Excess mortality in Europe coincides with peaks of COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), November 2023 to February 2024.

Since the end of November 2023, the European Mortality Monitoring Network (EuroMOMO) has observed excess mortality in Europe. During weeks 48 2023-6 2024, preliminary results show a substantially increased rate of 95.3 (95% CI:  91.7-98.9) excess all-cause deaths per 100,000 person-years for all ages. This excess mortality is seen in adults aged 45 years and older, and coincides with widespread presence of COVID-19, influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) observed in many European countries during the 2023/24 winter season.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations amongst 3,433,483 children and young people: meta-analysis of UK prospective cohorts.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people (CYP) can lead to life-threatening COVID-19, transmission within households and schools, and the development of long COVID. Using linked health and administrative data, we investigated vaccine uptake among 3,433,483 CYP aged 5-17 years across all UK nations between 4th August 2021 and 31st May 2022. We constructed national cohorts and undertook multi-state modelling and meta-analysis to identify associations between demographic variables and vaccine uptake. We found that uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccine among CYP was low across all four nations compared to other age groups and diminished with subsequent doses. Age and vaccination status of adults living in the same household were identified as important risk factors associated with vaccine uptake in CYP. For example, 5-11 year-olds were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to 16-17 year-olds (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.10 (95%CI: 0.06-0.19)), and CYP in unvaccinated households were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to CYP in partially vaccinated households (aHR: 0.19, 95%CI 0.13-0.29).

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose. Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations. Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics. Funding: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Risk of COVID-19 death in adults who received booster COVID-19 vaccinations in England.

The emergence of the COVID-19 vaccination has been critical in changing the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure protection remains high in vulnerable groups booster vaccinations in the UK have been targeted based on age and clinical vulnerabilities. We undertook a national retrospective cohort study using data from the 2021 Census linked to electronic health records. We fitted cause-specific Cox models to examine the association between health conditions and the risk of COVID-19 death and all-other-cause death for adults aged 50-100-years in England vaccinated with a booster in autumn 2022. Here we show, having learning disabilities or Down Syndrome (hazard ratio=5.07;95% confidence interval=3.69-6.98), pulmonary hypertension or fibrosis (2.88;2.43-3.40), motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis, myasthenia or Huntington's disease (2.94, 1.82-4.74), cancer of blood and bone marrow (3.11;2.72-3.56), Parkinson's disease (2.74;2.34-3.20), lung or oral cancer (2.57;2.04 to 3.24), dementia (2.64;2.46 to 2.83) or liver cirrhosis (2.65;1.95 to 3.59) was associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 death. Individuals with cancer of the blood or bone marrow, chronic kidney disease, cystic fibrosis, pulmonary hypotension or fibrosis, or rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus had a significantly higher risk of COVID-19 death relative to other causes of death compared with individuals who did not have diagnoses. Policy makers should continue to priorities vulnerable groups for subsequent COVID-19 booster doses to minimise the risk of COVID-19 death.

A scoping review of the reasons for and approaches to non-uptake of pertussis and influenza vaccinations in pregnant women in the United Kingdom and Ireland.

BACKGROUND: Pertussis and influenza cause significant morbidity and mortality in pregnancy and the neonatal period. Maternal vaccination in pregnancy would reduce harm, but low vaccine uptake is a concern. This scoping review aimed to understand the reasons for, and approaches, to non-uptake of pertussis and influenza vaccinations in pregnant women in the UK and Ireland. METHODS: The inclusion criteria of this scoping review consist of pregnant women who avail of pertussis and influenza vaccines in the UK and Ireland. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL databases were searched in June 2021 and updated in October 2022. Searches were limited to English language reports published after 2011. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance on scoping reviews. Data were extracted and charted. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from the literature. Acceptability, as well as organisational and awareness issues, were overarching themes regarding reasons for and approaches to non-uptake of the vaccines respectively. Other themes included healthcare professional factors, information interpretation and pregnancy-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: Women need clear, comprehensible information, ideally provided by their healthcare professionals, in a way that is meaningful and addresses their circumstances and risk perceptions. This research will serve as a base for future work that aims behaviour science interventions at the wider pregnant population as well as the target groups that have been identified in this review.

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. SETTING: England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44)). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.

Increased reports of severe myocarditis associated with enterovirus infection in neonates, United Kingdom, 27 June 2022 to 26 April 2023.

Enteroviruses are a common cause of seasonal childhood infections. The vast majority of enterovirus infections are mild and self-limiting, although neonates can sometimes develop severe disease. Myocarditis is a rare complication of enterovirus infection. Between June 2022 and April 2023, twenty cases of severe neonatal enteroviral myocarditis caused by coxsackie B viruses were reported in the United Kingdom. Sixteen required critical care support and two died. Enterovirus PCR on whole blood was the most sensitive diagnostic test. We describe the initial public health investigation into this cluster and aim to raise awareness among paediatricians, laboratories and public health specialists.

Using the COM-B framework to elucidate facilitators and barriers to COVID-19 vaccine uptake in pregnant women: a qualitative study.

Since April 2021, COVID-19 vaccines have been recommended for pregnant women. Despite this, COVID-19 vaccine uptake in this group is low compared to the non-pregnant population of childbearing age. Our aim was to understand barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccine uptake among pregnant women in Northern Ireland using the COM-B framework, and so to make recommendations for public health interventions. The COM-B proposes that human behaviour is influenced by the extent to which a person has the capability, opportunity, and motivation to enact that behaviour. Understanding the factors underpinning behaviour through this lens helps discern what needs to change to change behaviour, therefore supporting the development of targeted interventions.This study consisted of eight semi-structured interviews with new/expectant mothers who did not receive a COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant since April 2021, and a focus group with five participants who received at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose while pregnant. Interview and focus group data were analysed using semi-deductive reflexive thematic analysis framed by a subtle realist approach. The COM-B was used to categorise codes and subthemes were developed within each COM-B construct.Within Psychological Capability, subthemes captured the need for consistent and reliable COVID-19 vaccine information and access to balanced and jargon-free, risk-benefit information that is tailored to the pregnant individual. The behaviour/opinions of family, friends, and local healthcare providers had a powerful influence on COVID-19 vaccine decisions (Social Opportunity). Integrating the COVID-19 vaccine as part of routine antenatal pathways was believed to support access and sense of familiarity (Physical Opportunity). Participants valued health autonomy, however experienced internal conflict driven by concerns about long-term side effects for their baby (Reflective Motivation). Feelings of fear, lack of empathy from healthcare providers, and anticipated guilt commonly underpinned indecision as to whether to get the vaccine (Automatic Motivation).Our study highlighted that the choice to accept a vaccine during pregnancy generates internal conflict and worry. Several participants cited their concern was primarily around the safety for their baby. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) play a significant part when it comes to decision making about COVID-19 vaccines among pregnant women. HCPs and pregnant women should be involved in the development of interventions to improve the delivery and communication of information.

Predictors and consequences of homelessness in whole-population observational studies that used administrative data: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is a complex societal and public health challenge. Limited information exists about the population-level health and social care-related predictors and consequences of persons with lived experience of homelessness (PEH). Studies that focus on population subgroups or ad hoc questionnaires to gather data are of relatively limited generalisability to whole-population health surveillance and planning. The aim of this study was to find and synthesise information about the risk factors for, and consequences of, experiencing homelessness in whole-population studies that used routine administrative data. METHOD: We performed a systematic search using EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO research databases for English-language studies published from inception until February 2023 that reported analyses of administrative data about homelessness and health and social care-related predictors and consequences. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Of the 1224 articles reviewed, 30 publications met the inclusion criteria. The included studies examined a wide range of topic areas, and the homelessness definitions used in each varied considerably. Studies were categorised into several topic areas: Mortality, morbidity and COVID-19; health care usage and hospital re-admission; care home admission and shelter stay; and other (e.g. employment, crime victimisation). The studies reported that that the physical and mental health of people who experience homelessness was worse than that of the general population. Homeless individuals were more likely to have higher risk of hospitalisation, more likely to use emergency departments, have higher mortality rates and were at greater risk of needing intensive care or of dying from COVID-19 compared with general population. Additionally, homeless individuals were more likely to be incarcerated or unemployed. The effects were strongest for those who experienced being homeless as a child compared to those who experienced being homeless later on in life. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first systematic review of whole-population observational studies that used administrative data to identify causes and consequences associated with individuals who are experiencing homelessness. While the scientific literature provides evidence on some of the possible risk factors associated with being homeless, research into this research topic has been limited and gaps still remain. There is a need for more standardised best practice approaches to understand better the causes and consequences associated with being homeless.

Predictors and Consequences of Homelessness: Protocol for a Cohort Study Design Using Linked Routine Data.

BACKGROUND: Homelessness is a global burden, estimated to impact more than 100 million people worldwide. Individuals and families experiencing homelessness are more likely to have poorer physical and mental health than the general population. Administrative data is being increasingly used in homelessness research. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to combine administrative health care data and social housing data to better understand the consequences and predictors associated with being homeless. METHODS: We will be linking health and social care administrative databases from Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. We will conduct descriptive analyses to examine trends in homelessness and investigate risk factors for key outcomes. RESULTS: The results of our analyses will be shared with stakeholders, reported at conferences and in academic journals, and summarized in policy briefing notes for policymakers. CONCLUSIONS: This study will aim to identify predictors and consequences of homelessness in Northern Ireland using linked housing, health, and social care data. The findings of this study will examine trends and outcomes in this vulnerable population using routinely collected health and social care administrative data. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/42404.

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. Common recommended measures to limit risk of infection include frequent handwashing, reducing the frequency of social interactions and the use of face coverings. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of these protective behaviours. Objectives: We aimed to identify and map the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19. Search Methods: Our extensive search included electronic databases (n = 12), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories including both published peer reviewed, pre-prints and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviours of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with recommended behaviours, to capture both malleable and non-malleable determinants (i.e. determinants that could be changed and those that could not). Selection Criteria: This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes all types of studies examining determinants of common recommended behaviours aimed at mitigating human-to-human spread of COVID-19. All potential malleable and non-malleable determinants of one or more behaviours are included in the map. As part of the mapping process, categories are used to group determinants. The mapping categories were based on a previous rapid review by Hanratty 2021. These include: 'behaviour', 'cognition', 'demographics', 'disease', 'emotions', 'health status', 'information', 'intervention', and 'knowledge'. Those not suitable for categorisation in any of these groups are included in the map as 'other' determinants. Data Collection and Analysis: Results were imported to a bibliographic reference manager where duplications of identical studies gathered from multiple sources were removed. Data extraction procedures were managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. Information on study type, population, behaviours measured and determinants measured were extracted. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews with AMSTAR-2. We did not appraise the quality of primary studies in this map. Main Results: As of 1 June 2022 the EGM includes 1034 records reporting on 860 cross-sectional, 68 longitudinal, 78 qualitative, 25 reviews, 62 interventional, and 39 other studies (e.g., mixed-methods approaches). The map includes studies that measured social distancing (n = 487), masks and face coverings (n = 382), handwashing (n = 308), physical distancing (n = 177), isolation/quarantine (n = 157), respiratory hygiene/etiquette (n = 75), cleaning surfaces (n = 59), and avoiding touching the T-zone (n = 48). There were 333 studies that assessed composite measures of two or more behaviours. The largest cluster of determinants was 'demographics' (n = 730 studies), followed by 'cognition' (n = 496 studies) and determinants categorised as 'other' (n = 447). These included factors such as 'beliefs', 'culture' and 'access to resources'. Less evidence is available for some determinants such as 'interventions' (n = 99 studies), 'information' (n = 101 studies), and 'behaviour' (149 studies). Authors' Conclusions: This EGM provides a valuable resource for researchers, policy-makers and the public to access the available evidence on the determinants of various COVID-19 health-related behaviours. The map can also be used to help guide research commissioning, by evidence synthesis teams and evidence intermediaries to inform policy during the ongoing pandemic and potential future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Evidence included in the map will be explored further through a series of systematic reviews examining the strength of the associations between malleable determinants and the uptake and maintenance of individual protective behaviours.

How public health authorities can use pathogen genomics in health protection practice: a consensus-building Delphi study conducted in the United Kingdom.

Pathogen sequencing guided understanding of SARS-CoV-2 evolution during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many health systems developed pathogen genomics services to monitor SARS-CoV-2. There are no agreed guidelines about how pathogen genomic information should be used in public health practice. We undertook a modified Delphi study in three rounds to develop expert consensus statements about how genomic information should be used. Our aim was to inform health protection policy, planning and practice. Participants were from organisations that produced or used pathogen genomics information in the United Kingdom. The first round posed questions derived from a rapid literature review. Responses informed statements for the subsequent rounds. Consensus was accepted when 70 % or more of the responses were strongly agree/agree, or 70 % were disagree/strongly disagree on the five-point Likert scale. Consensus was achieved in 26 (96 %) of 27 statements. We grouped the statements into six categories: monitoring the emergence of new variants; understanding the epidemiological context of genomic data; using genomic data in outbreak risk assessment and risk management; prioritising the use of limited sequencing capacity; sequencing service performance; and sequencing service capability. The expert consensus statements will help guide public health authorities and policymakers to integrate pathogen genomics in health protection practice.

COVID-19 booster vaccination uptake and infection breakthrough amongst health care workers in Wales: A national prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: From September 2021, Health Care Workers (HCWs) in Wales began receiving a COVID-19 booster vaccination. This is the first dose beyond the primary vaccination schedule. Given the emergence of new variants, vaccine waning vaccine, and increasing vaccination hesitancy, there is a need to understand booster vaccine uptake and subsequent breakthrough in this high-risk population. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, national-scale, observational cohort study of HCWs in Wales using anonymised, linked data from the SAIL Databank. We analysed uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccinations from September 2021 to February 2022, with comparisons against uptake of the initial primary vaccination schedule. We also analysed booster breakthrough, in the form of PCR-confirmed SARS-Cov-2 infection, comparing to the second primary dose. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate associations for vaccination uptake and breakthrough regarding staff roles, socio-demographics, household composition, and other factors. RESULTS: We derived a cohort of 73,030 HCWs living in Wales (78% female, 60% 18-49 years old). Uptake was quickest amongst HCWs aged 60 + years old (aHR 2.54, 95%CI 2.45-2.63), compared with those aged 18-29. Asian HCWs had quicker uptake (aHR 1.18, 95%CI 1.14-1.22), whilst Black HCWs had slower uptake (aHR 0.67, 95%CI 0.61-0.74), compared to white HCWs. HCWs residing in the least deprived areas were slightly quicker to have received a booster dose (aHR 1.12, 95%CI 1.09-1.16), compared with those in the most deprived areas. Strongest associations with breakthrough infections were found for those living with children (aHR 1.52, 95%CI 1.41-1.63), compared to two-adult only households. HCWs aged 60 + years old were less likely to get breakthrough infections, compared to those aged 18-29 (aHR 0.42, 95%CI 0.38-0.47). CONCLUSION: Vaccination uptake was consistently lower among black HCWs, as well as those from deprived areas. Whilst breakthrough infections were highest in households with children.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Waning of first- and second-dose ChAdOx1 and BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccinations: a pooled target trial study of 12.9 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Several SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have been shown to provide protection against COVID-19 hospitalization and death. However, some evidence suggests that notable waning in effectiveness against these outcomes occurs within months of vaccination. We undertook a pooled analysis across the four nations of the UK to investigate waning in vaccine effectiveness (VE) and relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) against severe COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: We carried out a target trial design for first/second doses of ChAdOx1(Oxford-AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) with a composite outcome of COVID-19 hospitalization or death over the period 8 December 2020 to 30 June 2021. Exposure groups were matched by age, local authority area and propensity for vaccination. We pooled event counts across the four UK nations. RESULTS: For Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1 and Dose 1 of BNT162b2, VE/rVE reached zero by approximately Days 60-80 and then went negative. By Day 70, VE/rVE was -25% (95% CI: -80 to 14) and 10% (95% CI: -32 to 39) for Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1, respectively, and 42% (95% CI: 9 to 64) and 53% (95% CI: 26 to 70) for Doses 1 and 2 of BNT162b2, respectively. rVE for Dose 2 of BNT162b2 remained above zero throughout and reached 46% (95% CI: 13 to 67) after 98 days of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong evidence of waning in VE/rVE for Doses 1 and 2 of ChAdOx1, as well as Dose 1 of BNT162b2. This evidence may be used to inform policies on timings of additional doses of vaccine.

A Hybrid Architecture (CO-CONNECT) to Facilitate Rapid Discovery and Access to Data Across the United Kingdom in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Development Study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 data have been generated across the United Kingdom as a by-product of clinical care and public health provision, as well as numerous bespoke and repurposed research endeavors. Analysis of these data has underpinned the United Kingdom's response to the pandemic, and informed public health policies and clinical guidelines. However, these data are held by different organizations, and this fragmented landscape has presented challenges for public health agencies and researchers as they struggle to find relevant data to access and interrogate the data they need to inform the pandemic response at pace. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to transform UK COVID-19 diagnostic data sets to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR). METHODS: A federated infrastructure model (COVID - Curated and Open Analysis and Research Platform [CO-CONNECT]) was rapidly built to enable the automated and reproducible mapping of health data partners' pseudonymized data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model without the need for any data to leave the data controllers' secure environments, and to support federated cohort discovery queries and meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 56 data sets from 19 organizations are being connected to the federated network. The data include research cohorts and COVID-19 data collected through routine health care provision linked to longitudinal health care records and demographics. The infrastructure is live, supporting aggregate-level querying of data across the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: CO-CONNECT was developed by a multidisciplinary team. It enables rapid COVID-19 data discovery and instantaneous meta-analysis across data sources, and it is researching streamlined data extraction for use in a Trusted Research Environment for research and public health analysis. CO-CONNECT has the potential to make UK health data more interconnected and better able to answer national-level research questions while maintaining patient confidentiality and local governance procedures.

Identifying pre-existing conditions and multimorbidity patterns associated with in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19.

We investigated the association between a wide range of comorbidities and COVID-19 in-hospital mortality and assessed the influence of multi morbidity on the risk of COVID-19-related death using a large, regional cohort of 6036 hospitalized patients. This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Patient Administration System Admissions and Discharges data. The International Classification of Diseases 10th edition (ICD-10) diagnosis codes were used to identify common comorbidities and the outcome measure. Individuals with lymphoma (odds ratio [OR], 2.78;95% CI,1.64-4.74), metastatic cancer (OR, 2.17; 95% CI,1.25-3.77), solid tumour without metastasis (OR, 1.67; 95% CI,1.16-2.41), liver disease (OR: 2.50, 95% CI,1.53-4.07), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.69; 95% CI,1.32-2.15), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.43; 95% CI,1.18-1.72), obesity (OR, 5.28; 95% CI,2.92-9.52), renal disease (OR, 1.81; 95% CI,1.51-2.19), and dementia (OR, 1.44; 95% CI,1.17-1.76) were at increased risk of COVID-19 mortality. Asthma was associated with a lower risk of death compared to non-asthma controls (OR, 0.60; 95% CI,0.42-0.86). Individuals with two (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.47-2.20; P < 0.001), and three or more comorbidities (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.43-2.27; P < 0.001) were at increasingly higher risk of death when compared to those with no underlying conditions. Furthermore, multi morbidity patterns were analysed by identifying clusters of conditions in hospitalised COVID-19 patients using k-mode clustering, an unsupervised machine learning technique. Six patient clusters were identified, with recognisable co-occurrences of COVID-19 with different combinations of diseases, namely, cardiovascular (100%) and renal (15.6%) diseases in patient Cluster 1; mental and neurological disorders (100%) with metabolic and endocrine diseases (19.3%) in patient Cluster 2; respiratory (100%) and cardiovascular (15.0%) diseases in patient Cluster 3, cancer (5.9%) with genitourinary (9.0%) as well as metabolic and endocrine diseases (9.6%) in patient Cluster 4; metabolic and endocrine diseases (100%) and cardiovascular diseases (69.1%) in patient Cluster 5; mental and neurological disorders (100%) with cardiovascular diseases (100%) in patient Cluster 6. The highest mortality of 29.4% was reported in Cluster 6.

Severe COVID-19 outcomes after full vaccination of primary schedule and initial boosters: pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies of 30 million individuals in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Current UK vaccination policy is to offer future COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, but it is still uncertain which groups of the population could benefit most. In response to an urgent request from the UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, we aimed to identify risk factors for severe COVID-19 outcomes (ie, COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death) in individuals who had completed their primary COVID-19 vaccination schedule and had received the first booster vaccine. METHODS: We constructed prospective cohorts across all four UK nations through linkages of primary care, RT-PCR testing, vaccination, hospitalisation, and mortality data on 30 million people. We included individuals who received primary vaccine doses of BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our initial analyses. We then restricted analyses to those given a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (elasomeran; Moderna) booster and had a severe COVID-19 outcome between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022 (when the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant was dominant). We fitted time-dependent Poisson regression models and calculated adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and 95% CIs for the associations between risk factors and COVID-19-related hospitalisation or death. We adjusted for a range of potential covariates, including age, sex, comorbidities, and previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then did pooled analyses across UK nations using fixed-effect meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 16 208 600 individuals completed their primary vaccine schedule and 13 836 390 individuals received a booster dose. Between Dec 20, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 59 510 (0·4%) of the primary vaccine group and 26 100 (0·2%) of those who received their booster had severe COVID-19 outcomes. The risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes reduced after receiving the booster (rate change: 8·8 events per 1000 person-years to 7·6 events per 1000 person-years). Older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; aRR 3·60 [95% CI 3·45-3·75]), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9·51 [9·07-9·97]), being male (male vs female; 1·23 [1·20-1·26]), and those with certain underlying health conditions-in particular, individuals receiving immunosuppressants (yes vs no; 5·80 [5·53-6·09])-and those with chronic kidney disease (stage 5 vs no; 3·71 [2·90-4·74]) remained at high risk despite the initial booster. Individuals with a history of COVID-19 infection were at reduced risk (infected ≥9 months before booster dose vs no previous infection; aRR 0·41 [95% CI 0·29-0·58]). INTERPRETATION: Older people, those with multimorbidity, and those with specific underlying health conditions remain at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the initial vaccine booster and should, therefore, be prioritised for additional boosters, including novel optimised versions, and the increasing array of COVID-19 therapeutics. FUNDING: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

Risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic disorders following COVID-19 vaccination and positive test: a self-controlled case series analysis in Wales.

There is a need for better understanding of the risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic disorders following first, second and booster vaccination doses and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Self-controlled cases series analysis of 2.1 million linked patient records in Wales between 7th December 2020 and 31st December 2021. Outcomes were the first diagnosis of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic and thromboembolic events in primary or secondary care datasets, exposure was defined as 0-28 days post-vaccination or a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2. 36,136 individuals experienced either a thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic or thromboembolic event during the study period. Relative to baseline, our observations show greater risk of outcomes in the periods post-first dose of BNT162b2 for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.47, 95%CI: 1.04-2.08) and idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (IRR 2.80, 95%CI: 1.21-6.49) events; post-second dose of ChAdOx1 for arterial thrombosis (IRR 1.14, 95%CI: 1.01-1.29); post-booster greater risk of venous thromboembolic (VTE) (IRR-Moderna 3.62, 95%CI: 0.99-13.17) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.39, 95%CI: 1.04-1.87) and arterial thrombosis (IRR-Moderna 3.14, 95%CI: 1.14-8.64) (IRR-BNT162b2 1.34, 95%CI: 1.15-1.58). Similarly, post SARS-CoV-2 infection the risk was increased for haemorrhagic (IRR 1.49, 95%CI: 1.15-1.92), VTE (IRR 5.63, 95%CI: 4.91, 6.4), arterial thrombosis (IRR 2.46, 95%CI: 2.22-2.71). We found that there was a measurable risk of thrombocytopenic, haemorrhagic, thromboembolic events after COVID-19 vaccination and infection.

Hepatitis of unknown aetiology in children - epidemiological overview of cases reported in Europe, 1 January to 16 June 2022.

Following the report of an excess in paediatric cases of severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology by the United Kingdom (UK) on 5 April 2022, 427 cases were reported from 20 countries in the World Health Organization European Region to the European Surveillance System TESSy from 1 January 2022 to 16 June 2022. Here, we analysed demographic, epidemiological, clinical and microbiological data available in TESSy. Of the reported cases, 77.3% were 5 years or younger and 53.5% had a positive test for adenovirus, 10.4% had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 10.3% were coinfected with both pathogens. Cases with adenovirus infections were significantly more likely to be admitted to intensive care or high-dependency units (OR = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.18-3.74) and transplanted (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.19-9.55) than cases with a negative test result for adenovirus, but this was no longer observed when looking at this association separately between the UK and other countries. Aetiological studies are needed to ascertain if adenovirus plays a role in this possible emergence of hepatitis cases in children and, if confirmed, the mechanisms that could be involved.