RESUMO
To define appropriate planning scenarios for future pandemics of respiratory pathogens, it is important to understand the initial transmission dynamics of COVID-19 during 2020. Here, we fit an age-stratified compartmental model with a flexible underlying transmission term to daily COVID-19 death data from states in the contiguous U.S. and to national and sub-national data from around the world. The daily death data of the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic was categorized into one of four main types: "spring single-peak profile", "summer single-peak profile", "spring/summer two-peak profile" and "broad with shoulder profile". We estimated a reproduction number R as a function of calendar time tc and as a function of time since the first death reported in that population (local pandemic time, tp). Contrary to the multiple categories and range of magnitudes in death incidence profiles, the R(tp) profiles were much more homogeneous. We find that in both the contiguous U.S. and globally, the initial value of both R(tc) and R(tp) was substantial: at or above two. However, during the early months, pandemic time R(tp) decreased exponentially to a value that hovered around one. This decrease was accompanied by a reduction in the variance of R(tp). For calendar time R(tc), the decrease in magnitude was slower and non-exponential, with a smaller reduction in variance. Intriguingly, similar trends of exponential decrease and reduced variance were not observed in raw death data. Our findings suggest that the combination of specific government responses and spontaneous changes in behaviour ensured that transmissibility dropped, rather than remaining constant, during the initial phases of a pandemic. Future pandemic planning scenarios should be based on models that assume similar decreases in transmissibility, which lead to longer epidemics with lower peaks when compared with models based on constant transmissibility. Author summaryIn planning for a future novel respiratory pandemic, or the next variant of SARS-Cov-2, it is important to characterize and understand the observed epidemic patterns during the first months of the COVID-19 outbreak. Here, we describe COVID-19 epidemic patterns observed in the U.S. and globally in terms of patterns of the basic reproduction number, R(t), using an age-stratified compartmental model. We find that daily death data of the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic can be classified into one of four types: "spring single-peak profile", "summer single-peak profile", "spring/summer two-peak profile" and "broad with shoulder profile". Using the concept of local pandemic time, tp, we show a consistent pattern on four continents of an initial large magnitude and variance in reproductive number R(tp) that decreases monotonically and hovers around one for many days, regardless of specific intervention measures imposed by local authorities and without an accompanying decrease in daily death prevalence. We attribute this to significant behavior changes in populations in response to the perceived risk of COVID-19.
RESUMO
BackgroundLong COVID, describing the long-term sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection, remains a poorly defined syndrome. There is uncertainty about its predisposing factors and the extent of the resultant public health burden, with estimates of prevalence and duration varying widely. MethodsWithin rounds 3-5 of the REACT-2 study, 508,707 people in the community in England were asked about a prior history of COVID-19 and the presence and duration of 29 different symptoms. We used uni-and multivariable models to identify predictors of persistence of symptoms (12 weeks or more). We estimated the prevalence of symptom persistence at 12 weeks, and used unsupervised learning to cluster individuals by symptoms experienced. FindingsAmong the 508,707 participants, the weighted prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 was 19.2% (95% CI: 19.1,19.3). 37.7% of 76,155 symptomatic people post COVID-19 experienced at least one symptom, while 14.8% experienced three or more symptoms, lasting 12 weeks or more. This gives a weighted population prevalence of persistent symptoms of 5.75% (5.68, 5.81) for one and 2.22% (2.1, 2.26) for three or more symptoms. Almost a third of people (8,771/28,713 [30.5%]) with at least one symptom lasting 12 weeks or more reported having had severe COVID-19 symptoms ("significant effect on my daily life") at the time of their illness, giving a weighted prevalence overall for this group of 1.72% (1.69,1.76). The prevalence of persistent symptoms was higher in women than men (OR: 1.51 [1.46,1.55]) and, conditional on reporting symptoms, risk of persistent symptoms increased linearly with age by 3.5 percentage points per decade of life. Obesity, smoking or vaping, hospitalisation, and deprivation were also associated with a higher probability of persistent symptoms, while Asian ethnicity was associated with a lower probability. Two stable clusters were identified based on symptoms that persisted for 12 weeks or more: in the largest cluster, tiredness predominated, while in the second there was a high prevalence of respiratory and related symptoms. InterpretationA substantial proportion of people with symptomatic COVID-19 go on to have persistent symptoms for 12 weeks or more, which is age-dependent. Clinicians need to be aware of the differing manifestations of Long COVID which may require tailored therapeutic approaches. Managing the long-term sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population will remain a major challenge for health services in the next stage of the pandemic. FundingThe study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care in England. Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSRecent systematic reviews have documented the wide range of symptoms and reported prevalence of persistent symptoms following COVID-19. A dynamic review of Long COVID studies (NIHR Evidence) in March 2021 summarised the literature on the prevalence of persistent symptoms after acute COVID19, and reported that most studies (14) were of hospitalised patients, with higher prevalence of persistent symptoms compared with two community-based studies. There was limited evidence from community studies beyond 12 weeks. Another systematic review reported a median of over 70% of people with symptoms lasting at least 60 days. A review of risk factors for Long COVID found consistent evidence for an increased risk amongst women and those with high body mass index (BMI) but inconsistent findings on the role of age and little evidence concerning risks among different socioeconomic or ethnic groups which are often not well captured in routine healthcare records. Long COVID is increasingly recognised as heterogenous, likely underpinned by differing biological mechanisms, but there is not yet consensus on defining subtypes of the condition. Added value of this studyThis community-based study of over half a million people was designed to be representative of the adult population of England. A random sample of adults ages 18 years and above registered with a GP were invited irrespective of previous access to services for COVID-19, providing an estimate of population prevalence that was representative of the whole population. The findings show substantial declines in symptom prevalence over the first 12 weeks following Covid-19, reported by nearly one fifth of respondents, of whom over a third remained symptomatic at 12 weeks and beyond, with little evidence for decline thereafter. Risk factors identified for persistent symptoms (12 weeks or more) suggestive of Long COVID confirm some previous findings - an increased risk in women, obese and overweight individuals and those hospitalised for COVID-19, with strong evidence for an increasing risk with age. Additional evidence was found for an increased risk in those with lower income, smoking or vaping and healthcare or care home workers. A lower risk was found in those of Asian ethnicity. Clustering identified two distinct groups of individuals with different symptom profiles at 12 weeks, highlighting the heterogeneity of clinical presentation. The smaller cluster had higher prevalence of respiratory and related symptoms, while for those in the larger cluster tiredness was the dominant symptom, with lower prevalence of organ-specific symptoms. Implications of available evidenceThere is a high prevalence of persistent symptoms beyond 12 weeks after acute COVID-19, with little evidence of decline thereafter. This highlights the needs for greater support for patients, both through specialised services and, for those from low-income settings, financial support. The understanding that there are distinct clusters of persistent symptoms, the most common of which is dominated by fatigue, is important for the recognition and clinical management of the condition outside of specialised services.
RESUMO
BackgroundIn England, free testing for COVID-19 was widely available from early in the pandemic until 1 April 2022. Based on apparent differences in the rate of positive PCR tests at a single laboratory compared to the rest of the laboratory network, we hypothesised that a substantial number of UK PCR tests processed during September and October 2021 may have been incorrectly reported as negative, compared with the rest of the laboratory network. We investigate the epidemiological impact of this incident. MethodsWe estimate the additional number of COVID-19 cases that would have been reported had the sensitivity of the laboratory test procedure not dropped for the period 2 September to 12 October. In addition, by making comparisons between the most affected local areas and comparator populations, we estimate the number of additional infections, cases, hospitalisations and deaths that could have occurred as a result of increased transmission due to the misclassification of tests. ResultsWe estimate that around 39,000 tests may have been incorrectly classified during this period and, as a direct result of this incident, the most affected areas in the South West could have experienced between 6,000 and 34,000 additional reportable cases, with a central estimate of around 24,000 additional reportable cases. Using modelled relationships between key variables, we estimate that this central estimate could have translated to approximately 55,000 additional infections, which means that each incorrect negative test likely led to just over two additional infections. In those same geographical areas, our results also suggest an increased number of admissions and deaths. ConclusionThe incident is likely to have had a measurable impact on cases and infections in the affected areas in the South West of England.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe relationship between prevalence of infection and severe outcomes such as hospitalisation and death changed over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study estimated swab positivity in England approximately monthly from May 2020 to 31 March 2022. This period covers widespread circulation of the original strain, the emergence of the Alpha, Delta and Omicron variants and the rollout of Englands mass vaccination campaign. MethodsHere, we explore this changing relationship between prevalence of swab positivity and the infection fatality rate (IFR) and infection hospitalisation rate (IHR) over 23 months of the pandemic in England, using publicly available data for the daily number of deaths and hospitalisations, REACT-1 swab positivity data, time-delay models and Bayesian P-spline models. We analyse data for all age groups together, as well as in two sub-groups: those aged 65 and over and those aged 64 and under. ResultsDuring 2020, we estimated the IFR to be 0.67% and the IHR to be 2.6%. By late-2021/early-2022 the IFR and IHR had both decreased to 0.097% and 0.76% respectively. Continuous estimates of the IFR and IHR of the virus were observed to increase during the periods of Alpha and Deltas emergence. During periods of vaccination rollout, and the emergence of the Omicron variant, the IFR and IHR of the virus decreased. During 2020, we estimated a time-lag of 19 days between hospitalisation and swab positivity, and 26 days between deaths and swab positivity. By late-2021/early-2022 these time-lags had decreased to 7 days for hospitalisations, and 18 days for deaths. ConclusionEven though many populations have high levels of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 from vaccination and natural infection, waning of immunity and variant emergence will continue to be an upwards pressure on IHR and IFR. As investments in community surveillance are scaled back, alternative methods should be developed to accurately track the ever changing relationship between infection, hospitalisation and death.
RESUMO
BackgroundREACT-2 Study 5 is a population survey of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the community in England. MethodsWe contacted a random sample of the population by sending a letter to named individuals aged 18 or over from the NHS GP registrations list. We then sent respondents a lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) kit for SARS-CoV-2 antibody self-testing and asked them to perform the test at home and complete a questionnaire, including reporting of their test result. Overall, 161,537 adults completed questionnaires and self-administered LFIA tests for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 between 27 October and 10 November 2020. ResultsThe overall adjusted and weighted prevalence was 5.6% (95% CI 5.4-5.7). This was an increase from 4.4% (4.3-4.5) in round 3 (September), a relative increase of 26.9% (24.0-29.9).The largest increase by age was in the 18 to 24 year old age group, which increased (adjusted and weighted) from 6.7% (6.3-7.2) to 9.9% (9.3-10.4), and in students, (adjusted, unweighted) from 5.9% (4.8-7.1) to 12.1% (10.8-13.5). Prevalence increased most in Yorkshire and The Humber, from 3.4% (3.0-3.8) to 6.3% (5.9-6.8) and the North West from 4.5% (4.2-4.9) to 7.7% (7.2-8.1). In contrast, the prevalence in London was stable, at 9.5% (9.0-9.9) and 9.5% (9.1-10.0) in rounds 3 and 4 respectively. We found the highest prevalence in people of Bangladeshi 15.1% (10.9-20.5), Pakistani 13.9% (11.2-17.2) and African 13.5% (10.7-16.8) ethnicity, and lowest in those of white British ethnicity at 4.2% (4.0-4.3). InterpretationThe second wave of infection in England is apparent in increasing antibody prevalence, particularly in younger people, students, and in the Northern Regions. By late October a large proportion of the population remained susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in England based on naturally acquired immunity from the first and early second wave.
RESUMO
BackgroundSeroprevalence studies in key worker populations are essential to understand the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Various technologies, including laboratory assays and point-of-care self-tests, are available for antibody testing. The interpretation of seroprevalence studies requires comparative data on the performance of antibody tests. MethodsIn June 2020, current and former members of the UK Police forces and Fire service performed a self-test lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) and provided a saliva sample, nasopharyngeal swab, venous blood samples for Abbott ELISA and had a nurse performed LFIA. We present the prevalence of PCR positivity and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in this cohort following the first wave of infection in England; the acceptability and usability of self-test LFIAs (defined as use of the LFIA kit and provision of a valid result, respectively); and determine the sensitivity and specificity of LFIAs compared to laboratory ELISAs. ResultsIn this cohort of non-healthcare key workers, 7.4% (396/5,348; 95% CI, 6.7-8.1) were antibody positive. Seroprevalence was 8.9% (6.9-11.4) in those under 40 years, 11.5% (8.8-15.0) in those of non-white British ethnicity and 7.8% (7.1-8.7) in those currently working. The self-test LFIA had an acceptability of 97.7% and a usability of 90.0%. There was substantial agreement between within-participant LFIA results (kappa 0.80; 0.77-0.83). The LFIAs (self-test and nurse-performed) had a similar performance: compared to ELISA, sensitivity was 82.1% (77.7-86.0) self-test and 76.4% (71.9-80.5) nurse-performed with specificity of 97.8% (97.3-98.2) and 98.5% (98.1-98.8) respectively. ConclusionA greater proportion of the non-healthcare key worker cohort showed evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population at 6.0% (5.8-6.1) following the first wave in England. The high acceptability and usability reported by participants and the similar performance of self-test and nurse-performed LFIAs indicate that the self-test LFIA is fit for purpose for home-testing in occupational and community prevalence studies.
RESUMO
BackgroundEven with good progress on vaccination, SARS-CoV-2 infections in the UK may continue to impose a high burden of disease and therefore pose substantial challenges for health policy decision makers. Stringent government-mandated physical distancing measures (lockdown) have been demonstrated to be epidemiologically effective, but can have both positive and negative economic consequences. The duration and frequency of any intervention policy could, in theory, could be optimised to maximise economic benefits while achieving substantial reductions in disease. MethodsHere we use a pre-existing SARS-CoV-2 transmission model to assess the health and economic implications of different strengths of control through time in order to identify optimal approaches to non-pharmaceutical intervention stringency in the UK, considering the role of vaccination in reducing the need for future physical distancing measures. The model is calibrated to the COVID-19 epidemic in England and we carry out retrospective analysis of the optimal timing of precautionary breaks in 2020 and the optimal relaxation policy from the January 2021 lockdown, considering the willingness to pay for health improvement. ResultsWe find that the precise timing and intensity of interventions is highly dependent upon the objective of control. As intervention measures are relaxed, we predict a resurgence in cases, but the optimal intervention policy can be established dependent upon the willingness to pay (WTP) per QALY loss avoided. Our results show that establishing an optimal level of control can result in a reduction in net monetary loss of billions of pounds, dependent upon the precise WTP value. ConclusionsIt is vital, as the UK emerges from lockdown, but continues to face an on-going pandemic, to accurately establish the overall health and economic costs when making policy decisions. We demonstrate how some of these can be quantified, employing mechanistic infectious disease transmission models to establish optimal levels of control for the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
RESUMO
BackgroundEngland, UK has experienced a large outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 infection. As in USA and elsewhere, disadvantaged communities have been disproportionately affected. MethodsNational REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) prevalence study using a self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) test for IgG among a random population sample of 100,000 adults over 18 years in England, 20 June to 13 July 2020. ResultsData were available for 109,076 participants, yielding 5,544 IgG positive results; adjusted (for test performance) and re-weighted (for sampling) prevalence was 6.0% (95% Cl: 5.8, 6.1). Highest prevalence was in London (13.0% [12.3, 13.6]), among people of Black or Asian (mainly South Asian) ethnicity (17.3% [15.8, 19.1] and 11.9% [11.0, 12.8] respectively) and those aged 18-24 years (7.9% [7.3, 8.5]). Adjusted odds ratio for care home workers with client-facing roles was 3.1 (2.5, 3.8) compared with non-essential workers. One third (32.2%, [31.0-33.4]) of antibody positive individuals reported no symptoms. Among symptomatic cases, most (78.8%) reported symptoms during the peak of the epidemic in England in March (31.3%) and April (47.5%) 2020. We estimate that 3.36 million (3.21, 3.51) people have been infected with SARS-CoV-2 in England to end June 2020, with an overall infection fatality ratio (IFR) of 0.90% (0.86, 0.94); age-specific IFR was similar among people of different ethnicities. ConclusionThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in England disproportionately affected ethnic minority groups and health and care home workers. The higher risk of infection in minority ethnic groups may explain their increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19.
RESUMO
Control of the COVID-19 pandemic requires a detailed understanding of prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the population. Case-based surveillance is necessarily biased towards symptomatic individuals and sensitive to varying patterns of reporting in space and time. The real-time assessment of community transmission antigen study (REACT-1) is designed to overcome these limitations by obtaining prevalence data based on a nose and throat swab RT-PCR test among a representative community-based sample in England, including asymptomatic individuals. Here, we describe results comparing rounds 1 and 2 carried out during May and mid June / early July 2020 respectively across 315 lower tier local authority areas. In round 1 we found 159 positive samples from 120,620 tested swabs while round 2 there were 123 positive samples from 159,199 tested swabs, indicating a downwards trend in prevalence from 0.13% (95% CI, 0.11%, 0.15%) to 0.077% (0.065%, 0.092%), a halving time of 38 (28, 58) days, and an R of 0.89 (0.86, 0.93). The proportion of swab-positive participants who were asymptomatic at the time of sampling increased from 69% (61%, 76%) in round 1 to 81% (73%, 87%) in round 2. Although health care and care home workers were infected far more frequently than other workers in round 1, the odds were markedly reduced in round 2. Age patterns of infection changed between rounds, with a reduction by a factor of five in prevalence in 18 to 24 year olds. Our data were suggestive of increased risk of infection in Black and Asian (mainly South Asian) ethnicities. Using regional and detailed case location data, we detected increased infection intensity in and near London. Under multiple sensitivity analyses, our results were robust to the possibility of false positives. At the end of the initial lockdown in England, we found continued decline in prevalence and a shift in the pattern of infection by age and occupation. Community-based sampling, including asymptomatic individuals, is necessary to fully understand the nature of ongoing transmission.
RESUMO
BackgroundEngland has experienced one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality in the world. SARS-CoV-2 virus has circulated in hospitals, care homes and the community since January 2020. Our current epidemiological knowledge is largely informed by clinical cases with far less understanding of community transmission. MethodsThe REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) study is a nationally representative prevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 virus swab-positivity in the community in England. We recruited participants regardless of symptom status. ResultsWe found 159 positives from 120,610 swabs giving an average prevalence of 0.13% (95% CI: 0.11%,0.15%) from 1st May to 1st June 2020. We showed decreasing prevalence with a halving time of 8.6 (6.2, 13.6) days, implying an overall reproduction number R of 0.57 (0.45, 0.72). Adults aged 18 to 24 yrs had the highest swab-positivity rates, while those >64 yrs had the lowest. Of the 126 participants who tested positive with known symptom status in the week prior to their swab, 39 reported symptoms while 87 did not, giving an estimate that 69% (61%,76%) of people were symptom-free for the 7 days prior testing positive in our community sample. Symptoms strongly associated with swab-positivity were: nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhoea, blocked nose, loss of smell, loss of taste, headache, chills and severe fatigue. Recent contact with a known COVID-19 case was associated with odds of 24 (16, 38) for swab-positivity. Compared with non-key workers, odds of swab-positivity were 7.7 (2.4, 25) among care home (long-term care facilities) workers and 5.2 (2.9, 9.3) among health care workers. However, some of the excess risk associated with key worker status was explained by recent contact with COVID-19 cases. We found no strong evidence for geographical variability in positive swab results. ConclusionOur results provide a reliable baseline against which the impact of subsequent relaxation of lockdown can be assessed to inform future public health efforts to control transmission.
RESUMO
BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody lateral flow immunoassays (LFIA) can be carried out in the home and have been used as an affordable and practical approach to large-scale antibody prevalence studies. However, assay performance differs from that of high-throughput laboratory-based assays which can be highly sensitive. We explore LFIA performance under field conditions compared to laboratory-based ELISA and assess the potential of LFIAs to identify people who lack functional antibodies following infection or vaccination. MethodsField evaluation of a self-administered LFIA test (Fortress, NI) among 3758 participants from the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2 (REACT-2) study in England selected based on vaccination history and previous LFIA result to ensure a range of antibody titres. In July 2021, participants performed, at home, a self-administered LFIA on finger-prick blood, reported and submitted a photograph of the result, and provided a self-collected capillary blood sample (Tasso-SST) for serological assessment of IgG antibodies to the spike protein using the Roche Elecsys(R) Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay. We compared the self-administered and reported LFIA result to the quantitative Roche assay and checked the reading of the LFIA result with an automated image analysis (ALFA). In a subsample of 250 participants, we compared the results to live virus neutralisation. ResultsAlmost all participants (3593/3758, 95.6%) had been vaccinated or reported prior infection, with most having received one (862, 22.9%) or two (2430, 64.7%) COVID-19 vaccine doses. Overall, 2777/3758 (73.9%) were positive on self-reported LFIA, 2811/3457 (81.3%) positive by LFIA when ALFA-reported, and 3622/3758 (96.4%) positive on Roche anti-S (using the manufacturer reference standard threshold for positivity of 0.8 U ml-1). Live virus neutralisation was detected in 169 of 250 randomly selected samples (67.6%); 133/169 were positive with self-reported LFIA (sensitivity 78.7%; 95% CI 71.8, 84.6), 142/155 (91.6%; 86.1, 95.5) with ALFA, and 169 (100%; 97.8, 100.0) with Roche anti-S. There were 81 samples with no detectable virus neutralisation; 47/81 were negative with self-reported LFIA (specificity 58.0%; 95% CI 46.5, 68.9), 34/75 (45.3%; 33.8, 57.3) with ALFA, and 0/81 (0%; 0.0, 4.5) with Roche anti-S. All 250 samples remained positive with Roche anti-S when the threshold was increased to 1000U ml-1. ConclusionsSelf-administered LFIA can provide insights into population patterns of infection and vaccine response, and sensitivity can be improved with automated reading of the result. The LFIA is less sensitive than a quantitative antibody test, but the positivity in LFIA correlates better than the quantitative ELISA with virus neutralisation.
RESUMO
BackgroundFollowing rapidly rising COVID-19 case numbers, England entered a national lockdown on 6 January 2021, with staged relaxations of restrictions from 8 March 2021 onwards. AimWe characterise how the lockdown and subsequent easing of restrictions affected trends in SARS-CoV-2 infection prevalence. MethodsOn average, risk of infection is proportional to infection prevalence. The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study is a repeat cross-sectional study of over 98,000 people every round (rounds approximately monthly) that estimates infection prevalence in England. We used Bayesian P-splines to estimate prevalence and the time-varying reproduction number (Rt) nationally, regionally and by age group from round 8 (beginning 6 January 2021) to round 13 (ending 12 July 2021) of REACT-1. As a comparator, a separate segmented-exponential model was used to quantify the impact on Rt of each relaxation of restrictions. ResultsFollowing an initial plateau of 1.54% until mid-January, infection prevalence decreased until 13 May when it reached a minimum of 0.09%, before increasing until the end of the study to 0.76%. Following the first easing of restrictions, which included schools reopening, the reproduction number Rt increased by 82% (55%, 108%), but then decreased by 61% (82%, 53%) at the second easing of restrictions, which was timed to match the Easter school holidays. Following further relaxations of restrictions, the observed Rt increased steadily, though the increase due to these restrictions being relaxed was masked by the effects of vaccination and the rapid rise of Delta. There was a high degree of synchrony in the temporal patterns of prevalence between regions and age groups. ConclusionHigh-resolution prevalence data fitted to P-splines allowed us to show that the lockdown was highly effective at reducing risk of infection with school holidays/closures playing a significant part.
RESUMO
BackgroundAs of July 2021, more than 180,000,000 cases of COVID-19 have been reported across the world, with more than 4 million deaths. Mathematical modelling and forecasting efforts have been widely used to inform policy-making and to create situational awareness. Methods and FindingsFrom 8th March to 29th November 2020, we produced weekly estimates of SARS-CoV-2 transmissibility and forecasts of deaths due to COVID-19 for countries with evidence of sustained transmission. The estimates and forecasts were based on an ensemble model comprising of three models that were calibrated using only the reported number of COVID-19 cases and deaths in each country. We also developed a novel heuristic to combine weekly estimates of transmissibility and potential changes in population immunity due to infection to produce forecasts over a 4-week horizon. We evaluated the robustness of the forecasts using relative error, coverage probability, and comparisons with null models. ConclusionsDuring the 39-week period covered by this study, we produced short- and medium-term forecasts for 81 countries. Both the short- and medium-term forecasts captured well the epidemic trajectory across different waves of COVID-19 infections with small relative errors over the forecast horizon. The model was well calibrated with 56.3% and 45.6% of the observations lying in the 50% Credible Interval in 1-week and 4-week ahead forecasts respectively. We could accurately characterise the overall phase of the epidemic up to 4-weeks ahead in 84.9% of country-days. The medium-term forecasts can be used in conjunction with the short-term forecasts of COVID-19 mortality as a useful planning tool as countries continue to relax stringent public health measures that were implemented to contain the pandemic.
RESUMO
BackgroundThe programme to vaccinate adults in England has been rapidly implemented since it began in December 2020. The community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike protein antibodies provides an estimate of total cumulative response to natural infection and vaccination. We describe the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in adults in England in May 2021 at a time when approximately 7 in 10 adults had received at least one dose of vaccine. MethodsSixth round of REACT-2 (REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2), a cross-sectional random community survey of adults in England, from 12 to 25 May 2021; 207,337 participants completed questionnaires and self-administered a lateral flow immunoassay test producing a positive or negative result. ResultsVaccine coverage with one or more doses, weighted to the adult population in England, was 72.9% (95% confidence interval 72.7-73.0), varying by age from 25.1% (24.5-25.6) of those aged 18 to 24 years, to 99.2% (99.1-99.3) of those 75 years and older. In adjusted models, odds of vaccination were lower in men (odds ratio [OR] 0.89 [0.85-0.94]) than women, and in people of Black (0.41 [0.34-0.49]) compared to white ethnicity. There was higher vaccine coverage in the least deprived and highest income households. People who reported a history of COVID-19 were less likely to be vaccinated (OR 0.61 [0.55-0.67]). There was high coverage among health workers (OR 9.84 [8.79-11.02] and care workers (OR 4.17 [3.20-5.43]) compared to non-key workers, but lower in hospitality and retail workers (OR 0.73 [0.64-0.82] and 0.77 [0.70-0.85] respectively) after adjusting for age and key covariates. The prevalence of antibodies (weighted to the adult population of England and adjusted for test characteristics) was 61.1% (95% CI 60.9-61.4), up from 6.6% (5.4-5.7) in round 4 (27 October to 10 November 2020) and 13.9% (13.7-14.1) in round 5 (26 January to 8 February 2021). Prevalence (adjusted and weighted) increased with age, from 35.8% (35.1-36.5) in those aged 18 to 24 years, to 95.3% (94.6-95.9) in people 75 and over. Antibodies were 30% less likely to be detected in men than women (adjusted OR 0.69, 0.68-0.70), and were higher in people of Asian (OR 1.67 [1.58-1.77]), Black (1.55 [1.41-1.69]), mixed 1.17 [1.06-1.29] and other (1.37 [1.23-1.51]) ethnicities compared with white ethnicity. Workers in hospitality (OR 0.69 [0.63-0.74]) and retail (0.71 [0.67-0.75]) were less likely to have antibodies. Following two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, antibody positivity (adjusted for test performance) was 100% (100-100) at all ages except 80 years and older when it was 97.8% (95.9-99.6). For AstraZeneca positivity was over 90% up to age 69, and then 89.2% (88.5-89.9) in 70-79 year olds and 83.6% (78.5-88.3) in those aged 80 and over. Following a single dose of Pfizer-BioNTech positivity ranged from 100.0% (91.1-100.0) in those aged 18-29 to 32.2% (18.2-51.1) in those aged 70-79 years. For AstraZeneca this was 72.2% (68.5-75.9) in the youngest and 46.2% (40.0-52.7) in the oldest age group. DiscussionThe successful roll out of the vaccination programme in England has led to a high proportion of individuals having detectable antibodies, particularly in older age groups and those who have had two doses of vaccine. This is likely to be associated with high levels of protection from severe disease, and possibly from infection. Nonetheless, there remain some key groups with a lower prevalence of antibody, notably unvaccinated younger people, certain minority ethnic groups, those living in deprived areas and workers in some public facing employment. Obtaining improved rates of vaccination in these groups is essential to achieving high levels of protection against the virus through population immunity. FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care in England.
RESUMO
BackgroundLateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) have the potential to deliver affordable, large scale antibody testing and provide rapid results without the support of central laboratories. As part of the development of the REACT programme extensive evaluation of LFIA performance was undertaken with individuals following natural infection. Here we assess the performance of the selected LFIA to detect antibody responses in individuals who have received at least one dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. MethodsThis is a prospective diagnostic accuracy study. SettingSampling was carried out at renal outpatient clinic and healthcare worker testing sites at Imperial College London NHS Trust. Laboratory analyses were performed across Imperial College London sites and university facilities. ParticipantsTwo cohorts of patients were recruited; the first was a cohort of 108 renal transplant patients attending clinic following SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster, the second cohort comprised 40 healthcare workers attending for first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, and 21 day follow up. A total of 186 paired samples were collected. InterventionsDuring the participants visit, capillary blood samples were analysed on LFIA device, while paired venous sampling was sent for serological assessment of antibodies to the spike protein (anti-S) antibodies. Anti-S IgG were detected using the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG Quant II CMIA. Main outcome measuresThe accuracy of Fortress LFIA in detecting IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared to anti-spike protein detection on Abbott Assay. ResultsUsing the threshold value for positivity on serological testing of [≥]7.10 BAU/ml, the overall performance of the test produces an estimate of sensitivity of 91.94% (95% CI 85.67% to 96.06%) and specificity of 93.55% (95% CI 84.30% to 98.21%) using the Abbott assay as reference standard. ConclusionsFortress LFIA performs well in the detection of antibody responses for intended purpose of population level surveys, but does not meet criteria for individual testing.
RESUMO
BackgroundDespite high levels of vaccination in the adult population, cases of COVID-19 have risen exponentially in England since the start of May 2021 driven by the Delta variant. However, with far fewer hospitalisations and deaths per case during the recent growth in cases compared with 2020, it is intended that all remaining social distancing legislation in England will be removed from 19 July 2021. MethodsWe report interim results from round 13 of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study in which a cross-sectional sample of the population of England was asked to provide a throat and nose swab for RT-PCR and to answer a questionnaire. Data collection for this report (round 13 interim) was from 24 June to 5 July 2021. ResultsIn round 13 interim, we found 237 positives from 47,729 swabs giving a weighted prevalence of 0.59% (0.51%, 0.68%) which was approximately four-fold higher compared with round 12 at 0.15% (0.12%, 0.18%). This resulted from continued exponential growth in prevalence with an average doubling time of 15 (13, 17) days between round 12 and round 13. However, during the recent period of round 13 interim only, we observed a shorter doubling time of 6.1 (4.0, 12) days with a corresponding R number of 1.87 (1.40, 2.45). There were substantial increases in all age groups under the age of 75 years, and especially at younger ages, with the highest prevalence in 13 to 17 year olds at 1.33% (0.97%, 1.82%) and in 18 to 24 years olds at 1.40% (0.89%, 2.18%). Infections have increased in all regions with the largest increase in London where prevalence increased more than eight-fold from 0.13% (0.08%, 0.20%) in round 12 to 1.08% (0.79%, 1.47%) in round 13 interim. Overall, prevalence was over 3 times higher in the unvaccinated compared with those reporting two doses of vaccine in both round 12 and round 13 interim, although there was a similar proportional increase in prevalence in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals between the two rounds. DiscussionWe are entering a critical period with a number of important competing processes: continued vaccination rollout to the whole adult population in England, increased natural immunity through infection, reduced social mixing of children during school holidays, increased proportion of mixing occurring outdoors during summer, the intended full opening of hospitality and entertainment and cessation of mandated social distancing and mask wearing. Surveillance programmes are essential during this next phase of the epidemic to provide clear evidence to the government and the public on the levels and trends in prevalence of infections and their relationship to vaccine coverage, hospitalisations, deaths and Long COVID.
RESUMO
BackgroundIn England, hospitalisations and deaths due to SARS-CoV-2 have been falling consistently since January 2021 during the third national lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic. The first significant relaxation of that lockdown occurred on 8 March when schools reopened. MethodsThe REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study augments routine surveillance data for England by measuring swab-positivity for SARS-CoV-2 in the community. The current round, round 10, collected swabs from 11 to 30 March 2021 and is compared here to round 9, in which swabs were collected from 4 to 23 February 2021. ResultsDuring round 10, we estimated an R number of 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.81, 1.21). Between rounds 9 and 10 we estimated national prevalence has dropped by [~]60% from 0.49% (0.44%, 0.55%) in February to 0.20% (0.17%, 0.23%) in March. There were substantial falls in weighted regional prevalence: in South East from 0.36% (0.29%, 0.44%) in round 9 to 0.07% (0.04%, 0.12%) in round 10; London from 0.60% (0.48%, 0.76%) to 0.16% (0.10%, 0.26%); East of England from 0.47% (0.36%, 0.60%) to 0.15% (0.10%, 0.24%); East Midlands from 0.59% (0.45%, 0.77%) to 0.19% (0.13%, 0.28%); and North West from 0.69% (0.54%, 0.88%) to 0.31% (0.21%, 0.45%). Areas of apparent higher prevalence remain in parts of the North West, and Yorkshire and The Humber. The highest prevalence in March was found among school-aged children 5 to 12 years at 0.41% (0.27%, 0.62%), compared with the lowest in those aged 65 to 74 and 75 and over at 0.09% (0.05%, 0.16%). The close approximation between prevalence of infections and deaths (suitably lagged) is diverging, suggesting that infections may have resulted in fewer hospitalisations and deaths since the start of widespread vaccination. ConclusionWe report a sharp decline in prevalence of infections between February and March 2021. We did not observe an increase in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 following the reopening of schools in England, although the decline of prevalence appears to have stopped. Future rounds of REACT-1 will be able to measure the rate of growth or decline from this current plateau and hence help assess the effectiveness of the vaccination roll-out on transmission of the virus as well as the potential size of any third wave during the ensuing months.
RESUMO
BackgroundEngland will start to exit its third national lockdown in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on 8th March 2021, with safe effective vaccines being rolled out rapidly against a background of emerging transmissible and immunologically novel variants of SARS-CoV-2. A subsequent increase in community prevalence of infection could delay further relaxation of lockdown if vaccine uptake and efficacy are not sufficiently high to prevent increased pressure on healthcare services. MethodsThe PCR self-swab arm of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission Study (REACT-1) estimates community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in England based on random cross-sections of the population ages five and over. Here, we present results from the complete round 9 of REACT-1 comprising round 9a in which swabs were collected from 4th to 12th February 2021 and round 9b from 13th to 23rd February 2021. We also compare the results of REACT-1 round 9 to round 8, in which swabs were collected mainly from 6th January to 22nd January 2021. ResultsOut of 165,456 results for round 9 overall, 689 were positive. Overall weighted prevalence of infection in the community in England was 0.49% (0.44%, 0.55%), representing a fall of over two thirds from round 8. However the rate of decline of the epidemic has slowed from 15 (13, 17) days, estimated for the period from the end of round 8 to the start of round 9, to 31 days estimated using data from round 9 alone (lower confidence limit 17 days). When comparing round 9a to 9b there were apparent falls in four regions, no apparent change in one region and apparent rises in four regions, including London where there was a suggestion of sub-regional heterogeneity in growth and decline. Smoothed prevalence maps suggest large contiguous areas of growth and decline that do not align with administrative regions. Prevalence fell by 50% or more across all age groups in round 9 compared to round 8, with prevalence (round 9) ranging from 0.21% in those aged 65 and over to 0.71% in those aged 13 to 17 years. Round 9 prevalence was highest among Pakistani participants at 2.1% compared to white participants at 0.45% and Black participants at 0.83%. There were higher adjusted odds of infection for healthcare and care home workers, for those working in public transport and those working in education, school, nursery or childcare and lower adjusted odds for those not required to work outside the home. ConclusionsCommunity prevalence of swab-positivity has declined markedly between January and February 2021 during lockdown in England, but remains high; the rate of decline has slowed in the most recent period, with a suggestion of pockets of growth. Continued adherence to social distancing and public health measures is required so that infection rates fall to much lower levels. This will help to ensure that the benefits of the vaccination roll-out programme in England are fully realised.
RESUMO
Background and MethodsEngland entered its third national lockdown of the COVID-19 pandemic on 6th January 2021 with the aim of reducing the daily number of deaths and pressure on healthcare services. The real-time assessment of community transmission study (REACT-1) obtains throat and nose swabs from randomly selected people in England in order to describe patterns of SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. Here, we report data from round 9a of REACT-1 for swabs collected between 4th and 13th February 2021. ResultsOut of 85,473 tested-swabs, 378 were positive. Overall weighted prevalence of infection in the community in England was 0.51%, a fall of more than two thirds since our last report (round 8) in January 2021 when 1.57% of people tested positive. We estimate a halving time of 14.6 days and a reproduction number R of 0.72, based on the difference in prevalence between the end of round 8 and the beginning of round 9. Although prevalence fell in all nine regions of England over the same period, there was greater uncertainty in the trend for North West, North East, and Yorkshire and The Humber. Prevalence fell substantially across all age groups with highest prevalence among 18- to 24-year olds at 0.89% (0.47%, 1.67%) and those aged 5 to12 years at 0.86% (0.60%, 1.24%). Large household size, living in a deprived neighbourhood, and Asian ethnicity were all associated with increased prevalence. Healthcare and care home workers were more likely to test positive compared to other workers. ConclusionsThere is a strong decline in prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England among the general population five to six weeks into lockdown, but prevalence remains high: at levels similar to those observed in late September 2020. Also, the number of COVID-19 cases in hospitals is higher than at the peak of the first wave in April 2020. The effects of easing of social distancing when we transition out of lockdown need to be closely monitored to avoid a resurgence in infections and renewed pressure on health services.