first test between March and May and a subsequent positive test between June and September 2020. Amongst individuals testing positive by PCR during follow-up, reinfection cases had 77% lower odds of symptoms at the second episode (adjusted OR 0.23, 0.20-0.26) and 45% lower odds of dying in the 28 days after reinfection (adjusted OR 0.55, 0.42-0.71). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection offered protection against reinfection in this population. There was some evidence that reinfections increased with the alpha variant compared to the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 variant highlighting the importance of continued monitoring as new variants emerge.

Post COVID-19 condition, work ability and occupational changes in a population-based cohort.

Background: Evidence on the impact of post COVID-19 condition (PCC) on work ability is limited but critical due to its high prevalence among working-age individuals. This study aimed to evaluate the association between PCC, work ability, and occupational changes in a population-based cohort. Methods: We used data from working-age adults included in a prospective, longitudinal cohort of a random sample of all individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 between August 2020 and January 2021 in the Canton of Zurich, Switzerland. We evaluated current work ability, work ability related to physical and mental demands, and estimated future work ability in 2 years (assessed using Work Ability Index), and PCC-related occupational changes one year after infection. Findings: Of 672 individuals included in this study, 120 (17.9%) were categorised as having PCC (defined as presence of self-reported COVID-19 related symptoms) at 12 months. There was very strong evidence that current work ability scores were mean 0.62 (95% CI 0.30-0.95) points lower among those with PCC compared to those without in adjusted regression analyses. Similarly, there was very strong evidence for lower odds of reporting higher work ability with respect to physical (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.30, 95% CI 0.20-0.46) and mental (aOR 0.40, 0.27-0.62) demands in individuals with PCC. Higher age and history of psychiatric diagnosis were associated with more substantial reductions in current work ability. 5.8% of those with PCC reported direct effects of PCC on their occupational situation, with 1.6% of those with PCC completely dropping out of the workforce. Interpretation: These findings highlight the need for providing support and interdisciplinary interventions to individuals affected by PCC to help them maintain or regain their work ability and productivity. Funding: Federal Office of Public Health, Department of Health of the Canton of Zurich, University of Zurich Foundation, Switzerland; Horizon Europe.

Household transmission of non-toxigenic diphtheria toxin gene-bearing Corynebacterium diphtheriae following a cluster of cutaneous cases in a specialist outpatient setting.

Introduction. Combination of PCR and Elek testing to identify toxigenic corynebacteria has revealed organisms described as non-toxigenic toxin-gene bearing (NTTB) Corynebacterium diphtheriae or C. ulcerans (i.e. PCR tox positive; Elek negative). These organisms carry part or all of tox, but are unable to express diphtheria toxin (DT) and present a challenge to clinical and public health case management.Gap analysis/Hypothesis. There are few data on the theoretical risk of NTTB reversion to toxigenicity. This unique cluster and subsequent epidemiologically linked isolates allowed the opportunity to determine any change in DT expression status.Aim. To characterize a cluster of infections due to NTTB in a skin clinic and subsequent cases in two household contacts.Methodology. Epidemiological and microbiological investigations were carried out according to existing national guidance at the time. Susceptibility testing used gradient strips. The tox operon analysis and multi-locus sequence typing (MLST) was derived from whole-genome sequencing. Alignment of the tox operon and phylogenetic analyses were performed using clustalW, mega, the public core-genome MLST (cgMLST) scheme and an in-house bioinformatic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) typing pipeline.Results. Isolates of NTTB C. diphtheriae were recovered from four cases (cases 1 to 4) with epidermolysis bullosa attending the clinic. Two further isolates were subsequently recovered from case 4, >18 months later, and from two household contacts (cases 5 and 6) after a further 18 months and 3.5 years, respectively. All eight strains were NTTB C. diphtheriae biovar mitis, belonged to the same sequence type (ST-336) with the same deletion in tox. Phylogenetic analysis showed relatively high diversity between the eight strains with 7-199 SNP and 3-109 cgMLST loci differences between them. The number of SNPs between the three isolates from case 4 and two household contacts (cases 5 and 6) was 44-70 with 28-38 cgMLST loci differences.Conclusions. We report a cluster of NTTB C. diphtheriae cases in a skin clinic and evidence of onward household transmission. We conclude the deletion in the tox was responsible for the non-expression of DT. There was no evidence of reversion to DT expression over the 6.5 year period studied. These data informed revision to guidance in the management of NTTB cases and their contacts in the UK.

Impact of an accelerated measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine schedule on vaccine coverage: An ecological study among London children, 2012-2018.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination coverage of dose two of MMR (MMR2) at 5th birthday has been consistently low in London and measured 76.3% in 2018/19. Since the early 2000s seven boroughs in London started offering dose two earlier, from 15 to 18 months onwards instead of the recommended 3 years 4 months. In this study we investigate whether the accelerated schedule of MMR2 leads to a change in coverage of MMR2 and other childhood vaccines with an ecological study using childhood immunisation data from 2009 to 2018 in London. METHODS: We modelled coverage used generalized estimating equations (GEE) adjusted for year and DTaP/IPV/Hib3 coverage measured at 2nd birthday as a proxy for baseline local vaccination programme performance to determine the percentage point difference in coverage of MMR2 and other childhood vaccines. RESULTS: Average MMR2 coverage was higher among early implementing boroughs from 2012/13 onwards. Coverage difference was highest in 2017/18 (9.2 percentage points, 95% CI 4.8, 13.5, p < 0.001). On average over the 6 years, compared to London boroughs on the routine schedule, MMR2 coverage among early implementing boroughs was 3.3 percentage points higher (95% CI 1.3, 5.3, p = 0.01) after adjusting for DTaP/IPV/Hib3 coverage, IMD score and year. CONCLUSION: Earlier vaccination of MMR2 is associated with significantly higher coverage at five years for this vaccine in London. Further research is needed to assess the association at a more granular level, but our findings underline a potential opportunity to increase MMR coverage.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections in children: a prospective national surveillance study between January, 2020, and July, 2021, in England.

BACKGROUND: Reinfection after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection is uncommon in adults, but little is known about the risks, characteristics, severity, or outcomes of reinfection in children. We aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in children and compare this with the risk in adults, by analysis of national testing data for England. METHODS: In our prospective, national surveillance study to assess reinfection of SARS-CoV-2 in children in England, we used national SARS-CoV-2 testing data to estimate the risk of reinfection at least 90 days after primary infection from Jan 27, 2020, to July, 31, 2021, which encompassed the alpha (B.1.1.7) and delta (B.1.617.2) variant waves in England. Data from children up to age 16 years who met the criteria for reinfection were included. Disease severity was assessed by linking reinfection cases to national hospital admission data, intensive care admission, and death registration datasets. FINDINGS: Reinfection rates closely followed community infection rates, with a small peak during the alpha wave and a larger peak during the delta wave. In children aged 16 years and younger, 688 418 primary infections and 2343 reinfections were identified. The overall reinfection rate was 66·88 per 100 000 population, which was higher in adults (72·53 per 100 000) than children (21·53 per 100 000). The reinfection rate after primary infection was 0·68% overall, 0·73% in adults compared with 0·18% in children age younger than 5 years, 0·24% in those aged 5-11 years, and 0·49% in those aged 12-16 years. Of the 109 children admitted to hospital with reinfection, 78 (72%) had comorbidities. Hospital admission rates were similar for the first (64 [2·7%] of 2343) and second episode (57 [2·4%] of 2343) and intensive care admissions were rare (seven children for the first episode and four for reinfections). There were 44 deaths within 28 days after primary infection (0·01%) and none after reinfection. INTERPRETATION: The risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection is strongly related to exposure due to community infection rates, especially during the delta variant wave. Children had a lower risk of reinfection than did adults, but reinfections were not associated with more severe disease or fatal outcomes. FUNDING: UK Health Security Agency.

Disease severity during SARS-COV-2 reinfection: a nationwide study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to look at the burden of disease caused by SARS-COV-2 reinfections and identified potential risk factors for disease severity. METHODS: We used national surveillance data to collect information on all SARS-CoV-2 primary infection and suspected reinfection cases between January 2020 until early May 2021. Reinfection cases were positive COVID-19 PCR or antigen test, 90 days after their first COVID-19 positive test. We collected information on case demographics, hospital and ICU admission, immunisation status and if individuals were at risk of complication for COVID-19. RESULTS: Deaths reported within 28 days of testing positive were 61% (95% confidence interval: 56% to 65%) lower in suspected COVID-19 reinfection than primary infection cases. In the unvaccinated cohort, reinfections were associated with 49% (37% to 58%) lower odds of hospital admission in cases aged 50 to 65 years in the population not identified at risk of complication for COVID-19, and 34% (17% to 48%) in those at risk. ICU admission at reinfection compared to primary infection decreased 76% (55% to 87%). Individuals at risk and those aged below 50 years, who received at least 1 dose of vaccine against COVID-19, were 62% (39% to 74%) and 58% (24% to 77%) less likely to get admitted to hospital at reinfection, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with lower odds of dying, and both prior infection and immunisation showed a protective effect against severe disease in selected populations. Older age, sex and underlying comorbidities appeared as principal risk factors for illness severity at reinfection. FUNDING: PHE/UKHSA.

COVID-19 outbreaks following full reopening of primary and secondary schools in England: Cross-sectional national surveillance, November 2020.

BACKGROUND: The full reopening of schools in September 2020 was associated with an increase in COVID-19 cases and outbreaks in educational settings across England. METHODS: Primary and secondary schools reporting an outbreak (≥2 laboratory-confirmed cases within 14 days) to Public Health England (PHE) between 31 August and 18 October 2020 were contacted in November 2020 to complete an online questionnaire. INTERPRETATION: There were 969 school outbreaks reported to PHE, comprising 2% (n = 450) of primary schools and 10% (n = 519) of secondary schools in England. Of the 369 geographically-representative schools contacted, 179 completed the questionnaire (100 primary schools, 79 secondary schools) and 2,314 cases were reported. Outbreaks were larger and across more year groups in secondary schools than in primary schools. Teaching staff were more likely to be the index case in primary (48/100, 48%) than secondary (25/79, 32%) school outbreaks (P = 0.027). When an outbreak occurred, attack rates were higher in staff (881/17,362; 5.07; 95%CI, 4.75-5.41) than students, especially primary school teaching staff (378/3852; 9.81%; 95%CI, 8.90-10.82%) compared to secondary school teaching staff (284/7146; 3.97%; 95%CI, 3.79-5.69%). Secondary school students (1105/91,919; 1.20%; 95%CI, 1.13-1.28%) had higher attack rates than primary school students (328/39,027; 0.84%; 95%CI, 0.75-0.94%). CONCLUSIONS: A higher proportion of secondary schools than primary schools reported a COVID-19 outbreak and experienced larger outbreaks across multiple school year groups. The higher attack rate among teaching staff during an outbreak, especially in primary schools, suggests that additional protective measures may be needed. FUNDING: PHE.

COVID-19 in children: analysis of the first pandemic peak in England.

OBJECTIVES: To assess disease trends, testing practices, community surveillance, case-fatality and excess deaths in children as compared with adults during the first pandemic peak in England. SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Children with COVID-19 between January and May 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trends in confirmed COVID-19 cases, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity rates in children compared with adults; community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in children with acute respiratory infection (ARI) compared with adults, case-fatality rate in children with confirmed COVID-19 and excess childhood deaths compared with the previous 5 years. RESULTS: Children represented 1.1% (1,408/129,704) of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases between 16 January 2020 and 3 May 2020. In total, 540 305 people were tested for SARS-COV-2 and 129,704 (24.0%) were positive. In children aged <16 years, 35,200 tests were performed and 1408 (4.0%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2, compared to 19.1%-34.9% adults. Childhood cases increased from mid-March and peaked on 11 April before declining. Among 2,961 individuals presenting with ARI in primary care, 351 were children and 10 (2.8%) were positive compared with 9.3%-45.5% in adults. Eight children died and four (case-fatality rate, 0.3%; 95% CI 0.07% to 0.7%) were due to COVID-19. We found no evidence of excess mortality in children. CONCLUSIONS: Children accounted for a very small proportion of confirmed cases despite the large numbers of children tested. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was low even in children with ARI. Our findings provide further evidence against the role of children in infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2.