Comparative analysis of the risks of hospitalisation and death associated with SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The omicron variant (B.1.1.529) of SARS-CoV-2 has demonstrated partial vaccine escape and high transmissibility, with early studies indicating lower severity of infection than that of the delta variant (B.1.617.2). We aimed to better characterise omicron severity relative to delta by assessing the relative risk of hospital attendance, hospital admission, or death in a large national cohort. METHODS: Individual-level data on laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases resident in England between Nov 29, 2021, and Jan 9, 2022, were linked to routine datasets on vaccination status, hospital attendance and admission, and mortality. The relative risk of hospital attendance or admission within 14 days, or death within 28 days after confirmed infection, was estimated using proportional hazards regression. Analyses were stratified by test date, 10-year age band, ethnicity, residential region, and vaccination status, and were further adjusted for sex, index of multiple deprivation decile, evidence of a previous infection, and year of age within each age band. A secondary analysis estimated variant-specific and vaccine-specific vaccine effectiveness and the intrinsic relative severity of omicron infection compared with delta (ie, the relative risk in unvaccinated cases). FINDINGS: The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of hospital attendance (not necessarily resulting in admission) with omicron compared with delta was 0·56 (95% CI 0·54-0·58); for hospital admission and death, HR estimates were 0·41 (0·39-0·43) and 0·31 (0·26-0·37), respectively. Omicron versus delta HR estimates varied with age for all endpoints examined. The adjusted HR for hospital admission was 1·10 (0·85-1·42) in those younger than 10 years, decreasing to 0·25 (0·21-0·30) in 60-69-year-olds, and then increasing to 0·47 (0·40-0·56) in those aged at least 80 years. For both variants, past infection gave some protection against death both in vaccinated (HR 0·47 [0·32-0·68]) and unvaccinated (0·18 [0·06-0·57]) cases. In vaccinated cases, past infection offered no additional protection against hospital admission beyond that provided by vaccination (HR 0·96 [0·88-1·04]); however, for unvaccinated cases, past infection gave moderate protection (HR 0·55 [0·48-0·63]). Omicron versus delta HR estimates were lower for hospital admission (0·30 [0·28-0·32]) in unvaccinated cases than the corresponding HR estimated for all cases in the primary analysis. Booster vaccination with an mRNA vaccine was highly protective against hospitalisation and death in omicron cases (HR for hospital admission 8-11 weeks post-booster vs unvaccinated: 0·22 [0·20-0·24]), with the protection afforded after a booster not being affected by the vaccine used for doses 1 and 2. INTERPRETATION: The risk of severe outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection is substantially lower for omicron than for delta, with higher reductions for more severe endpoints and significant variation with age. Underlying the observed risks is a larger reduction in intrinsic severity (in unvaccinated individuals) counterbalanced by a reduction in vaccine effectiveness. Documented previous SARS-CoV-2 infection offered some protection against hospitalisation and high protection against death in unvaccinated individuals, but only offered additional protection in vaccinated individuals for the death endpoint. Booster vaccination with mRNA vaccines maintains over 70% protection against hospitalisation and death in breakthrough confirmed omicron infections. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research, Community Jameel, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Epidemiological and clinical characteristics of early COVID-19 cases, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical presentation, course of disease and health-care seeking behaviour of the first few hundred cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. METHODS: We implemented the World Health Organization's First Few X cases and contacts investigation protocol for COVID-19. Trained public health professionals collected information on 381 virologically confirmed COVID-19 cases from 31 January 2020 to 9 April 2020. We actively followed up cases to identify exposure to infection, symptoms and outcomes. We also collected limited data on 752 symptomatic people testing negative for COVID-19, as a control group for analyses of the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of symptoms. FINDINGS: Approximately half of the COVID-19 cases were imported (196 cases; 51.4%), of whom the majority had recent travel to Italy (140 cases; 71.4%). Of the 94 (24.7%) secondary cases, almost all reported close contact with a confirmed case (93 cases; 98.9%), many through household contact (37 cases; 39.8%). By age, a lower proportion of children had COVID-19. Most cases presented with cough, fever and fatigue. The sensitivity and specificity of symptoms varied by age, with nonlinear relationships with age. Although the proportion of COVID-19 cases with fever increased with age, for those with other respiratory infections the occurrence of fever decreased with age. The occurrence of shortness of breath also increased with age in a greater proportion of COVID-19 cases. CONCLUSION: The study has provided useful evidence for generating case definitions and has informed modelling studies of the likely burden of COVID-19.

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

BACKGROUND: Characterising the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID-19 is vital for effective policy and planning. Older age, and underlying health conditions, are associated with higher risk of death from COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom. METHODS: We used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to estimate 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 with binomial exact confidence intervals. 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. RESULTS: On 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 5 y. CONCLUSIONS: The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (defined as either aged ≥70 years, or younger with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. Our national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates in other countries. We provide age- and region- stratified prevalence for each condition to support effective modelling of public health interventions and planning of vaccine resource allocation. The high prevalence of health conditions among older age groups suggests that age-targeted vaccination strategies may efficiently target individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

The impact of social and physical distancing measures on COVID-19 activity in England: findings from a multi-tiered surveillance system.

BackgroundA multi-tiered surveillance system based on influenza surveillance was adopted in the United Kingdom in the early stages of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to monitor different stages of the disease. Mandatory social and physical distancing measures (SPDM) were introduced on 23 March 2020 to attempt to limit transmission.AimTo describe the impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity as detected through the different surveillance systems.MethodsData from national population surveys, web-based indicators, syndromic surveillance, sentinel swabbing, respiratory outbreaks, secondary care admissions and mortality indicators from the start of the epidemic to week 18 2020 were used to identify the timing of peaks in surveillance indicators relative to the introduction of SPDM. This timing was compared with median time from symptom onset to different stages of illness and levels of care or interactions with healthcare services.ResultsThe impact of SPDM was detected within 1 week through population surveys, web search indicators and sentinel swabbing reported by onset date. There were detectable impacts on syndromic surveillance indicators for difficulty breathing, influenza-like illness and COVID-19 coding at 2, 7 and 12 days respectively, hospitalisations and critical care admissions (both 12 days), laboratory positivity (14 days), deaths (17 days) and nursing home outbreaks (4 weeks).ConclusionThe impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity was detectable within 1 week through community surveillance indicators, highlighting their importance in early detection of changes in activity. Community swabbing surveillance may be increasingly important as a specific indicator, should circulation of seasonal respiratory viruses increase.

The impact of vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 variants on the virological response to SARS-CoV-2 infections during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron waves in England.

Vaccination status and the SARS-CoV-2 variant individuals are infected with are known to independently impact viral dynamics; however, little is known about the interaction of these two factors and how this impacts viral dynamics. Here we investigated how monovalent vaccination modified the time course and viral load of infections from different variants. Regression analyses were used to investigate the impact of vaccination on cycle threshold values and disease severity, and interval-censored survival analyses were used to investigate the impact of vaccination on duration of positivity. A range of covariates were adjusted for as potential confounders and investigated for their own effects in exploratory analyses. All analyses were done combining all variants and stratified by variant. For those infected with Alpha or Delta, vaccinated individuals were more likely to report mild disease than moderate/severe disease and had significantly shorter duration of positivity and lower viral loads compared to unvaccinated individuals. Vaccination had no impact on self-reported disease severity, viral load, or duration if positivity for those infected with Omicron. Overall, individuals who were immunosuppressed and clinically extremely vulnerable had longer duration of positivity and higher viral loads. This study adds to the evidence base on disease dynamics following COVID-19, demonstrating that vaccination mitigates severity of disease, the amount of detectable virus within infected individuals and reduces the time individuals are positive for. However, these effects have been significantly attenuated since the emergence of Omicron. Therefore, our findings strengthen the argument for using modified or multivalent vaccines that target emerging variants.

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.

Epidemiological Impact of the Pediatric Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine (LAIV) Program on Group A Streptococcus (GAS) Infection in England.

Background: Influenza is known to predispose to secondary bacterial infections including invasive group A streptococcal (iGAS) disease. The universal pediatric live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) program introduced in England from the 2013/2014 influenza season was implemented incrementally, introducing cohorts of children annually to 2-16 years of coverage. Additionally, from the beginning of the program, discrete pilot areas offered LAIV vaccination to all primary school-age children, allowing for a unique comparison of infection rates between pilot and nonpilot areas during the program rollout. Methods: Cumulative incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of GAS infections (all), scarlet fever (SF), and iGAS infection within each season by age group were compared for pilot and nonpilot areas using Poisson regression. The overall effect of the pilot program in the pre- (2010/2011-2012/2013 seasons) and postintroduction (2013/2014-2016/2017 seasons) periods was assessed using negative binomial regression by comparing changes in incidence between pilot/nonpilot areas (ratio of IRR [rIRR]). Results: Reductions in IRRs of GAS and SF were observed within most post-LAIV program seasons, among the age groups 2-4 and 5-10 years. Significant reductions were seen among 5-10 years (rIRR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.45-0.71; P < .001), 2-4 years (rIRR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; P = .011), and 11-16 years (rIRR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; P = .018) for GAS infections when assessing the overall effect of the program. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that vaccination with LAIV may be associated with a reduced risk of GAS infection and support attaining high uptake of childhood influenza vaccination.

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.

Vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation estimated using a test-negative case-control study design, and comparative odds of hospital admission and severe outcomes with COVID-19 sub-lineages BQ.1, CH.1.1. and XBB.1.5 in England.

Background: Since the first emergence of Omicron BA.1 in England in November 2021, numerous sub-lineages have evolved. In September 2022, BA.5 dominated. The prevalence of BQ.1 increased from October, while the prevalence of CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 increased from December 2022 and January 2023, respectively. Little is known about the effectiveness of the vaccines against hospitalisation with these sub-lineages, nor the relative severity, so we here used national-level electronic health records from England to estimate vaccine effectiveness and variant severity. Methods: The study period for tests contributing to all analyses was from 5th December 2022 to 2nd April 2023, when the variants of interest were co-circulating. A test-negative case-control study was used to estimate the incremental effectiveness of the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines against hospitalisation, relative to those with waned immunity where the last dose was at least 6 months prior. The odds of hospital admission for those testing PCR positive on the day of an attendance to accident and emergency departments and the odds of intensive care unit admission or death amongst COVID-19 admissions were compared between variants. Additionally, a Cox proportional hazards survival regression was used to investigate length of stay amongst hospitalised cases by variant. Findings: Our vaccine effectiveness study included 191,229 eligible tests with 1647 BQ.1 cases, 877 CH.1.1 cases, 1357 XBB.1.5 cases and 187,348 test negative controls. There was no difference in incremental vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation with BQ.1, CH.1.1 or XBB.1.5, nor was there a difference in the severity of these variants. Effectiveness against hospitalisation was 48.0% (95% C.I.; 38.5-56.0%), 29.7% (95% C.I.; 7.5-46.6%) and 52.7% (95% C.I.; 24.6-70.4%) against BQ.1, CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5, respectively, at 5-9 weeks post booster vaccination. Compared to BQ.1, the odds of hospital admission were 0.87 (95% C.I.; 0.77-0.99) and 0.88 (95% C.I.; 0.75-1.02) for CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 cases attending accident and emergency departments, respectively. There was no significant difference in the odds of admission to intensive care units or death for those with CH.1.1 (OR 0.96, 95% C.I.; 0.71-1.30) or XBB.1.5 (OR 0.67, 95% C.I.; 0.44-1.02) compared to BQ.1. There was also no significant difference in the length of hospital stay by variant. Interpretation: Together, these results provide reassuring evidence that the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines provide similar protection against hospitalisation with BQ.1, CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5, and that the emergent CH.1.1 and XBB.1.5 sub-lineages do not cause more severe disease than BQ.1. Funding: None.

Effectiveness of one dose of MVA-BN smallpox vaccine against mpox in England using the case-coverage method: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: The UK experienced a national outbreak of mpox (formerly known as monkeypox) disease that started in May, 2022, as did many other countries worldwide, with case numbers rising rapidly, mainly among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM). To control the outbreak, Modified Vaccinia Ankara-Bavaria Nordic (MVA-BN), an attenuated smallpox vaccine, was offered to at-risk GBMSM. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a single MVA-BN dose against symptomatic mpox disease in at-risk GBMSM. METHODS: In this case-coverage study, mpox cases in England were sent questionnaires collecting information on demographics, vaccination history, symptoms, and sexual orientation. Returned questionnaires were linked to laboratory data and a public health case management system (HP Zone) to obtain additional information on symptom onset and specimen date. Cases with a rash onset date (or alternative proxy) between July 4 and Oct 9, 2022, were included. Females, heterosexual men, and those with missing vaccination information were excluded. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated using the case-coverage method in which vaccine coverage among cases is compared with coverage in the eligible population, estimated from doses given to GBMSM and the estimated size of at-risk GBMSM. Sensitivity analyses included an increase and decrease of 20% differences in the estimated high-risk GBMSM population size. FINDINGS: By Nov 3, 2022, 1102 people had responded to questionnaires, of which 739 were excluded (52 females or self-declared male heterosexuals, 590 with an index date outside of the study period, and 97 missing a vaccination date). 363 cases were included in the analyses. Vaccine uptake among eligible GBMSM increased steadily from July, 2022, reaching 47% by Oct 9, 2022. Of the 363 confirmed cases, eight cases either did occur or were likely to have occurred at least 14 days after vaccination, 32 within 0-13 days after vaccination, and the rest were unvaccinated. The estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic mpox at least 14 days after a single dose was 78% (95% CI 54 to 89) ranging from 71 to 85 in sensitivity analyses. Vaccine effectiveness within 0-13 days after vaccination was -4% (95% CI -50 to 29). INTERPRETATION: A single MVA-BN dose was highly protective against symptomatic mpox disease among at-risk GBMSM, making it a useful tool for mpox outbreak control when rapid protection is needed. For cases in which numbers at highest risk of infection exceed vaccine supply, there might be benefit in prioritising delivery of first doses. FUNDING: UK Health Security Agency.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron and Delta hospitalisation, a test negative case-control study.

The Omicron variant has been associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild disease with rapid waning. Meanwhile Omicron has also been associated with milder disease. Protection against severe disease has been substantially higher than protection against infection with previous variants. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate VE against hospitalisation with the Omicron and Delta variants using PCR testing linked to hospital records. We investigated the impact of increasing the specificity and severity of hospitalisation definitions on VE. Among 18-64-year-olds using cases admitted via emergency care, VE after a 3rd dose peaked at 82.4% and dropped to 53.6% by 15+ weeks after the 3rd dose; using all admissions for > = 2 days stay with a respiratory code in the primary diagnostic field VE ranged from 90.9% to 67.4%; further restricting to those on oxygen/ventilated/intensive care VE ranged from 97.1% to 75.9%. Among 65+ year olds the equivalent VE estimates were 92.4% to 76.9%; 91.3% to 85.3% and 95.8% to 86.8%. Here we show that with milder Omicron disease contamination of hospitalisations with incidental cases is likely to reduce VE estimates. VE estimates increase, and waning is reduced, when specific hospitalisation definitions are used.

Serological responses and vaccine effectiveness for extended COVID-19 vaccine schedules in England.

The UK prioritised delivery of the first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccines by extending the interval between doses up to 12 weeks. In 750 participants aged 50-89 years, we here compare serological responses after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccination with varying dose intervals, and evaluate these against real-world national vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against COVID-19 in England. We show that antibody levels 14-35 days after dose two are higher in BNT162b2 recipients with an extended vaccine interval (65-84 days) compared with those vaccinated with a standard (19-29 days) interval. Following the extended schedule, antibody levels were 6-fold higher at 14-35 days post dose 2 for BNT162b2 than AZD1222. For both vaccines, VE was higher across all age-groups from 14 days after dose two compared to one dose, but the magnitude varied with dose interval. Higher dose two VE was observed with >6 week interval between BNT162b2 doses compared to the standard schedule. Our findings suggest higher effectiveness against infection using an extended vaccine schedule. Given global vaccine constraints these results are relevant to policymakers.

Rapid community point-of-care testing for COVID-19 (RAPTOR-C19): protocol for a platform diagnostic study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of RApid community Point-of-care Testing fOR COVID-19 (RAPTOR-C19) is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multiple current and emerging point-of-care tests (POCTs) for active and past SARS-CoV2 infection in the community setting. RAPTOR-C19 will provide the community testbed to the COVID-19 National DiagnOstic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR). METHODS: RAPTOR-C19 incorporates a series of prospective observational parallel diagnostic accuracy studies of SARS-CoV2 POCTs against laboratory and composite reference standards in patients with suspected current or past SARS-CoV2 infection attending community settings. Adults and children with suspected current SARS-CoV2 infection who are having an oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) swab for laboratory SARS-CoV2 reverse transcriptase Digital/Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (d/rRT-PCR) as part of clinical care or community-based testing will be invited to participate. Adults (≥ 16 years) with suspected past symptomatic infection will also be recruited. Asymptomatic individuals will not be eligible. At the baseline visit, all participants will be asked to submit samples for at least one candidate point-of-care test (POCT) being evaluated (index test/s) as well as an OP/NP swab for laboratory SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR performed by Public Health England (PHE) (reference standard for current infection). Adults will also be asked for a blood sample for laboratory SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by PHE (reference standard for past infection), where feasible adults will be invited to attend a second visit at 28 days for repeat antibody testing. Additional study data (e.g. demographics, symptoms, observations, household contacts) will be captured electronically. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for each POCT will be calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals when compared to the reference standard. POCTs will also be compared to composite reference standards constructed using paired antibody test results, patient reported outcomes, linked electronic health records for outcomes related to COVID-19 such as hospitalisation or death, and other test results. DISCUSSION: High-performing POCTs for community use could be transformational. Real-time results could lead to personal and public health impacts such as reducing onward household transmission of SARS-CoV2 infection, improving surveillance of health and social care staff, contributing to accurate prevalence estimates, and understanding of SARS-CoV2 transmission dynamics in the population. In contrast, poorly performing POCTs could have negative effects, so it is necessary to undertake community-based diagnostic accuracy evaluations before rolling these out. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN14226970.

Excess mortality in the first COVID pandemic peak: cross-sectional analyses of the impact of age, sex, ethnicity, household size, and long-term conditions in people of known SARS-CoV-2 status in England.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has passed its first peak in Europe. AIM: To describe the mortality in England and its association with SARS-CoV-2 status and other demographic and risk factors. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analyses of people with known SARS-CoV-2 status in the Oxford RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network. METHOD: Pseudonymised, coded clinical data were uploaded from volunteer general practice members of this nationally representative network (n = 4 413 734). All-cause mortality was compared with national rates for 2019, using a relative survival model, reporting relative hazard ratios (RHR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A multivariable adjusted odds ratios (OR) analysis was conducted for those with known SARS-CoV-2 status (n = 56 628, 1.3%) including multiple imputation and inverse probability analysis, and a complete cases sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Mortality peaked in week 16. People living in households of ≥9 had a fivefold increase in relative mortality (RHR = 5.1, 95% CI = 4.87 to 5.31, P<0.0001). The ORs of mortality were 8.9 (95% CI = 6.7 to 11.8, P<0.0001) and 9.7 (95% CI = 7.1 to 13.2, P<0.0001) for virologically and clinically diagnosed cases respectively, using people with negative tests as reference. The adjusted mortality for the virologically confirmed group was 18.1% (95% CI = 17.6 to 18.7). Male sex, population density, black ethnicity (compared to white), and people with long-term conditions, including learning disability (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.22 to 3.18, P = 0.0056) had higher odds of mortality. CONCLUSION: The first SARS-CoV-2 peak in England has been associated with excess mortality. Planning for subsequent peaks needs to better manage risk in males, those of black ethnicity, older people, people with learning disabilities, and people who live in multi-occupancy dwellings.