ABSTRACT
Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody levels can be used to assess humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination, and may predict risk of future infection. Higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 anti-Spike antibodies are known to be associated with increased protection against future SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, variation in antibody levels and risk factors for lower antibody levels following each round of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination have not been explored across a wide range of socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination, and health factors within population-based cohorts. Methods: Samples were collected from 9361 individuals from TwinsUK and ALSPAC UK population-based longitudinal studies and tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Cross-sectional sampling was undertaken jointly in April-May 2021 (TwinsUK, N=4256; ALSPAC, N=4622), and in TwinsUK only in November 2021-January 2022 (N=3575). Variation in antibody levels after first, second, and third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables were analysed. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we tested associations between antibody levels following vaccination and: (1) SARS-CoV-2 infection following vaccination(s); (2) health, socio-demographic, SARS-CoV-2 infection, and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination variables. Results: Within TwinsUK, single-vaccinated individuals with the lowest 20% of anti-Spike antibody levels at initial testing had threefold greater odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next 6-9 months (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.4, 6.0), compared to the top 20%. In TwinsUK and ALSPAC, individuals identified as at increased risk of COVID-19 complication through the UK 'Shielded Patient List' had consistently greater odds (two- to fourfold) of having antibody levels in the lowest 10%. Third vaccination increased absolute antibody levels for almost all individuals, and reduced relative disparities compared with earlier vaccinations. Conclusions: These findings quantify the association between antibody level and risk of subsequent infection, and support a policy of triple vaccination for the generation of protective antibodies. Funding: Antibody testing was funded by UK Health Security Agency. The National Core Studies program is funded by COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing - National Core Study (LHW-NCS) HMT/UKRI/MRC ([MC_PC_20030] and [MC_PC_20059]). Related funding was also provided by the NIHR 606 (CONVALESCENCE grant [COV-LT-0009]). TwinsUK is funded by the Wellcome Trust, Medical Research Council, Versus Arthritis, European Union Horizon 2020, Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF), Zoe Ltd and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Network (CRN) and Biomedical Research Centre based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (Grant ref: [217065/Z/19/Z]) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC.
Vaccination against the virus that causes COVID-19 triggers the body to produce antibodies that help fight future infections. But some people generate more antibodies after vaccination than others. People with lower levels of antibodies are more likely to get COVID-19 in the future. Identifying people with low antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination is important. It could help decide who receives priority for future vaccination. Previous studies show that people with certain health conditions produce fewer antibodies after one or two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine. For example, people with weakened immune systems. Now that third booster doses are available, it is vital to determine if they increase antibody levels for those most at risk of severe COVID-19. Cheetham et al. show that a third booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine boosts antibodies to high levels in 90% of individuals, including those at increased risk. In the experiments, Cheetham et al. measured antibodies against the virus that causes COVID-19 in 9,361 individuals participating in two large long-term health studies in the United Kingdom. The experiments found that UK individuals advised to shield from the virus because they were at increased risk of complications had lower levels of antibodies after one or two vaccine doses than individuals without such risk factors. This difference was also seen after a third booster dose, but overall antibody levels had large increases. People who received the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine as their first dose also had lower antibody levels after one or two doses than those who received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine first. Positively, this difference in antibody levels was no longer seen after a third booster dose. Individuals with lower antibody levels after their first dose were also more likely to have a case of COVID-19 in the following months. Antibody levels were high in most individuals after the third dose. The results may help governments and public health officials identify individuals who may need extra protection after the first two vaccine doses. They also support current policies promoting booster doses of the vaccine and may support prioritizing booster doses for those at the highest risk from COVID-19 in future vaccination campaigns.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Cross-Sectional Studies , Risk Factors , Antibodies, Viral , London , Longitudinal Studies , VaccinationABSTRACT
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly and repeatedly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, deploying multiple online questionnaires and a previous home-based antibody test in October 2020. A second antibody test, in collaboration with ten other longitudinal population studies, was completed by 4,622 ALSPAC participants between April and June 2021. Of 4,241 participants with a valid spike protein antibody test result (8.2% were void), indicating antibody response to either COVID-19 vaccination or natural infection, 3,172 were positive (74.8%). Generational differences were substantial, with 2,463/2,555 G0 participants classified positive (96.4%) compared to 709/1,686 G1 participants (42.1%). Of 4,199 participants with a valid nucleocapsid antibody test result (9.2% were void), suggesting potential and recent natural infection, 493 were positive (11.7%); 248/2,526 G0 participants (9.8%) and 245/1,673 G1 participants (14.6%) tested positive, respectively. We also compare results for this round of testing to that undertaken in October 2020. Future work will combine these test results with additional sources of data to identify participants' COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. These ALSPAC COVID-19 serology data are being complemented with linkage to health records and Public Health England pillar testing results as they become available, in addition to four previous questionnaire waves and a prior antibody test. Data have been released as an update to the previous COVID-19 datasets. These comprise: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all four previous questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors; and 2) individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the second ALSPAC antibody test and the data obtained from it.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Globally most children do not engage in enough physical activity. Day length and weather conditions have been identified as determinants of physical activity, although how they may be overcome as barriers is not clear. We aim to examine if and how relationships between children's physical activity and weather and day length vary between countries and identify settings in which children were better able to maintain activity levels given the weather conditions they experienced. METHODS: In this repeated measures study, we used data from 23,451 participants in the International Children's Accelerometry Database (ICAD). Daily accelerometer-measured physical activity (counts per minute; cpm) was matched to local weather conditions and the relationships assessed using multilevel regression models. Multilevel models accounted for clustering of days within occasions within children within study-cities, and allowed us to explore if and how the relationships between weather variables and physical activity differ by setting. RESULTS: Increased precipitation and wind speed were associated with decreased cpm while better visibility and more hours of daylight were associated with increased cpm. Models indicated that increases in these variables resulted in average changes in mean cpm of 7.6/h of day length, -13.2/cm precipitation, 10.3/10 km visibility and -10.3/10kph wind speed (all p < 0.01). Temperature showed a cubic relationship with cpm, although between 0 and 20 degrees C the relationship was broadly linear. Age showed interactions with temperature and precipitation, with the associations larger among younger children. In terms of geographic trends, participants from Northern European countries and Melbourne, Australia were the most active, and also better maintained their activity levels given the weather conditions they experienced compared to those in the US and Western Europe. CONCLUSIONS: We found variation in the relationship between weather conditions and physical activity between ICAD studies and settings. Children in Northern Europe and Melbourne, Australia were not only more active on average, but also more active given the weather conditions they experienced. Future work should consider strategies to mitigate the impacts of weather conditions, especially among young children, and interventions involving changes to the physical environment should consider how they will operate in different weather conditions.
Subject(s)
Exercise , Weather , Accelerometry , Adolescent , Australia , Child , Child, Preschool , Europe , Exercise/psychology , Female , Humans , Male , Motor Activity , Photoperiod , Rain , Seasons , WindABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Cohort studies must collect data from their participants as economically as possible, while maintaining response rates. This randomized controlled trial investigated whether offering a choice of online or paper questionnaires resulted in improved response rates compared with offering online first. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Eligible participants were young people in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) study (born April 1, 1991, to December 31, 1992, in the Avon area). After exclusions, 8,795 participants were randomized. The "online first" group were invited to complete the questionnaire online. The "choice" group were also sent a paper questionnaire and offered a choice of completion method. The trial was embedded within routine data collection. The main outcome measure was the number of questionnaires returned. Data on costs were also collected. RESULTS: Those in the "online first" arm of the trial were less likely to return a questionnaire [adjusted odds ratio: 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82, 0.99]. The "choice" arm was more expensive (mean difference per participant £0.71; 95% CI: £0.65, £0.76). It cost an extra £47 to have one extra person to complete the questionnaire in the "choice" arm. CONCLUSION: Offering a choice of completion methods (paper or online) for questionnaires in ALSPAC increased response rates but was more expensive than offering online first.
Subject(s)
Choice Behavior , Internet , Motivation , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adult , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Odds Ratio , United Kingdom , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Attrition is an important problem in cohort studies. Tracing cohort members who have moved or otherwise lost contact with the study is vital. There is some debate about the acceptability and relative effectiveness of opt-in versus opt-out methods of contacting cohort members to re-engage them in this context. We conducted a randomised controlled trial to compare the two approaches in terms of effectiveness (tracing to confirm address and consenting to continue in the study), cost-effectiveness and acceptability. METHODS: Participants in this trial were individuals (young people and mothers) recruited to the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC), who had not engaged with the study in the previous 5 years and for whom mail had been returned from their last known address. The sampling frame was restricted to those for whom database searching led to a potential new address being found in the Bristol area. 300 participants were randomly selected and assigned using stratified randomisation to the opt-in or opt-out arm. A tailored letter was sent to the potential new address, either asking participants to opt in to a home visit, or giving them the option to opt out of a home visit. Fieldworkers from Ipsos MORI conducted home visits to confirm address details. RESULTS: The proportion who were traced was higher in the opt-out arm (77/150 = 51 %) than the opt-in arm (6/150 = 4 %), as was the proportion who consented to continue in ALSPAC (46/150 = 31 % v 4/150 = 3 %). The mean cost per participant was £8.14 in the opt-in arm and £71.93 in the opt-out arm. There was no evidence of a difference in acceptability between the opt-in and opt-out approaches. CONCLUSION: Since the opt-in approach yielded very low response rates, and there were no differences in terms of acceptability, we conclude that the opt-out approach is the most effective method of tracing disengaged study members. The gains made in contacting participants must be weighed against the increase in cost using this methodology.
Subject(s)
House Calls/statistics & numerical data , Lost to Follow-Up , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Adult , Child , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Home Care Services/economics , Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , House Calls/economics , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Mothers , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/economics , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Patient Selection , Prospective Studies , Sample Size , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a transgenerational prospective observational study investigating influences on health and development across the life course. It considers multiple genetic, epigenetic, biological, psychological, social and other environmental exposures in relation to a similarly diverse range of health, social and developmental outcomes. Recruitment sought to enroll pregnant women in the Bristol area of the UK during 1990-92; this was extended to include additional children eligible using the original enrollment definition up to the age of 18 years. The children from 14541 pregnancies were recruited in 1990-92, increasing to 15247 pregnancies by the age of 18 years. This cohort profile describes the index children of these pregnancies. Follow-up includes 59 questionnaires (4 weeks-18 years of age) and 9 clinical assessment visits (7-17 years of age). The resource comprises a wide range of phenotypic and environmental measures in addition to biological samples, genetic (DNA on 11343 children, genome-wide data on 8365 children, complete genome sequencing on 2000 children) and epigenetic (methylation sampling on 1000 children) information and linkage to health and administrative records. Data access is described in this article and is currently set up as a supported access resource. To date, over 700 peer-reviewed articles have been published using ALSPAC data.
Subject(s)
Child Development , Health Status , Longitudinal Studies , Parents , Adolescent , Anthropometry , Blood Banks , Child , England , Environment , Female , Genome-Wide Association Study , Health Behavior , History, 20th Century , Humans , Male , Medical Record Linkage , Phenotype , Pregnancy , Socioeconomic Factors , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Summary The Avon Longitudinal Study of Children and Parents (ALSPAC) was established to understand how genetic and environmental characteristics influence health and development in parents and children. All pregnant women resident in a defined area in the South West of England, with an expected date of delivery between 1st April 1991 and 31st December 1992, were eligible and 13761 women (contributing 13867 pregnancies) were recruited. These women have been followed over the last 19-22 years and have completed up to 20 questionnaires, have had detailed data abstracted from their medical records and have information on any cancer diagnoses and deaths through record linkage. A follow-up assessment was completed 17-18 years postnatal at which anthropometry, blood pressure, fat, lean and bone mass and carotid intima media thickness were assessed, and a fasting blood sample taken. The second follow-up clinic, which additionally measures cognitive function, physical capability, physical activity (with accelerometer) and wrist bone architecture, is underway and two further assessments with similar measurements will take place over the next 5 years. There is a detailed biobank that includes DNA, with genome-wide data available on >10000, stored serum and plasma taken repeatedly since pregnancy and other samples; a wide range of data on completed biospecimen assays are available. Details of how to access these data are provided in this cohort profile.