Influenza vaccination during the 2021/22 season: A data-linkage test-negative case-control study of effectiveness against influenza requiring emergency care in England and serological analysis of primary care patients.

We present England 2021/22 end-of-season adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against laboratory confirmed influenza related emergency care use in children aged 1-17 and in adults aged 50+, and serological findings in vaccinated vs unvaccinated adults by hemagglutination inhibition assay. Influenza vaccination has been routinely offered to all children aged 2-10 years and adults aged 65 years + in England. In 2021/22, the offer was extended to children to age 15 years, and adults aged 50-64 years. Influenza activity rose during the latter half of the 2021/22 season, while remaining comparatively low due to COVID-19 pandemic control measures. Influenza A(H3N2) strains predominated. A test negative design was used to estimate aVE by vaccine type. Cases and controls were identified within a sentinel laboratory surveillance system. Vaccine histories were obtained from the National Immunisation Management Service (NIMS), an influenza and COVID-19 vaccine registry. These were linked to emergency department presentations (excluding accidents) with respiratory swabbing ≤ 14 days before or ≤ 7 days after presentation. Amongst adults, 423 positive and 32,917 negative samples were eligible for inclusion, and 145 positive and 6,438 negative samples among children. Those admitted to hospital were further identified. In serology against the circulating A(H3N2) A/Bangladesh/4005/2020-like strain, 61 % of current season adult vaccinees had titres ≥ 1:40 compared to 17 % of those unvaccinated in 2020/21 or 2021/22 (p < 0.001). We found good protection from influenza vaccination against influenza requiring emergency care in children (72.7 % [95 % CI 52.7, 84.3 %]) and modest effectiveness in adults (26.1 % [95 % CI 4.5, 42.8 %]). Adult VE was higher for A(H1N1) (81 % [95 % CI 50, 93 %]) than A(H3N2) (33 % [95 % CI 6, 53 %]). Consistent protection was observable across preschool, primary and secondary school aged children. Imperfect test specificity combined with very low prevalence may have biased estimates towards null. With limited influenza circulation, the study could not determine differences by vaccine types.

A Profile of Influenza Vaccine Coverage for 2019-2020: Database Study of the English Primary Care Sentinel Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Innovation in seasonal influenza vaccine development has resulted in a wider range of formulations becoming available. Understanding vaccine coverage across populations including the timing of administration is important when evaluating vaccine benefits and risks. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the representativeness, uptake of influenza vaccines, different formulations of influenza vaccines, and timing of administration within the English Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC). METHODS: We used the PCSC of the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre. We included patients of all ages registered with PCSC member general practices, reporting influenza vaccine coverage between September 1, 2019, and January 29, 2020. We identified influenza vaccination recipients and characterized them by age, clinical risk groups, and vaccine type. We reported the date of influenza vaccination within the PCSC by International Standard Organization (ISO) week. The representativeness of the PCSC population was compared with population data provided by the Office for National Statistics. PCSC influenza vaccine coverage was compared with published UK Health Security Agency's national data. We used paired t tests to compare populations, reported with 95% CI. RESULTS: The PCSC comprised 7,010,627 people from 693 general practices. The study population included a greater proportion of people aged 18-49 years (2,982,390/7,010,627, 42.5%; 95% CI 42.5%-42.6%) compared with the Office for National Statistics 2019 midyear population estimates (23,219,730/56,286,961, 41.3%; 95% CI 4.12%-41.3%; P<.001). People who are more deprived were underrepresented and those in the least deprived quintile were overrepresented. Within the study population, 24.7% (1,731,062/7,010,627; 95% CI 24.7%-24.7%) of people of all ages received an influenza vaccine compared with 24.2% (14,468,665/59,764,928; 95% CI 24.2%-24.2%; P<.001) in national data. The highest coverage was in people aged ≥65 years (913,695/1,264,700, 72.3%; 95% CI 72.2%-72.3%). The proportion of people in risk groups who received an influenza vaccine was also higher; for example, 69.8% (284,280/407,228; 95% CI 69.7%-70%) of people with diabetes in the PCSC received an influenza vaccine compared with 61.2% (983,727/1,607,996; 95% CI 61.1%-61.3%; P<.001) in national data. In the PCSC, vaccine type and brand information were available for 71.8% (358,365/498,923; 95% CI 71.7%-72%) of people aged 16-64 years and 81.9% (748,312/913,695; 95% CI 81.8%-82%) of people aged ≥65 years, compared with 23.6% (696,880/2,900,000) and 17.8% (1,385,888/7,700,000), respectively, of the same age groups in national data. Vaccination commenced during ISO week 35, continued until ISO week 3, and peaked during ISO week 41. The in-week peak in vaccination administration was on Saturdays. CONCLUSIONS: The PCSC's sociodemographic profile was similar to the national population and captured more data about risk groups, vaccine brands, and batches. This may reflect higher data quality. Its capabilities included reporting precise dates of administration. The PCSC is suitable for undertaking studies of influenza vaccine coverage.

Qualitative evaluation of a molecular point-of-care testing study for influenza in UK primary care.

BACKGROUND: Influenza contributes to the surge in winter infections and the consequent winter pressures on the health service. Molecular point-of-care testing(POCT) for influenza might improve patient management by providing rapid and accurate clinical diagnosis to inform the timely initiation of antiviral therapy and reduce unnecessary admissions and antibiotics use. AIM: To explore factors that influence the adoption or non-adoption of POCT in English general practices and provide insights to enable its integration into routine practice workflows. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative implementation evaluation was conducted in ten general practices within the English national sentinel network (Oxford-RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre), from April to July 2023. METHOD: Using the nonadoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability framework, data collection and analysis were conducted across ten practices. We made ethnographic observations of the POCT workflow and surveyed the practice staff for their perspectives on POCT implementation. Data were analysed using a mix of descriptive statistics, graphical modelling techniques and framework approach. RESULTS: Ethnographic observations identified two modes of POCT integration into practice workflow: 1) clinician POCT workflow - typically involving batch testing due to time constraints, 2) research nurse/healthcare assistant POCT workflow - characterised by immediate testing of individual patients. Survey indicated that most primary care staff considered the POCT training offered was sufficient, and these practices were ready for change and had the capacity and resources to integrate POCT in workflows. CONCLUSION: General practices should demonstrate flexibility in the workflow and workforce they deploy to integrate POCT into routine clinical workflow.

The Impact of Point-of-Care Testing for Influenza on Antimicrobial Stewardship (PIAMS) in UK Primary Care: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Molecular point-of-care testing (POCT) used in primary care can inform whether a patient presenting with an acute respiratory infection has influenza. A confirmed clinical diagnosis, particularly early in the disease, could inform better antimicrobial stewardship. Social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic have disturbed previous patterns of influenza infections in 2021. However, data from samples taken in the last quarter of 2022 suggest that influenza represents 36% of sentinel network positive virology, compared with 24% for respiratory syncytial virus. Problems with integration into the clinical workflow is a known barrier to incorporating technology into routine care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to report the impact of POCT for influenza on antimicrobial prescribing in primary care. We will additionally describe severe outcomes of infection (hospitalization and mortality) and how POCT is integrated into primary care workflows. METHODS: The impact of POCT for influenza on antimicrobial stewardship (PIAMS) in UK primary care is an observational study being conducted between December 2022 and May 2023 and involving 10 practices that contribute data to the English sentinel network. Up to 1000 people who present to participating practices with respiratory symptoms will be swabbed and tested with a rapid molecular POCT analyzer in the practice. Antimicrobial prescribing and other study outcomes will be collected by linking information from the POCT analyzer with data from the patient's computerized medical record. We will collect data on how POCT is incorporated into practice using data flow diagrams, unified modeling language use case diagrams, and Business Process Modeling Notation. RESULTS: We will present the crude and adjusted odds of antimicrobial prescribing (all antibiotics and antivirals) given a POCT diagnosis of influenza, stratifying by whether individuals have a respiratory or other relevant diagnosis (eg, bronchiectasis). We will also present the rates of hospital referrals and deaths related to influenza infection in PIAMS study practices compared with a set of matched practices in the sentinel network and the rest of the network. We will describe any difference in implementation models in terms of staff involved and workflow. CONCLUSIONS: This study will generate data on the impact of POCT testing for influenza in primary care as well as help to inform about the feasibility of incorporating POCT into primary care workflows. It will inform the design of future larger studies about the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of POCT to improve antimicrobial stewardship and any impact on severe outcomes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46938.

COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death of people in clinical risk groups during the Delta variant period: English primary care network cohort study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines have been shown to be highly effective against hospitalisation and death following COVID-19 infection. COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness estimates against severe endpoints among individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of critical disease are limited. METHODS: We used English primary care medical record data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre sentinel network (N > 18 million). Data were linked to the National Immunisation Management Service database, Second Generation Surveillance System for virology test data, Hospital Episode Statistics, and death registry data. We estimated adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) against COVID-19 infection followed by hospitalisation and death among individuals in specific clinical risk groups using a cohort design during the delta-dominant period. We also report mortality statistics and results from our antibody surveillance in this population. FINDINGS: aVE against severe endpoints was high, 14-69d following a third dose aVE was 96.4% (95.1%-97.4%) and 97.9% (97.2%-98.4%) for clinically vulnerable people given a Vaxzevria and Comirnaty primary course respectively. Lower aVE was observed in the immunosuppressed group: 88.6% (79.1%-93.8%) and 91.9% (85.9%-95.4%) for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty respectively. Antibody levels were significantly lower among the immunosuppressed group than those not in this risk group across all vaccination types and doses. The standardised case fatality rate within 28 days of a positive test was 3.9/1000 in people not in risk groups, compared to 12.8/1000 in clinical risk groups. Waning aVE with time since 2nd dose was also demonstrated, for example, Comirnaty aVE against hospitalisation reduced from 96.0% (95.1-96.7%) 14-69days post-dose 2-82.9% (81.4-84.2%) 182days+ post-dose 2. INTERPRETATION: In all clinical risk groups high levels of vaccine effectiveness against severe endpoints were seen. Reduced vaccine effectiveness was noted among the immunosuppressed group.

Interdisciplinary Informatics to Support Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance of Respiratory Infectious Disease Including COVID-19: Donabedian Evaluation.

The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, providing sentinel surveillance since 1967. We report the interdisciplinary informatics required to run such a system. We used the Donabedian framework to describe the interdisciplinary informatics roles that support the structures, processes and outcomes of the RSC. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic University, RCGP, information technology specialists, SQL developers, analysts, practice liaison team, network member primary care providers, and their registered patients have nearly quadrupled the size of the RSC from working with 5 million to 19 million peoples pseudonymised health data. We have produced outputs used by the UK Health Security Agency to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 and report vaccine effectiveness. We have also supported a trial of community-based therapies for COVID-19 and other observational studies. The home of the primary care sentinel surveillance network is with a clinical informatics research group. Interdisciplinary informatics teamwork was required to support primary care sentinel surveillance; such teams can accelerate the scale, scope and digital maturity of surveillance systems as demonstrated by the RSC across the COVID-19 pandemic.

Representativeness, Vaccination Uptake, and COVID-19 Clinical Outcomes 2020-2021 in the UK Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Network: Cohort Profile Summary.

BACKGROUND: The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) is one of Europe's oldest sentinel systems, working with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) and its predecessor bodies for 55 years. Its surveillance report now runs twice weekly, supplemented by online observatories. In addition to conducting sentinel surveillance from a nationally representative group of practices, the RSC is now also providing data for syndromic surveillance. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the cohort profile at the start of the 2021-2022 surveillance season and recent changes to our surveillance practice. METHODS: The RSC's pseudonymized primary care data, linked to hospital and other data, are held in the Oxford-RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, a Trusted Research Environment. We describe the RSC's cohort profile as of September 2021, divided into a Primary Care Sentinel Cohort (PCSC)-collecting virological and serological specimens-and a larger group of syndromic surveillance general practices (SSGPs). We report changes to our sampling strategy that brings the RSC into alignment with European Centre for Disease Control guidance and then compare our cohort's sociodemographic characteristics with Office for National Statistics data. We further describe influenza and COVID-19 vaccine coverage for the 2020-2021 season (week 40 of 2020 to week 39 of 2021), with the latter differentiated by vaccine brand. Finally, we report COVID-19-related outcomes in terms of hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death. RESULTS: As a response to COVID-19, the RSC grew from just over 500 PCSC practices in 2019 to 1879 practices in 2021 (PCSC, n=938; SSGP, n=1203). This represents 28.6% of English general practices and 30.59% (17,299,780/56,550,136) of the population. In the reporting period, the PCSC collected >8000 virology and >23,000 serology samples. The RSC population was broadly representative of the national population in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, National Health Service Region, socioeconomic status, obesity, and smoking habit. The RSC captured vaccine coverage data for influenza (n=5.4 million) and COVID-19, reporting dose one (n=11.9 million), two (n=11 million), and three (n=0.4 million) for the latter as well as brand-specific uptake data (AstraZeneca vaccine, n=11.6 million; Pfizer, n=10.8 million; and Moderna, n=0.7 million). The median (IQR) number of COVID-19 hospitalizations and ICU admissions was 1181 (559-1559) and 115 (50-174) per week, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RSC is broadly representative of the national population; its PCSC is geographically representative and its SSGPs are newly supporting UKHSA syndromic surveillance efforts. The network captures vaccine coverage and has expanded from reporting primary care attendances to providing data on onward hospital outcomes and deaths. The challenge remains to increase virological and serological sampling to monitor the effectiveness and waning of all vaccines available in a timely manner.