ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review aims to discuss the current state of human infections with Avian Influenza A (H5) and (H9) viruses, to support awareness of the global epidemiology among clinicians and public health professionals interested in emerging respiratory infections. RECENT FINDINGS: Among increasing numbers of detections in avian species of Avian Influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b globally, reported human cases of severe infection have been rare.Enhanced surveillance of persons exposed to avian species infected with Influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b in different countries has identified small numbers of asymptomatic individuals with Avian Influenza A(H5N1) detected by PCR from the upper respiratory tract; some of these instances have been considered to represent contamination rather than infection.There have also been recent sporadic human cases of Avian Influenza A(H9N2) internationally, including in China and Cambodia. SUMMARY: Human infections with Avian Influenza A(H5) and (H9) viruses remain of interest as an emerging infection both to clinicians and public health professionals. While maintaining effective surveillance is essential, One health strategies to control infection in avian species will be key to mitigating these risks.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Travel , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , England/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Travel/statistics & numerical data , Male , Adult , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Young Adult , Adolescent , ChildABSTRACT
Background: The Sanofi/GSK AS03-adjuvanted (VidPrevtyn Beta) vaccine and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA (Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.4-5) bivalent vaccine were offered to adults aged 75 years and over in England from 3rd April 2023. This is the first time an adjuvanted COVID-19 vaccine has been administered as part of a UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. In clinical trials, antibody levels generated were comparable with mRNA vaccines but there are no real-world data on the effectiveness or duration of protection. Methods: We used a test-negative case-control study design to estimate the incremental vaccine effectiveness of the Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer bivalent BA.4-5 boosters against hospitalisation amongst those aged 75 years and older in England. Cases (those testing positive) and controls (those testing negative) were identified from the national COVID-19 PCR testing data undertaken in hospital settings. The study period included tests from 3rd April 2023 to 27th August 2023. Tests were linked to the COVID-19 vaccination register and to the national hospital admission database, restricting to those with an acute respiratory infection coded in the primary diagnosis field. Vaccine effectiveness was estimated using multivariable logistic regression amongst those who had last received an autumn 2022 booster given at least 3 months prior. The test result was the outcome and vaccination status the exposure. Analyses were adjusted for week of test, gender, age, clinical risk group status, care home resident status, region, index of multiple deprivation, ethnicity, influenza vaccination status and recent COVID-19 positivity. Findings: There were 14,169 eligible tests from hospitalised individuals aged 75 years and older; 3005 cases (positive tests) and 11,164 controls (negative tests). Effectiveness was highest in the period 9-13 days post vaccination for both manufacturers at about 50%; 43.7% (95% CI, 20.1-60.3%) and 56.1% (95% CI, 25.2-74.2%) for Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer BA.4-5, respectively. There was evidence of waning with a reduction to about 30% for both manufacturers after 5-9 weeks. The longest time interval post vaccination for which we were able to estimate effectiveness was 10+ weeks post vaccination, at which point vaccine effectiveness was 17.6% (95% CI, -3.6 to 34.5%) and 37.9% (95% CI, 13.2-55.5%) for the Sanofi/GSK and Pfizer BA.4-5 boosters, respectively. Interpretation: Both boosters provided good protection against hospitalisation amongst older adults. The finding that the adjuvanted vaccine targeting the distant Beta strain had similar effectiveness to the bivalent mRNA vaccine targeting more closely matched Omicron sub-lineages is notable and highlights the need for further real-world studies into the effectiveness of vaccines from different vaccine platforms and formulations in the presence of matched and unmatched strains. Funding: No external funding.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
The emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Beta (B.1.351) variant in November 2020 raised concerns of increased transmissibility and severity. We describe the epidemiology of 949 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Beta variant cases in England, identified between December 2020 and June 2022. Most cases were detected in the first 3 months. A total of 10 deaths (1.1%; 10/949) were identified among all cases and of those with travel information, 38 (4.9%; 38/781) cases with hospital admissions within 14 days of a positive test being detected. 52.9% (413/781) cases were imported. This study reinforces the importance of monitoring of travel-associated cases to inform public health response and reduce transmissibility of new variants.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , Travel , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Since the emergence of Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2 in late 2021, a number of sub-lineages have arisen and circulated internationally. Little is known about the relative severity of Omicron sub-lineages BA.2.75, BA.4.6, and BQ.1. We undertook a case-control analysis to determine the clinical severity of these lineages relative to BA.5, using whole genome sequenced, PCR-confirmed infections, between 1 August 2022 and 27 November 2022, among those who presented to emergency care in England 14 days after and up to one day prior to the positive specimen. A total of 10,375 episodes were included in the analysis; of which, 5,207 (50.2%) were admitted to the hospital or died. Multivariable conditional regression analyses found no evidence of greater odds of hospital admission or death among those with BA.2.75 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84-1.09) and BA.4.6 (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.88- 1.17) or BQ.1 (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.94-1.13) compared to BA.5. Future lineages may not follow the same trend and there remains a need for continued surveillance of COVID-19 variants and their clinical outcomes to inform the public health response.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Emergency Medical Services , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , England/epidemiology , Hospitalization , HospitalsABSTRACT
Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We assessed the extent to which hospital-associated infections contributed to COVID-19 LTCF outbreaks in England. We matched addresses of cases between March 2020 and June 2021 to reference databases to identify LTCF residents. Linkage to health service records identified hospital-associated infections, with the number of days spent in hospital before positive specimen date used to classify these as definite or probable. Of 149,129 cases in LTCF residents during the study period, 3,748 (2.5%) were definite or probable hospital-associated and discharged to an LTCF. Overall, 431 (0.3%) were identified as index cases of potentially nosocomial-seeded outbreaks (2.7% (431/15,797) of all identified LTCF outbreaks). These outbreaks involved 4,521 resident cases and 1,335 deaths, representing 3.0% and 3.6% of all cases and deaths in LTCF residents, respectively. The proportion of outbreaks that were potentially nosocomial-seeded peaked in late June 2020, early December 2020, mid-January 2021, and mid-April 2021. Nosocomial seeding contributed to COVID-19 LTCF outbreaks but is unlikely to have accounted for a substantial proportion. The continued identification of such outbreaks after the implementation of preventative policies highlights the challenges of preventing their occurrence.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , Long-Term Care , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Pandemics , Nursing Homes , Hospitals , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & controlABSTRACT
We investigated an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 variant BA.2.86 in an East of England care home. We identified 45 infections (33 residents, 12 staff), among 38 residents and 66 staff. Twenty-nine of 43 PCR swabs were sequenced, all of which were variant BA.2.86. The attack rate among residents was 87%, 19 were symptomatic, and one was hospitalised. Twenty-four days after the outbreak started, no cases were still unwell. Among the 33 resident cases, 29 had been vaccinated 4 months earlier.
ABSTRACT
Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) information has played a crucial role in the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic by providing evidence about variants to inform public health policy. The purpose of this study was to assess the representativeness of sequenced cases compared with all COVID-19 cases in England, between March 2020 and August 2021, by demographic and socio-economic characteristics, to evaluate the representativeness and utility of these data in epidemiological analyses. To achieve this, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed COVID-19 cases were extracted from the national laboratory system and linked with WGS data. During the study period, over 10% of COVID-19 cases in England had WGS data available for epidemiological analysis. With sequencing capacity increasing throughout the period, sequencing representativeness compared to all reported COVID-19 cases increased over time, allowing for valuable epidemiological analyses using demographic and socio-economic characteristics, particularly during periods with emerging novel SARS-CoV-2 variants. This study demonstrates the comprehensiveness of England's sequencing throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, rapidly detecting variants of concern, and enabling representative epidemiological analyses to inform policy.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Pandemics , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
A programme of asymptomatic swabbing was piloted in 2021/2022 in England to further understand the risk of human infection with avian influenza in exposed individuals and to evaluate this surveillance approach as a public health measure. There were challenges in deploying this pilot that will need to be addressed for future seasons. However, there was one detection of avian influenza A(H5N1) in a human despite low uptake in eligible exposed persons. Future use of asymptomatic swabbing could help provide an evidence base to quantify asymptomatic infection, quickly identify signals of increased animal to human transmission and improve public health preparedness.
Subject(s)
Influenza A Virus, H5N1 Subtype , Influenza in Birds , Influenza, Human , Animals , Humans , Influenza in Birds/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Asymptomatic Infections , Birds , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
There are concerns that sotrovimab has reduced efficacy at reducing hospitalisation risk against the BA.2 sub-lineage of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. We performed a retrospective cohort (n = 8850) study of individuals treated with sotrovimab in the community, with the objective of assessing whether there were any differences in risk of hospitalisation of BA.2 cases compared with BA.1. We estimated that the hazard ratio of hospital admission with a length of stay of 2 days or more was 1.17 for BA.2 compared with BA.1 (95%CI 0.74-1.86). These results suggest that the risk of hospital admission was similar between the two sub-lineages.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Retrospective Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations including those with learning disabilities. Assessing the incidence and risk of death in such settings can improve the prevention of COVID-19. We describe individuals who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 while residing in care homes for learning disabilities and/or autism and investigate the risk of death compared with individuals living in their own homes. Methods: Surveillance records for COVID-19 infections in England from 02 February 2020 to 31 March 2022 were extracted. Data on property type, variant wave, vaccination, hospitalisation and death were derived through data linkage and enrichment. Care home residents with learning disabilities and/or autism and diagnosed with COVID-19 were identified and analysed, and logistic regression analyses compared the risk of death of individuals living in private residence. We assessed interaction parameters by post-estimation analyses. Results: A total of 3501 individuals were identified as diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 whilst living in 632 care home properties for learning disabilities and/or autism. Of the 3686 episodes of infection, 80.4% were part of an outbreak. The crude case fatality rate was 2.6% and 0.6% among care home residents with autism and/or learning disabilities and their counterparts in households, respectively.The post-estimation analyses found over eight times the odds of death among care home residents in 60 years old compared with their counterparts living in private homes. Conclusions: Care home residents with learning disabilities and/or autism have a greater risk of death from COVID-19. Optimising guidance to meet their needs is of great importance.
Subject(s)
Autistic Disorder , COVID-19 , Learning Disabilities , Humans , Middle Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Long-Term Care , Nursing Homes , Autistic Disorder/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Learning Disabilities/epidemiologyABSTRACT
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) rapidly replaced Delta (B.1.617.2) to become dominant in England. Our study assessed differences in transmission between Omicron and Delta using two independent data sources and methods. Omicron and Delta cases were identified through genomic sequencing, genotyping and S-gene target failure in England from 5-11 December 2021. Secondary attack rates for named contacts were calculated in household and non-household settings using contact tracing data, while household clustering was identified using national surveillance data. Logistic regression models were applied to control for factors associated with transmission for both methods. For contact tracing data, higher secondary attack rates for Omicron vs. Delta were identified in households (15.0% vs. 10.8%) and non-households (8.2% vs. 3.7%). For both variants, in household settings, onward transmission was reduced from cases and named contacts who had three doses of vaccine compared to two, but this effect was less pronounced for Omicron (adjusted risk ratio, aRR 0.78 and 0.88) than Delta (aRR 0.62 and 0.68). In non-household settings, a similar reduction was observed only in contacts who had three doses vs. two doses for both Delta (aRR 0.51) and Omicron (aRR 0.76). For national surveillance data, the risk of household clustering, was increased 3.5-fold for Omicron compared to Delta (aRR 3.54 (3.29-3.81)). Our study identified increased risk of onward transmission of Omicron, consistent with its successful global displacement of Delta. We identified a reduced effectiveness of vaccination in lowering risk of transmission, a likely contributor for the rapid propagation of Omicron.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) or rough sleeping are a vulnerable population, likely to be disproportionately affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 infection on this population is yet to be fully described in England. We present a novel method to identify COVID-19 cases in this population and describe its findings. A phenotype was developed and validated to identify PEH or rough sleeping in a national surveillance system. Confirmed COVID-19 cases in England from March 2020 to March 2022 were address-matched to known homelessness accommodations and shelters. Further cases were identified using address-based indicators, such as NHS pseudo postcodes. In total, 1835 cases were identified by the phenotype. Most were <39 years of age (66.8%) and male (62.8%). The proportion of cases was highest in London (29.8%). The proportion of cases of a minority ethnic background and deaths were disproportionality greater in this population, compared to all COVID-19 cases in England. This methodology provides an approach to track the impact of COVID-19 on a subset of this population and will be relevant to policy making. Future surveillance systems and studies may benefit from this approach to further investigate the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases on select populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ill-Housed Persons , Male , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , England/epidemiology , LondonABSTRACT
A single SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose reduces onward transmission from case-patients. We assessed the potential effects of receiving 2 doses on household transmission for case-patients in England and their household contacts. We used stratified Cox regression models to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) for contacts becoming secondary case-patients, comparing contacts of 2-dose vaccinated and unvaccinated index case-patients. We controlled for age, sex, and vaccination status of case-patients and contacts, as well as region, household composition, and relative socioeconomic condition based on household location. During the Alpha-dominant period, HRs were 0.19 (0.13-0.28) for contacts of 2-dose BNT162b2-vaccinated case-patients and 0.54 (0.41-0.69) for contacts of 2-dose Ch4dOx1-vaccinated case-patients; during the Delta-dominant period, HRs were higher, 0.74 (0.72-0.76) for BNT162b2 and 1.06 (1.04-1.08) for Ch4dOx1. Reduction of onward transmission was lower for index case-patients who tested positive ≥2 months after the second dose of either vaccine.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , BNT162 Vaccine , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Vaccination , England/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: From 12th March 2020, individuals in England were advised to quarantine in their home if a household member tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. A mandatory isolation period of 10 days was introduced on 28th September 2020 and applied to all individuals with COVID-19. We assessed the frequency, timing, and characteristics of recovered COVID-19 cases requiring subsequent quarantine episodes due to household re-exposure. METHODS: In this case cohort study, all laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases notified in England (29th June to 28th December 2020) were analysed to identify consecutive household case(s). Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associations between case characteristics and need to quarantine following recent infection (within 28 days of diagnosis). RESULTS: Among 1,651,550 cases resident in private dwellings and Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs), 744,548 (45.1%) were the only case in their home and 56,179 (3.4%) were succeeded by further household cases diagnosed within 11-28 days of their diagnosis. Of 1,641,412 cases arising in private homes, the likelihood of further household cases was highest for Bangladeshi (aOR = 2.20, 95% CI = 2.10-2.31) and Pakistani (aOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 2.08-2.22) individuals compared to White British, as well as among young people (17-24y vs. 25-64y; aOR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.16-1.22), men (vs. women; aOR = 1.06, 95% CI = 1.04-1.08), London residents (vs. Yorkshire and Humber; aOR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.52-1.63) and areas of high deprivation (IMD 1 vs. 10; aOR = 1.13, 95% CI = 1.09-1.19). CONCLUSION: Policies requiring quarantine on re-exposure differentially impact some of the most disadvantaged populations. Quarantine exemption for recently recovered individuals could mitigate the socioeconomic impact of responses to COVID-19 or similar infectious disease outbreaks.