Search

Background: COVID-19 data have been generated across the United Kingdom as a by-product of clinical care and public health provision, as well as numerous bespoke and repurposed research endeavors. Analysis of these data has underpinned the United Kingdom's response to the pandemic, and informed public health policies and clinical guidelines. However, these data are held by different organizations, and this fragmented landscape has presented challenges for public health agencies and researchers as they struggle to find relevant data to access and interrogate the data they need to inform the pandemic response at pace., Objective: We aimed to transform UK COVID-19 diagnostic data sets to be findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR)., Methods: A federated infrastructure model (COVID - Curated and Open Analysis and Research Platform [CO-CONNECT]) was rapidly built to enable the automated and reproducible mapping of health data partners' pseudonymized data to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership Common Data Model without the need for any data to leave the data controllers' secure environments, and to support federated cohort discovery queries and meta-analysis., Results: A total of 56 data sets from 19 organizations are being connected to the federated network. The data include research cohorts and COVID-19 data collected through routine health care provision linked to longitudinal health care records and demographics. The infrastructure is live, supporting aggregate-level querying of data across the United Kingdom., Conclusions: CO-CONNECT was developed by a multidisciplinary team. It enables rapid COVID-19 data discovery and instantaneous meta-analysis across data sources, and it is researching streamlined data extraction for use in a Trusted Research Environment for research and public health analysis. CO-CONNECT has the potential to make UK health data more interconnected and better able to answer national-level research questions while maintaining patient confidentiality and local governance procedures., (©Emily Jefferson, Christian Cole, Shahzad Mumtaz, Samuel Cox, Thomas Charles Giles, Sam Adejumo, Esmond Urwin, Daniel Lea, Calum Macdonald, Joseph Best, Erum Masood, Gordon Milligan, Jenny Johnston, Scott Horban, Ipek Birced, Christopher Hall, Aaron S Jackson, Clare Collins, Sam Rising, Charlotte Dodsley, Jill Hampton, Andrew Hadfield, Roberto Santos, Simon Tarr, Vasiliki Panagi, Joseph Lavagna, Tracy Jackson, Antony Chuter, Jillian Beggs, Magdalena Martinez-Queipo, Helen Ward, Julie von Ziegenweidt, Frances Burns, Joanne Martin, Neil Sebire, Carole Morris, Declan Bradley, Rob Baxter, Anni Ahonen-Bishopp, Paul Smith, Amelia Shoemark, Ana M Valdes, Benjamin Ollivere, Charlotte Manisty, David Eyre, Stephanie Gallant, George Joy, Andrew McAuley, David Connell, Kate Northstone, Katie Jeffery, Emanuele Di Angelantonio, Amy McMahon, Mat Walker, Malcolm Gracie Semple, Jessica Mai Sims, Emma Lawrence, Bethan Davies, John Kenneth Baillie, Ming Tang, Gary Leeming, Linda Power, Thomas Breeze, Duncan Murray, Chris Orton, Iain Pierce, Ian Hall, Shamez Ladhani, Natalie Gillson, Matthew Whitaker, Laura Shallcross, David Seymour, Susheel Varma, Gerry Reilly, Andrew Morris, Susan Hopkins, Aziz Sheikh, Philip Quinlan. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 27.12.2022.)

Introduction: Understanding the effectiveness and durability of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by previous infection and COVID-19 is essential to inform ongoing management of the pandemic. This study aims to determine whether prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers protects against future infection., Methods and Analysis: This is a prospective cohort study design in staff members working in hospitals in the UK. At enrolment, participants are allocated into cohorts, positive or naïve, dependent on their prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, as measured by standardised SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing on all baseline serum samples and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Participants undergo monthly antibody testing and fortnightly viral RNA testing during follow-up and based on these results may move between cohorts. Any results from testing undertaken for other reasons (eg, symptoms, contact tracing) or prior to study entry will also be captured. Individuals complete enrolment and fortnightly questionnaires on exposures, symptoms and vaccination. Follow-up is 12 months from study entry, with an option to extend follow-up to 24 months.The primary outcome of interest is infection with SARS-CoV-2 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination during the study period. Secondary outcomes include incidence and prevalence (both RNA and antibody) of SARS-CoV-2, viral genomics, viral culture, symptom history and antibody/neutralising antibody titres., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230) on 22 May 2020; the vaccine amendment was approved on 12 January 2021. Participants gave informed consent before taking part in the study.Regular reports to national and international expert advisory groups and peer-reviewed publications ensure timely dissemination of findings to inform decision making., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN11041050., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MZ has unremunerated positions as ISIRV Chair, Member of NERVTAG, SAGE and JCVI and codirector NIHR HPRU, Imperial College London. TB receives funding from the UKRI for the SIREN study. MR’s team in the UKHSA Immunisation Department provides vaccine manufacturers (including Pfizer) with postmarketing surveillance reports about pneumococcal and meningococcal disease which the companies are required to submit to the UK Licensing authority in compliance with their Risk Management Strategy. A cost recovery charge is made for these reports. Other authors have no competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 affects the immune response to the first dose of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. We aimed to compare SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell and antibody responses in health-care workers with and without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection following a single dose of the BNT162b2 (tozinameran; Pfizer-BioNTech) mRNA vaccine., Methods: We sampled health-care workers enrolled in the PITCH study across four hospital sites in the UK (Oxford, Liverpool, Newcastle, and Sheffield). All health-care workers aged 18 years or older consenting to participate in this prospective cohort study were included, with no exclusion criteria applied. Blood samples were collected where possible before vaccination and 28 (±7) days following one or two doses (given 3-4 weeks apart) of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Previous infection was determined by a documented SARS-CoV-2-positive RT-PCR result or the presence of positive anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies. We measured spike-specific IgG antibodies and quantified T-cell responses by interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay in all participants where samples were available at the time of analysis, comparing SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals to those with previous infection., Findings: Between Dec 9, 2020, and Feb 9, 2021, 119 SARS-CoV-2-naive and 145 previously infected health-care workers received one dose, and 25 SARS-CoV-2-naive health-care workers received two doses, of the BNT162b2 vaccine. In previously infected health-care workers, the median time from previous infection to vaccination was 268 days (IQR 232-285). At 28 days (IQR 27-33) after a single dose, the spike-specific T-cell response measured in fresh peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) was higher in previously infected (n=76) than in infection-naive (n=45) health-care workers (median 284 [IQR 150-461] vs 55 [IQR 24-132] spot-forming units [SFUs] per 10 6 PBMCs; p<0·0001). With cryopreserved PBMCs, the T-cell response in previously infected individuals (n=52) after one vaccine dose was equivalent to that of infection-naive individuals (n=19) after receiving two vaccine doses (median 152 [IQR 119-275] vs 162 [104-258] SFUs/10 6 PBMCs; p=1·00). Anti-spike IgG antibody responses following a single dose in 142 previously infected health-care workers (median 270 373 [IQR 203 461-535 188] antibody units [AU] per mL) were higher than in 111 infection-naive health-care workers following one dose (35 001 [17 099-55 341] AU/mL; p<0·0001) and higher than in 25 infection-naive individuals given two doses (180 904 [108 221-242 467] AU/mL; p<0·0001)., Interpretation: A single dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine is likely to provide greater protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, than in SARS-CoV-2-naive individuals, including against variants of concern. Future studies should determine the additional benefit of a second dose on the magnitude and durability of immune responses in individuals vaccinated following infection, alongside evaluation of the impact of extending the interval between vaccine doses., Funding: UK Department of Health and Social Care, and UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium., Competing Interests: CD worked on the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine trial (phase 1–3). AO reports personal fees from Take Two Interactive and personal fees from Genome BC, outside the submitted work. PCM reports grants from the Wellcome Trust during the conduct of the study. SLR-J reports grants from the UK Department of Health and Social Care during the conduct of the study and grants from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and Global Challenges Research Fund outside the submitted work. SD reports grants from the UK Department of Health and Social Care, UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UKRI), the Huo Family Foundation, and the NIHR during the conduct of the study. CJAD reports grants from the Wellcome Trust during the conduct of the study. LT reports personal fees from Eisai outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. At this time, trial data were lacking, and we addressed this in a study of United Kingdom healthcare workers. The first vaccine dose induced protection from infection from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant over several weeks. In a substudy of 589 individuals, we show that this single dose induces severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses and a sustained B and T cell response to the spike protein. NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6-14 weeks) compared with the conventional 3- to 4-week regimen, accompanied by enrichment of CD4 + T cells expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection amplified and accelerated the response. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective immunogenic protocol., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests A.J.P. is Chair of the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI) but does not participate in policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccines. He is a member of the WHO’s SAGE. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of the DHSC, JCVI, or WHO. A.J.P. is chief investigator on clinical trials of Oxford University’s COVID-19 vaccine funded by NIHR. Oxford University has entered a joint COVID-19 vaccine development partnership with AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing., Methods: The SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing., Findings: 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46·1 years (IQR 36·0-54·1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infections 7 days after the second dose (incidence density four infections per 10 000 person-days). In the unvaccinated cohort, 543 (56%) participants had typical COVID-19 symptoms and 140 (14%) were asymptomatic on or 14 days before their PCR positive test date, compared with 29 (36%) with typical COVID-19 symptoms and 15 (19%) asymptomatic in the vaccinated cohort. A single dose of BNT162b2 vaccine showed vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 55-85) 21 days after first dose and 85% (74-96) 7 days after two doses in the study population., Interpretation: Our findings show that the BNT162b2 vaccine can prevent both symptomatic and asymptomatic infection in working-age adults. This cohort was vaccinated when the dominant variant in circulation was B1.1.7 and shows effectiveness against this variant., Funding: Public Health England, UK Department of Health and Social Care, and the National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors declare no competing interests. The Immunisation and Countermeasures Division at PHE has provided vaccine manufacturers (including Pfizer) with post-marketing surveillance reports on pneumococcal and meningococcal infection which the companies are required to submit to the UK Licensing authority in compliance with their Risk Management Strategy. A cost recovery charge is made for these reports., (Crown copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We analyzed the incidence and demographic features of pediatric intracranial hypertension., Methods: Inpatient and outpatient encounters of children aged 18 years or younger who were diagnosed with primary (idiopathic) or secondary intracranial hypertension between January 2010 and December 2013 were identified. Data were collected from a subspecialty clinic devoted to intracranial hypertension and the sole children's hospital in a large Midwestern city of the United States. Estimated incidence rates were calculated based on the number of newly diagnosed patients in our hospital's primary service area, which includes seven central Ohio counties. Sex, race, body mass index, socioeconomic status, and geographic distribution were also noted., Results: A total of 74 pediatric patients were diagnosed with intracranial hypertension (49 primary/idiopathic and 25 secondary) between January 2010 and December 2013. Using census data, we determined the pediatric population in our service area during the four-year period. The Ohio Hospital Association's database indicated that 92.3% of patients aged 0 to 17 years residing in the region sought care at our institution. By combining these data, we calculated an annual incidence of primary and secondary intracranial hypertension of 0.63 and 0.32 per 100,000 children, respectively., Conclusions: The estimated annual incidence of pediatric primary intracranial hypertension in our seven county service area in central Ohio is similar to previous pediatric reports from other countries and is 67% of that reported in the US adult population., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Nerve cross-sectional area reference values have been reported for many nerves, but there have been few studies in pediatric and geriatric populations. This study was conducted to determine the influence of age on nerve cross-sectional area., Methods: Thirty-two children (3 months to 16 years) and 20 geriatric adults (67-92 years) without known neurologic conditions underwent bilateral ultrasound to measure the area of the following nerves: median at the wrist and forearm; ulnar at the wrist and elbow; radial in the spiral groove; sciatic in the distal thigh; fibular at the knee; tibial at the knee and ankle; and sural at the ankle., Results: In general, nerve cross-sectional area increased with age. Nerve size correlated most closely with age, but a correlation was also seen with body mass index., Conclusions: Nerve cross-sectional area increases with age, which is important to note when using ultrasound to evaluate children and geriatric patients., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)