Search

We estimated the risk of death from coronavirus disease 2019 in vaccinated compared with unvaccinated patients. The risk of death was reduced 44% after 1 dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine, 55% after 1 dose of the Oxford-Astrazeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 69% after 2 doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. This is above the protection provided against infection., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. M. R. reports funding from the UK National Institute for Health Research/Vaccine Task Force (grant NIHR203292; funding for COV-BOOST trial under contract via University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust), during the conduct of the study. M. R. also reports that the Immunisation Department has provided vaccine manufacturers with postmarketing 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 (nonfinancial support from Pfizer/GSK). All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Vaccination status and the SARS-CoV-2 variant individuals are infected with are known to independently impact viral dynamics; however, little is known about the interaction of these two factors and how this impacts viral dynamics. Here we investigated how monovalent vaccination modified the time course and viral load of infections from different variants. Regression analyses were used to investigate the impact of vaccination on cycle threshold values and disease severity, and interval-censored survival analyses were used to investigate the impact of vaccination on duration of positivity. A range of covariates were adjusted for as potential confounders and investigated for their own effects in exploratory analyses. All analyses were done combining all variants and stratified by variant. For those infected with Alpha or Delta, vaccinated individuals were more likely to report mild disease than moderate/severe disease and had significantly shorter duration of positivity and lower viral loads compared to unvaccinated individuals. Vaccination had no impact on self-reported disease severity, viral load, or duration if positivity for those infected with Omicron. Overall, individuals who were immunosuppressed and clinically extremely vulnerable had longer duration of positivity and higher viral loads. This study adds to the evidence base on disease dynamics following COVID-19, demonstrating that vaccination mitigates severity of disease, the amount of detectable virus within infected individuals and reduces the time individuals are positive for. However, these effects have been significantly attenuated since the emergence of Omicron. Therefore, our findings strengthen the argument for using modified or multivalent vaccines that target emerging variants., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines were offered to adults aged 50 years or older and clinically vulnerable people as part of the 2022 autumn COVID-19 booster vaccination programme in England. Previously, all adults in England had been offered a primary course consisting of two doses of either ChAdOx1-S or monovalent mRNA vaccine and an mRNA monovalent booster vaccine. We aimed to estimate the long-term duration of protection provided by monovalent COVID-19 vaccines, and the incremental vaccine effectiveness of bivalent BA.1 boosters., Methods: In this test-negative case-control study, cases of COVID-19 and controls aged 18 years or older were identified from national data for PCR tests done in hospital settings in England. Our analysis was restricted to people with acute respiratory infections coded in the primary diagnosis field. Data for vaccination status were extracted from the English national vaccine register and linked to COVID-19 testing data. Between June 13 and Dec 25, 2022, we estimated the vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation of two or three or more doses of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines compared with being unvaccinated, stratified by age (18-64 years vs ≥65 years). Between Sept 5, 2022, and Feb 5, 2023, we estimated the incremental vaccine effectiveness (ie, in addition to the protection from earlier vaccines) of receiving a bivalent BA.1 booster vaccine in addition to at least two doses of a monovalent vaccine (when the last dose was at least 6 months ago) among people aged 50 years or older. Analyses were adjusted for week of test, gender, age, COVID-19 risk group, residing in a care home, being a health or social care worker, Index of Multiple Deprivation quintile, ethnicity, and recent COVID-19 positivity., Findings: Our analysis of monovalent COVID-19 vaccines included 19 841 cases and 43 410 controls. Absolute vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation among people who had received at least three doses plateaued from 6 months after the last dose at around 50% in those aged 65 years or older and at around 30% in those aged 18-64 years. Our analyses of the effectiveness of bivalent BA.1 boosters included data for 9954 cases and 39 108 controls aged 50 years or older. Incremental vaccine effectiveness peaked at 53·0% (95% CI 47·9-57·5) 2-4 weeks after administration, before waning to 35·9% (31·4-40·1) after 10 or more weeks., Interpretation: Our study provides evidence that monovalent COVID-19 vaccines offer moderate long-term protection against hospitalisation in people aged 65 years or older and that the bivalent BA.1 booster vaccines were effective in preventing hospitalisation among people aged 50 years or older at a time when omicron lineages were circulating in England., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The Immunisation and Vaccine Preventable Diseases Division of the UK Health Security Agency provides vaccine manufacturers (including Pfizer) with post-marketing surveillance reports about pneumococcal and meningococcal disease, which manufacturers 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 to the UK Health Security Agency. We declare no other competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Simon de Lusignan is the Director of the Oxford-RCGP RSC and has received funding through his University for studies from Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, GSK, MSD. Seqirus and Takeda; and been member of advisory boards for Astra-Zeneca, Seqirus and Sanofi. Ezra Linley reports that the UKHSA Vaccine Evaluation Unit performs contract research on behalf of GSK, Sanofi and Pfizer which is outside the submitted work. FDRH is part funded by the NIHR ARC OTV and has received occasional research and consultancy funding from AZ and Pfizer but not related to vaccines., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This was the first study to investigate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous or fractional second dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens in adolescents., Methods: A phase II, single-blind, multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial recruited across seven UK sites from September to November 2021, with follow-up visits to August 2022. Healthy 12-to-16 years olds were randomised (1:1:1) to either 30 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-30), 10 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-10), or NVX-CoV2373 (NVX), 8 weeks after a first 30 µg dose of BNT162b2. The primary outcome was solicited systemic reactions in the week following vaccination. Secondary outcomes included immunogenicity and safety. 'Breakthrough infection' analyses were exploratory., Findings: 148 participants were recruited (median age 14 years old, 62% female, 26% anti-nucleocapsid IgG seropositive pre-second dose); 132 participants received a second dose. Reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate, with lower rates in BNT-10 recipients. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Compared to BNT-30, at 28 days post-second dose anti-spike antibody responses were similar for NVX (adjusted geometric mean ratio [aGMR]) 1.09 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84, 1.42] and lower for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.99]). For Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, the neutralising antibody titres for BNT-30 at day 28 were similar for BNT-10 (aGMR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.54] and 1.02 [95% CI: 0.71, 1.48], respectively), but higher for NVX (aGMR 1.7 [95% CI: 1.07, 2.69] and 1.43 [95% CI: 0.96, 2.12], respectively). Compared to BNT-30, cellular immune responses were greatest for NVX (aGMR 1.73 [95% CI: 0.94, 3.18]), and lowest for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.37, 1.15]) at 14 days post-second dose. Cellular responses were similar across the study arms by day 236 post-second dose. Amongst SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve participants, NVX participants had an 89% reduction in risk of self-reported 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.11 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.86]) up until day 132 after second dose. BNT-10 recipients were more likely to have a 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (aHR 2.14 [95% CI: 1.02, 4.51]) up to day 132 and day 236 post-second dose. Antibody responses at 132 and 236 days after second dose were similar for all vaccine schedules., Interpretation: Heterologous and fractional dose COVID-19 vaccine schedules in adolescents are safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic. The enhanced performance of the heterologous schedule using NVX-CoV2373 against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant suggests this mRNA prime and protein-subunit boost schedule may provide a greater breadth of protection than the licensed homologous schedule., Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Vaccine Task Force., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry: 12348322., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an Investigator on research studies funded or supported by the vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novavax, MCM vaccines and Pfizer. He received no direct personal benefit for this work. From September 2022 he has been an employee at Moderna Biotech and holds stock options in this company. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator and/or providing consultative advice on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. AMM acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on research studies funded + /- sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Valneva SE and Novavax. She receives no personal financial benefit for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George’s University of London as an Investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Novavax and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. He is a member of the JCVI. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) from October 2017-March 2022 as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England, receiving no benefits, other than salary, for this work. Since leaving DHSC he has received a lecture fee from AstraZeneca and will undertake paid consulting for Moderna BioTech from 3rd May 2023. The views expressed in this paper are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC or JCVI., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We investigated an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 variant BA.2.86 in an East of England care home. We identified 45 infections (33 residents, 12 staff), among 38 residents and 66 staff. Twenty-nine of 43 PCR swabs were sequenced, all of which were variant BA.2.86. The attack rate among residents was 87%, 19 were symptomatic, and one was hospitalised. Twenty-four days after the outbreak started, no cases were still unwell. Among the 33 resident cases, 29 had been vaccinated 4 months earlier.

Background: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose in June 2021. Monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines were subsequently widely used for the third and fourth-dose vaccination campaigns in high-income countries. Real-world vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic infections following third doses declined during the Omicron wave. This report compares the immunogenicity and kinetics of responses to third doses of vaccines from day (D) 28 to D242 following third doses in seven study arms., Methods: The trial initially included ten experimental vaccine arms (seven full-dose, three half-dose) delivered at three groups of six sites. Participants in each site group were randomised to three or four experimental vaccines, or MenACWY control. The trial was stratified such that half of participants had previously received two primary doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and half had received two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hereafter referred to as BNT). The D242 follow-up was done in seven arms (five full-dose, two half-dose). The BNT vaccine was used as the reference as it was the most commonly deployed third-dose vaccine in clinical practice in high-income countries. The primary analysis was conducted using all randomised and baseline seronegative participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study and who had not received a further COVID-19 vaccine for any reason since third dose randomisation., Results: Among the 817 participants included in this report, the median age was 72 years (IQR: 55-78) with 50.7% being female. The decay rates of anti-spike IgG between vaccines are different among both populations who received initial doses of ChAd/ChAd and BNT/BNT. In the population that previously received ChAd/ChAd, mRNA vaccines had the highest titre at D242 following their vaccine dose although Ad26. COV2. S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) showed slower decay. For people who received BNT/BNT as their initial doses, a slower decay was also seen in the Ad26 and ChAd arms. The anti-spike IgG became significantly higher in the Ad26 arm compared to the BNT arm as early as 3 months following vaccination. Similar decay rates were seen between BNT and half-BNT; the geometric mean ratios ranged from 0.76 to 0.94 at different time points. The difference in decay rates between vaccines was similar for wild-type live virus-neutralising antibodies and that seen for anti-spike IgG. For cellular responses, the persistence was similar between study arms., Conclusions: Heterologous third doses with viral vector vaccines following two doses of mRNA achieve more durable humoral responses compared with three doses of mRNA vaccines. Lower doses of mRNA vaccines could be considered for future booster campaigns., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University’s revenue-sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until 31st March 2022. He has subsequently received lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi Pasteur and has performed paid consultancy for Janssen and Seqirus. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GSK for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax. Janssen, Medimmune and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. MDS became an employee of Moderna in September 2022 and holds stock options in this company. He did not perform this study in relation to his new employment and Moderna have had no a priori access to the data., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Heterologous COVID vaccine priming schedules are immunogenic and effective. This report aims to understand the persistence of immune response to the viral vectored, mRNA and protein-based COVID-19 vaccine platforms used in homologous and heterologous priming combinations, which will inform the choice of vaccine platform in future vaccine development., Methods: Com-COV2 was a single-blinded trial in which adults ≥ 50 years, previously immunised with single dose 'ChAd' (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AZD1222, Vaxzevria, Astrazeneca) or 'BNT' (BNT162b2, tozinameran, Comirnaty, Pfizer/BioNTech), were randomised 1:1:1 to receive a second dose 8-12 weeks later with either the homologous vaccine, or 'Mod' (mRNA-1273, Spikevax, Moderna) or 'NVX' (NVX-CoV2373, Nuvaxovid, Novavax). Immunological follow-up and the secondary objective of safety monitoring were performed over nine months. Analyses of antibody and cellular assays were performed on an intention-to-treat population without evidence of COVID-19 infection at baseline or for the trial duration., Findings: In April/May 2021, 1072 participants were enrolled at a median of 9.4 weeks after receipt of a single dose of ChAd (N = 540, 45% female) or BNT (N = 532, 39% female) as part of the national vaccination programme. In ChAd-primed participants, ChAd/Mod had the highest anti-spike IgG from day 28 through to 6 months, although the heterologous vs homologous geometric mean ratio (GMR) dropped from 9.7 (95% CI (confidence interval): 8.2, 11.5) at D28 to 6.2 (95% CI: 5.0, 7.7) at D196. The heterologous/homologous GMR for ChAd/NVX similarly dropped from 3.0 (95% CI:2.5,3.5) to 2.4 (95% CI:1.9, 3.0). In BNT-primed participants, decay was similar between heterologous and homologous schedules with BNT/Mod inducing the highest anti-spike IgG for the duration of follow-up. The adjusted GMR (aGMR) for BNT/Mod compared with BNT/BNT increased from 1.36 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.58) at D28 to 1.52 (95% CI: 1.21, 1.90) at D196, whilst for BNT/NVX this aGMR was 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47, 0.64) at day 28 and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.49, 0.78) at day 196. Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules produced and maintained the largest T-cell responses until D196. Immunisation with BNT/NVX generated a qualitatively different antibody response to BNT/BNT, with the total IgG significantly lower than BNT/BNT during all follow-up time points, but similar levels of neutralising antibodies., Interpretation: Heterologous ChAd-primed schedules remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to ChAd/ChAd. BNT-primed schedules with a second dose of either mRNA vaccine also remain more immunogenic over time in comparison to BNT/NVX. The emerging data on mixed schedules using the novel vaccine platforms deployed in the COVID-19 pandemic, suggest that heterologous priming schedules might be considered as a viable option sooner in future pandemics., Isrctn: 27841311 EudraCT:2021-001275-16., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests At the time of this study, MDS acted on behalf of the University of Oxford as an Investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. Subsequent to this study MDS is employed by Moderna Biotech UK and holds equity in this company. Moderna Biotech had no role in the study design, analysis of data or interpretation of results. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), England from October 2017 to March 2022; since leaving DHSC he reports a lecture fee from AstraZeneca. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts (ETAGE) on Immunisation. He is an investigator and/or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline, VPI Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St. George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAd vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in -vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University’s revenue sharing policy. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All other authors declare no competing interests. The views expressed in this manuscript are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC, VTF or NIHR., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In England routine vaccinations are recorded in either the patients General Practice record or in series of sub-national vaccine registers that are not interoperable. During the COVID-19 pandemic it was established that COVID vaccines would need to be delivered in multiple settings where current vaccine registers do not exist. We describe how a national vaccine register was created to collect data on COVID-19 vaccines., Methods: The National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) was developed by a range of health and digital government agencies. Vaccinations delivered are entered on an application which is verified by individual National Health Service number in a centralised system. UKHSA receive a feed of this data to use for monitoring vaccine coverage, effectiveness, and safety. To validate the vaccination data, we compared vaccine records to self-reported vaccination dose, manufacturer, and vaccination date from the enhanced surveillance system from 11 February 2021 to 24 August 2021., Results: With the Implementation of NIMS, we have been able to successfully record COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in multiple settings. Of 1,129 individuals, 97.8% were recorded in NIMS as unvaccinated compared to those who self-reported as unvaccinated. One hundred percent and 99.3% of individuals recorded in NIMS as having at least one dose and two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine were also self-reported as having at least one and two doses, respectively. Of the 100% reporting at least one dose, 98.3% self-reported the same vaccination date as NIMS. A total of 98.8% and 99.3% had the same manufacturer information for their first dose and second dose as that which was self-reported, respectively., Discussion: Daily access to individual-level vaccine data from NIMS has allowed UKHSA to estimate vaccine coverage and provide some of the world's first vaccine effectiveness estimates rapidly and accurately., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (©Meredith Leston, William H Elson, Conall Watson, Anissa Lakhani, Carole Aspden, Clare R Bankhead, Ray Borrow, Elizabeth Button, Rachel Byford, Alex J Elliot, Xuejuan Fan, Uy Hoang, Ezra Linley, Jack Macartney, Brian D Nicholson, Cecilia Okusi, Mary Ramsay, Gillian Smith, Sue Smith, Mark Thomas, Dan Todkill, Ruby SM Tsang, William Victor, Alice J Williams, John Williams, Maria Zambon, Gary Howsam, Gayatri Amirthalingam, Jamie Lopez-Bernal, F D Richard Hobbs, Simon de Lusignan. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 19.12.2022.)

Despite the availability of the ChAdOx1-S booster vaccine, little is known about the real-world effectiveness although clinical trials have demonstrated enhanced immunity following a ChAdOx1-S booster. In England 43,171 individuals received a ChAdOx1-S booster whilst 13,038,908 individuals received BNT162b2 in the same period. ChAdOx1-S booster recipients were more likely to be female (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.67 (1.64-1.71)), in a clinical risk group (adjusted OR 1.58 (1.54-1.63)), in the clinically extremely vulnerable group (adjusted OR 1.84 (1.79-1.89)) or severely immunosuppressed (adjusted OR 2.05 (1.96-2.13)). The effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 boosters is estimated here using a test-negative case-control study. Protection against symptomatic disease with the Omicron variant peaks at 66.1% (16.6 to 86.3%) and 68.5% (65.7 to 71.2%) for the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 boosters in older adults. Protection against hospitalisation peaks at 82.3% (64.2 to 91.3%) and 90.9% (88.7 to 92.7%). For Delta, effectiveness against hospitalisation is 80.9% (15.6% to 95.7%) and 93.9% (92.8% to 94.9%) after ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 booster vaccination. This study supports the consideration of ChAdOx1-S booster vaccination for protection against severe COVID-19 in settings yet to offer boosters and suggests that individuals who received a ChAdOx1-S booster do not require re-vaccination ahead of others., (© 2022. Crown.)

Background: Priming COVID-19 vaccine schedules have been deployed at variable intervals globally, which might influence immune persistence and the relative importance of third-dose booster programmes. Here, we report exploratory analyses from the Com-COV trial, assessing the effect of 4-week versus 12-week priming intervals on reactogenicity and the persistence of immune response up to 6 months after homologous and heterologous priming schedules using the vaccines BNT162b2 (tozinameran, Pfizer/BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca)., Methods: Com-COV was a participant-masked, randomised immunogenicity trial. For these exploratory analyses, we used the trial's general cohort, in which adults aged 50 years or older were randomly assigned to four homologous and four heterologous vaccine schedules using BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 with 4-week or 12-week priming intervals (eight groups in total). Immunogenicity analyses were done on the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, comprising participants with no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline or for the trial duration, to assess the effect of priming interval on humoral and cellular immune response 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, in addition to the effects on reactogenicity and safety. The Com-COV trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 69254139 (EudraCT 2020-005085-33)., Findings: Between Feb 11 and 26, 2021, 730 participants were randomly assigned in the general cohort, with 77-89 per group in the ITT analysis. At 28 days and 6 months post-second dose, the geometric mean concentration of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike IgG was significantly higher in the 12-week interval groups than in the 4-week groups for homologous schedules. In heterologous schedule groups, we observed a significant difference between intervals only for the BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group at 28 days. Pseudotyped virus neutralisation titres were significantly higher in all 12-week interval groups versus 4-week groups, 28 days post-second dose, with geometric mean ratios of 1·4 (95% CI 1·1-1·8) for homologous BNT162b2, 1·5 (1·2-1·9) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2, 1·6 (1·3-2·1) for BNT162b2-ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, and 2·4 (1·7-3·2) for homologous ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. At 6 months post-second dose, anti-spike IgG geometric mean concentrations fell to 0·17-0·24 of the 28-day post-second dose value across all eight study groups, with only homologous BNT162b2 showing a slightly slower decay for the 12-week versus 4-week interval in the adjusted analysis. The rank order of schedules by humoral response was unaffected by interval, with homologous BNT162b2 remaining the most immunogenic by antibody response. T-cell responses were reduced in all 12-week priming intervals compared with their 4-week counterparts. 12-week schedules for homologous BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19-BNT162b2 were up to 80% less reactogenic than 4-week schedules., Interpretation: These data support flexibility in priming interval in all studied COVID-19 vaccine schedules. Longer priming intervals might result in lower reactogenicity in schedules with BNT162b2 as a second dose and higher humoral immunogenicity in homologous schedules, but overall lower T-cell responses across all schedules. Future vaccines using these novel platforms might benefit from schedules with long intervals., Funding: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and Chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on immunisation; he is an investigator, provides consultative advice, or both on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, VPI, Takeda, and Bionet Asia, receiving no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator, provider of consultative advice, or both on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva vaccines, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva, receiving no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering this SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (GB2003670.3) and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Host genetic factors are known to modify the susceptibility, severity, and outcomes of COVID-19 and vary across populations. However, continental Africans are yet to be adequately represented in such studies despite the importance of genetic factors in understanding Africa's response to the pandemic. We describe the development of a research resource for coronavirus host genomics studies in South Africa known as COVIGen-SA-a multicollaborator strategic partnership designed to provide harmonised demographic, clinical, and genetic information specific to Black South Africans with COVID-19. Over 2,000 participants have been recruited to date. Preliminary results on 1,354 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants from four participating studies showed that 64.7% were female, 333 had severe disease, and 329 were people living with HIV. Through this resource, we aim to provide insights into host genetic factors relevant to African-ancestry populations, using both genome-wide association testing and targeted sequencing of important genomic loci. This project will promote and enhance partnerships, build skills, and develop resources needed to address the COVID-19 burden and associated risk factors in South African communities., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Andrew K. May et al.)

The Omicron variant has been associated with reduced vaccine effectiveness (VE) against mild disease with rapid waning. Meanwhile Omicron has also been associated with milder disease. Protection against severe disease has been substantially higher than protection against infection with previous variants. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate VE against hospitalisation with the Omicron and Delta variants using PCR testing linked to hospital records. We investigated the impact of increasing the specificity and severity of hospitalisation definitions on VE. Among 18-64-year-olds using cases admitted via emergency care, VE after a 3rd dose peaked at 82.4% and dropped to 53.6% by 15+ weeks after the 3rd dose; using all admissions for > = 2 days stay with a respiratory code in the primary diagnostic field VE ranged from 90.9% to 67.4%; further restricting to those on oxygen/ventilated/intensive care VE ranged from 97.1% to 75.9%. Among 65+ year olds the equivalent VE estimates were 92.4% to 76.9%; 91.3% to 85.3% and 95.8% to 86.8%. Here we show that with milder Omicron disease contamination of hospitalisations with incidental cases is likely to reduce VE estimates. VE estimates increase, and waning is reduced, when specific hospitalisation definitions are used., (© 2022. Crown.)

Background: We aimed to quantify the unknown losses in health-related quality of life of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases using quality-adjusted lifedays (QALDs) and the recommended EQ-5D instrument in England., Methods: Prospective cohort study of nonhospitalized, polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-positive (SARS-CoV-2-positive) cases aged 12-85 years and followed up for 6 months from 1 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2-negative controls. Main outcomes were QALD losses; physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analyzed results using multivariable regressions with post hoc weighting by age and sex, and conditional logistic regressions for the association of each symptom and EQ-5D limitation on cases and controls., Results: Of 548 cases (mean age 41.1 years; 61.5% female), 16.8% reported physical symptoms at month 6 (most frequently extreme tiredness, headache, loss of taste and/or smell, and shortness of breath). Cases reported more limitations with doing usual activities than controls. Almost half of cases spent a mean of £18.1 on nonprescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 13.7 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 9.7, 17.7) QALDs, whereas those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 32.9 (95% CI: 24.5, 37.6) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 18% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in the England., Conclusions: One in 6 cases report ongoing symptoms at 6 months, and 10% report prolonged loss of function compared to pre-COVID-19 baselines. A marked health burden was observed among older COVID-19 cases and those with persistent physical symptoms., (© Crown copyright 2022.)

Background: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19., Methods: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing., Findings: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group)., Interpretation: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose., Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KCa acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or consults on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering the use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine and could benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the university's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and Cipla & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi, and receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England, until March 31, 2022. MR has provided post-marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, for which a cost recovery charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM, and has received no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests. The UK Health Security Agency has legal permission, provided by Regulation 3 of The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, to process patient confidential information for national surveillance of communicable diseases and, as such, individual patient consent is not required to access records.

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.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruption to healthcare services globally. We present the findings of a national survey of home mechanical ventilation (HMV) services in England and Wales. 30 HMV services (60%) responded. There was a significant reduction in outpatient services with 93% of services not offering routine face-to-face appointments, although most centres were able to offer emergency appointments for ventilation review and set-up. HMV inpatient capacity was reassigned, and HMV service staff re-deployed in the majority of centres (97%). The initial wave of the COVID-19 pandemic left a service backlog of a median of 87 outpatient appointments [range 0-1500] and a median of 4 patients (range 0-100) awaiting NIV set-up., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters., Methods: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study., Results: Amongst the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd), schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10,085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses., Conclusions: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentrations at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were similar to or even higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG may benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple & Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England until 31st March 2022. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GSK for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax. Janssen, Medimmune and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) are at high risk of adverse outcomes from SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to estimate the vaccine effectiveness (VE) of one and two doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx-1 against SARS CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related death in residents of LTCFs., Methods: this observational study used testing, vaccination and mortality data for LTCF residents aged ≥ 65 years who were regularly tested regardless of symptoms from 8 December 2020 to 30 September 2021 in England. Adjusted VE, calculated as one minus adjusted hazard ratio, was estimated using time-varying Cox proportional hazards models for infection and death within 28 days of positive test result. Vaccine status was defined by receipt of one or two doses of vaccine and assessed over a range of intervals., Results: of 197,885 LTCF residents, 47,087 (23.8%) had a positive test and 11,329 (5.8%) died within 28 days of a positive test during the study period. Relative to unvaccinated individuals, VE for infection was highest for ChAdOx-1 at 61% (40-74%) at 1-4 weeks and for BNT162b2 at 69% (52-80%) at 11-15 weeks following the second dose. Against death, VE was highest for ChAdOx-1 at 83% (58-94%) at 1-4 weeks and for BNT162b2 at 91% (75-97%) at 11-15 weeks following second dose., Conclusions: compared with unvaccinated residents, vaccination with one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx-1 provided moderate protection against infection and death in residents of LTCFs. Protection against death improved after two doses. However, some waning of protection over time was noted., (© Crown copyright 2022.)

Background COVID-19 vaccines approved in the UK are highly effective in general population cohorts, however, data on effectiveness amongst individuals with clinical conditions that place them at increased risk of severe disease are limited. Methods We used GP electronic health record data, sentinel virology swabbing and antibody testing within a cohort of 712 general practices across England to estimate vaccine antibody response and vaccine effectiveness against medically attended COVID-19 amongst individuals in clinical risk groups using cohort and test-negative case control designs. Findings There was no reduction in S-antibody positivity in most clinical risk groups, however reduced S-antibody positivity and response was significant in the immunosuppressed group. Reduced vaccine effectiveness against clinical disease was also noted in the immunosuppressed group; after a second dose, effectiveness was moderate (Pfizer: 59.6%, 95%CI 18.0-80.1%; AstraZeneca 60.0%, 95%CI -63.6-90.2%). Interpretation In most clinical risk groups, immune response to primary vaccination was maintained and high levels of vaccine effectiveness were seen. Reduced antibody response and vaccine effectiveness were seen after 1 dose of vaccine amongst a broad immunosuppressed group, and second dose vaccine effectiveness was moderate. These findings support maximising coverage in immunosuppressed individuals and the policy of prioritisation of this group for third doses., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Simon de Lusignan is the Director of the Oxford-RCGP RSC and has received funding through his University for studies from Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Sanofi, GSK, MSD. Seqirus and Takeda; and been member of advisory boards for Astra-Zeneca, Seqirus and Sanofi. Ezra Linley reports that the UKHSA Vaccine Evaluation Unit performs contract research on behalf of GSK, Sanofi and Pfizer which is outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: A rapid increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) cases due to the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in highly vaccinated populations has aroused concerns about the effectiveness of current vaccines., Methods: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron and delta (B.1.617.2) variants in England. Vaccine effectiveness was calculated after primary immunization with two doses of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca), or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine and after a booster dose of BNT162b2, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, or mRNA-1273., Results: Between November 27, 2021, and January 12, 2022, a total of 886,774 eligible persons infected with the omicron variant, 204,154 eligible persons infected with the delta variant, and 1,572,621 eligible test-negative controls were identified. At all time points investigated and for all combinations of primary course and booster vaccines, vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease was higher for the delta variant than for the omicron variant. No effect against the omicron variant was noted from 20 weeks after two ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 doses, whereas vaccine effectiveness after two BNT162b2 doses was 65.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63.9 to 67.0) at 2 to 4 weeks, dropping to 8.8% (95% CI, 7.0 to 10.5) at 25 or more weeks. Among ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 62.4% (95% CI, 61.8 to 63.0) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before decreasing to 39.6% (95% CI, 38.0 to 41.1) at 10 or more weeks. Among BNT162b2 primary course recipients, vaccine effectiveness increased to 67.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 67.8) at 2 to 4 weeks after a BNT162b2 booster before declining to 45.7% (95% CI, 44.7 to 46.7) at 10 or more weeks. Vaccine effectiveness after a ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 primary course increased to 70.1% (95% CI, 69.5 to 70.7) at 2 to 4 weeks after an mRNA-1273 booster and decreased to 60.9% (95% CI, 59.7 to 62.1) at 5 to 9 weeks. After a BNT162b2 primary course, the mRNA-1273 booster increased vaccine effectiveness to 73.9% (95% CI, 73.1 to 74.6) at 2 to 4 weeks; vaccine effectiveness fell to 64.4% (95% CI, 62.6 to 66.1) at 5 to 9 weeks., Conclusions: Primary immunization with two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 vaccine provided limited protection against symptomatic disease caused by the omicron variant. A BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster after either the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 primary course substantially increased protection, but that protection waned over time. (Funded by the U.K. Health Security Agency.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Booster vaccination with messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines has been offered to adults in England starting on 14 September 2021. We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate the relative effectiveness of a booster dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) compared to only a two-dose primary course (at least 175 days after the second dose) or unvaccinated individuals from 13 September 2021 to 5 December 2021, when Delta variant was dominant in circulation. Outcomes were symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and hospitalization. The relative effectiveness against symptomatic disease 14-34 days after a BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 (Moderna) booster after a ChAdOx1-S (AstraZeneca) and BNT162b2 as a primary course ranged from around 85% to 95%. Absolute vaccine effectiveness ranged from 94% to 97% and was similar in all age groups. Limited waning was seen 10 or more weeks after the booster. Against hospitalization or death, absolute effectiveness of a BNT162b2 booster ranged from around 97% to 99% in all age groups irrespective of the primary course, with no evidence of waning up to 10 weeks. This study provides real-world evidence of substantially increased protection from the booster vaccine dose against mild and severe disease irrespective of the primary course., (© 2022. Crown.)

Objective: We aimed to look at the burden of disease caused by SARS-COV-2 reinfections and identified potential risk factors for disease severity., Methods: We used national surveillance data to collect information on all SARS-CoV-2 primary infection and suspected reinfection cases between January 2020 until early May 2021. Reinfection cases were positive COVID-19 PCR or antigen test, 90 days after their first COVID-19 positive test. We collected information on case demographics, hospital and ICU admission, immunisation status and if individuals were at risk of complication for COVID-19., Results: Deaths reported within 28 days of testing positive were 61% (95% confidence interval: 56% to 65%) lower in suspected COVID-19 reinfection than primary infection cases. In the unvaccinated cohort, reinfections were associated with 49% (37% to 58%) lower odds of hospital admission in cases aged 50 to 65 years in the population not identified at risk of complication for COVID-19, and 34% (17% to 48%) in those at risk. ICU admission at reinfection compared to primary infection decreased 76% (55% to 87%). Individuals at risk and those aged below 50 years, who received at least 1 dose of vaccine against COVID-19, were 62% (39% to 74%) and 58% (24% to 77%) less likely to get admitted to hospital at reinfection, respectively., Conclusion: Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with lower odds of dying, and both prior infection and immunisation showed a protective effect against severe disease in selected populations. Older age, sex and underlying comorbidities appeared as principal risk factors for illness severity at reinfection., Funding: PHE/UKHSA., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest We declare no conflicts of interest., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundHouseholds appear to be the highest risk setting for COVID-19 transmission. Large household transmission studies in the early stages of the pandemic in Asia reported secondary attack rates ranging from 5 to 30%.AimWe aimed to investigate the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in household and community settings in the UK.MethodsA prospective case-ascertained study design based on the World Health Organization FFX protocol was undertaken in the UK following the detection of the first case in late January 2020. Household contacts of cases were followed using enhanced surveillance forms to establish whether they developed symptoms of COVID-19, became confirmed cases and their outcomes. We estimated household secondary attack rates (SAR), serial intervals and individual and household basic reproduction numbers. The incubation period was estimated using known point source exposures that resulted in secondary cases.ResultsWe included 233 households with two or more people with 472 contacts. The overall household SAR was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%) with a mean serial interval of 4.67 days, an R 0 of 1.85 and a household reproduction number of 2.33. SAR were lower in larger households and highest when the primary case was younger than 18 years. We estimated a mean incubation period of around 4.5 days.ConclusionsRates of COVID-19 household transmission were high in the UK for ages above and under 18 years, emphasising the need for preventative measures in this setting. This study highlights the importance of the FFX protocol in providing early insights on transmission dynamics.

Objective: To determine characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine coverage among individuals aged 50 years and above in England since the beginning of the programme., Design: Observational cross-sectional study assessed by logistic regression and mean prevalence margins., Setting: COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in England from 8 December 2020 to 17 May 2021., Participants: 30 624 257/61 967 781 (49.4%) and 17 360 045/61 967 781 (28.1%) individuals in England were recorded as vaccinated in the National Immunisation Management System with a first dose and a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, respectively., Interventions: Vaccination status with COVID-19 vaccinations., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion, adjusted ORs and mean prevalence margins for individuals not vaccinated with dose 1 among those aged 50-69 years and dose 1 and 2 among those aged 70 years and above., Results: Of individuals aged 50 years and above, black/African/Caribbean ethnic group was the least likely of all ethnic groups to be vaccinated with dose 1 of the COVID-19 vaccine. However, of those aged 70 years and above, the odds of not having dose 2 was 5.53 (95% CI 5.42 to 5.63) and 5.36 (95% CI 5.29 to 5.43) greater among Pakistani and black/African/Caribbean compared with white British ethnicity, respectively. The odds of not receiving dose 2 was 1.18 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.20) higher among individuals who lived in a care home compared with those who did not. This was the opposite to that observed for dose 1, where the odds of being unvaccinated was significantly higher among those not living in a care home (0.89 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.91))., Conclusions: We found that there are characteristics associated with low COVID-19 vaccine coverage. Inequalities, such as ethnicity are a major contributor to suboptimal coverage and tailored interventions are required to improve coverage and protect the population from SARS-CoV-2., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© 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: Vaccines against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), have been used since December 2020 in the United Kingdom. Real-world data have shown the vaccines to be highly effective against Covid-19 and related severe disease and death. Vaccine effectiveness may wane over time since the receipt of the second dose of the ChAdOx1-S (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and BNT162b2 vaccines., Methods: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 and related hospitalization and death in England. Effectiveness of the ChAdOx1-S and BNT162b2 vaccines was assessed according to participant age and status with regard to coexisting conditions and over time since receipt of the second vaccine dose to investigate waning of effectiveness separately for the B.1.1.7 (alpha) and B.1.617.2 (delta) variants., Results: Vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic Covid-19 with the delta variant peaked in the early weeks after receipt of the second dose and then decreased by 20 weeks to 44.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.2 to 45.4) with the ChAdOx1-S vaccine and to 66.3% (95% CI, 65.7 to 66.9) with the BNT162b2 vaccine. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was greater in persons 65 years of age or older than in those 40 to 64 years of age. At 20 weeks or more after vaccination, vaccine effectiveness decreased less against both hospitalization, to 80.0% (95% CI, 76.8 to 82.7) with the ChAdOx1-S vaccine and 91.7% (95% CI, 90.2 to 93.0) with the BNT162b2 vaccine, and death, to 84.8% (95% CI, 76.2 to 90.3) and 91.9% (95% CI, 88.5 to 94.3), respectively. Greater waning in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization was observed in persons 65 years of age or older in a clinically extremely vulnerable group and in persons 40 to 64 years of age with underlying medical conditions than in healthy adults., Conclusions: We observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against Covid-19-related hospitalization and death at 20 weeks or more after vaccination with two doses of the ChAdOx1-S or BNT162b2 vaccine. Waning was greater in older adults and in those in a clinical risk group., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Few data exist on the comparative safety and immunogenicity of different COVID-19 vaccines given as a third (booster) dose. To generate data to optimise selection of booster vaccines, we investigated the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of seven different COVID-19 vaccines as a third dose after two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNtech, hearafter referred to as BNT)., Methods: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of third dose booster vaccination against COVID-19. Participants were aged older than 30 years, and were at least 70 days post two doses of ChAd or at least 84 days post two doses of BNT primary COVID-19 immunisation course, with no history of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. 18 sites were split into three groups (A, B, and C). Within each site group (A, B, or C), participants were randomly assigned to an experimental vaccine or control. Group A received NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax; hereafter referred to as NVX), a half dose of NVX, ChAd, or quadrivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY)control (1:1:1:1). Group B received BNT, VLA2001 (Valneva; hereafter referred to as VLA), a half dose of VLA, Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) or MenACWY (1:1:1:1:1). Group C received mRNA1273 (Moderna; hereafter referred to as m1273), CVnCov (CureVac; hereafter referred to as CVn), a half dose of BNT, or MenACWY (1:1:1:1). Participants and all investigatory staff were blinded to treatment allocation. Coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity and immunogenicity of anti-spike IgG measured by ELISA. The primary analysis for immunogenicity was on a modified intention-to-treat basis; safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes included assessment of viral neutralisation and cellular responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 73765130., Findings: Between June 1 and June 30, 2021, 3498 people were screened. 2878 participants met eligibility criteria and received COVID-19 vaccine or control. The median ages of ChAd/ChAd-primed participants were 53 years (IQR 44-61) in the younger age group and 76 years (73-78) in the older age group. In the BNT/BNT-primed participants, the median ages were 51 years (41-59) in the younger age group and 78 years (75-82) in the older age group. In the ChAd/ChAD-primed group, 676 (46·7%) participants were female and 1380 (95·4%) were White, and in the BNT/BNT-primed group 770 (53·6%) participants were female and 1321 (91·9%) were White. Three vaccines showed overall increased reactogenicity: m1273 after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT; and ChAd and Ad26 after BNT/BNT. For ChAd/ChAd-primed individuals, spike IgG geometric mean ratios (GMRs) between study vaccines and controls ranged from 1·8 (99% CI 1·5-2·3) in the half VLA group to 32·3 (24·8-42·0) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·1 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for ChAd to 3·6 (2·4-5·5) for m1273. For BNT/BNT-primed individuals, spike IgG GMRs ranged from 1·3 (99% CI 1·0-1·5) in the half VLA group to 11·5 (9·4-14·1) in the m1273 group. GMRs for wild-type cellular responses compared with controls ranged from 1·0 (95% CI 0·7-1·6) for half VLA to 4·7 (3·1-7·1) for m1273. The results were similar between those aged 30-69 years and those aged 70 years and older. Fatigue and pain were the most common solicited local and systemic adverse events, experienced more in people aged 30-69 years than those aged 70 years or older. Serious adverse events were uncommon, similar in active vaccine and control groups. In total, there were 24 serious adverse events: five in the control group (two in control group A, three in control group B, and zero in control group C), two in Ad26, five in VLA, one in VLA-half, one in BNT, two in BNT-half, two in ChAd, one in CVn, two in NVX, two in NVX-half, and one in m1273., Interpretation: All study vaccines boosted antibody and neutralising responses after ChAd/ChAd initial course and all except one after BNT/BNT, with no safety concerns. Substantial differences in humoral and cellular responses, and vaccine availability will influence policy choices for booster vaccination., Funding: UK Vaccine Taskforce and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests KCa acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust as an investigator or providing consultative advice, or both, on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. ALG is named as an inventor on a patent covering use of a particular promoter construct that is often used in ChAdOx1-vectored vaccines and is incorporated in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. ALG might benefit from royalty income paid to the University of Oxford from sales of this vaccine by AstraZeneca and its sublicensees under the University's revenue sharing policy. JH has received payments for presentations for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Ciple, and Teva. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PM acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust and The Adam Practice as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Medicago, and Sanofi. He received no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. MR has provided post marketing surveillance reports on vaccines for Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline for which a cost recover charge is made. MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM vaccines. He received no personal financial payment for this work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Easing of COVID-19 restrictions in England in the summer of 2021 was followed by a sharp rise in cases among school-aged children. Weekly rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection in primary and secondary school children reached 733.3 and 1,664.7/100,000 population, respectively, by week 39 2021. A surge in household clusters with school-aged index cases was noted at the start of the school term, with secondary cases predominantly in children aged 5-15 years and adults aged 30-49 years.

Background: Use of heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine schedules could facilitate mass COVID-19 immunisation. However, we have previously reported that heterologous schedules incorporating an adenoviral vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, AstraZeneca; hereafter referred to as ChAd) and an mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech; hereafter referred to as BNT) at a 4-week interval are more reactogenic than homologous schedules. Here, we report the safety and immunogenicity of heterologous schedules with the ChAd and BNT vaccines., Methods: Com-COV is a participant-blinded, randomised, non-inferiority trial evaluating vaccine safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity. Adults aged 50 years and older with no or well controlled comorbidities and no previous SARS-CoV-2 infection by laboratory confirmation were eligible and were recruited at eight sites across the UK. The majority of eligible participants were enrolled into the general cohort (28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals), who were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1) to receive ChAd/ChAd, ChAd/BNT, BNT/BNT, or BNT/ChAd, administered at either 28-day or 84-day prime-boost intervals. A small subset of eligible participants (n=100) were enrolled into an immunology cohort, who had additional blood tests to evaluate immune responses; these participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to the four schedules (28-day interval only). Participants were masked to the vaccine received but not to the prime-boost interval. The primary endpoint was the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of serum SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentration (measured by ELISA) at 28 days after boost, when comparing ChAd/BNT with ChAd/ChAd, and BNT/ChAd with BNT/BNT. The heterologous schedules were considered non-inferior to the approved homologous schedules if the lower limit of the one-sided 97·5% CI of the GMR of these comparisons was greater than 0·63. The primary analysis was done in the per-protocol population, who were seronegative at baseline. Safety analyses were done among participants receiving at least one dose of a study vaccine. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 69254139., Findings: Between Feb 11 and Feb 26, 2021, 830 participants were enrolled and randomised, including 463 participants with a 28-day prime-boost interval, for whom results are reported here. The mean age of participants was 57·8 years (SD 4·7), with 212 (46%) female participants and 117 (25%) from ethnic minorities. At day 28 post boost, the geometric mean concentration of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG in ChAd/BNT recipients (12 906 ELU/mL) was non-inferior to that in ChAd/ChAd recipients (1392 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 9·2 (one-sided 97·5% CI 7·5 to ∞). In participants primed with BNT, we did not show non-inferiority of the heterologous schedule (BNT/ChAd, 7133 ELU/mL) against the homologous schedule (BNT/BNT, 14 080 ELU/mL), with a GMR of 0·51 (one-sided 97·5% CI 0·43 to ∞). Four serious adverse events occurred across all groups, none of which were considered to be related to immunisation., Interpretation: Despite the BNT/ChAd regimen not meeting non-inferiority criteria, the SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG concentrations of both heterologous schedules were higher than that of a licensed vaccine schedule (ChAd/ChAd) with proven efficacy against COVID-19 disease and hospitalisation. Along with the higher immunogenicity of ChAd/BNT compared with ChAD/ChAd, these data support flexibility in the use of heterologous prime-boost vaccination using ChAd and BNT COVID-19 vaccines., Funding: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MDS acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Novavax, Janssen, Medimmune, and MCM. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. JSN-V-T is seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care, England. AMC and DMF are investigators on studies funded by Pfizer and Unilever. They receive no personal financial payment for this work. AF is a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation and chair of the WHO European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunisation. He is an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines produced by AstraZeneca, Janssen, Valneva, Pfizer, and Sanofi, and of other vaccines from these and other manufacturers, including GlaxoSmithKline, VPI Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and Bionet Asia. He receives no personal remuneration or benefits for any of this work. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator or provides consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George's University of London as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. CAG acts on behalf of University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers, including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novavax, CureVac, Moderna, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. VL acts on behalf of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator on clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. TL is named as an inventor on a patent application covering the ChAd vaccine and is an occasional consultant to Vaccitech, unrelated to this work. Oxford University has entered into a partnership with AstraZeneca for further development of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.)

Invasive meningococcal disease incidence in England declined from 1.93/100,000 persons (1,016 cases) in 2010-11 to 0.95/100,000 (530 cases) in 2018-19 and 0.74/100,000 in 2019-20 (419 cases). During national lockdown for the coronavirus disease pandemic (April-August 2020), incidence was 75% lower than during April-August 2019.

Background: The impact of SARS-CoV-2 alongside influenza is a major concern in the northern hemisphere as winter approaches., Methods: Test data for influenza and SARS-CoV-2 from national surveillance systems between 20 January 2020 and 25 April 2020 were used to estimate influenza infection on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A test-negative design was used to assess the odds of SARS-CoV-2 in those who tested positive for influenza compared with those who tested negative. The severity of SARS-CoV-2 was also assessed using univariable and multivariable analyses., Results: The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 58% lower among influenza-positive cases and patients with a coinfection had a risk of death of 5.92 (95% confidence interval: 3.21-10.91) times greater than among those with neither influenza nor SARS-CoV-2. The odds of ventilator use or death and intensive care unit admission or death were greatest among coinfected patients., Conclusions: Coinfection of these viruses could have a significant impact on morbidity, mortality and health-service demand., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association.)

Background: The B.1.617.2 (delta) variant of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), has contributed to a surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the United Kingdom. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against this variant has been unclear., Methods: We used a test-negative case-control design to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease caused by the delta variant or the predominant strain (B.1.1.7, or alpha variant) over the period that the delta variant began circulating. Variants were identified with the use of sequencing and on the basis of the spike ( S ) gene status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of Covid-19 in England were used to estimate the proportion of cases with either variant according to the patients' vaccination status., Results: Effectiveness after one dose of vaccine (BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) was notably lower among persons with the delta variant (30.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 25.2 to 35.7) than among those with the alpha variant (48.7%; 95% CI, 45.5 to 51.7); the results were similar for both vaccines. With the BNT162b2 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 93.7% (95% CI, 91.6 to 95.3) among persons with the alpha variant and 88.0% (95% CI, 85.3 to 90.1) among those with the delta variant. With the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine, the effectiveness of two doses was 74.5% (95% CI, 68.4 to 79.4) among persons with the alpha variant and 67.0% (95% CI, 61.3 to 71.8) among those with the delta variant., Conclusions: Only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness were noted with the delta variant as compared with the alpha variant after the receipt of two vaccine doses. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked after the receipt of the first dose. This finding would support efforts to maximize vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable populations. (Funded by Public Health England.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: In England, the reopening of universities in September 2020 coincided with a rapid increase in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in university aged young adults. This study aimed to estimate SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in students attending universities that had experienced a COVID-19 outbreak after reopening for the autumn term in September 2020., Methods: A cross-sectional serosurvey was conducted during 02-11 December 2020 in students aged ≤ 25 years across five universities in England. Blood samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing were obtained using a self-sampling kit and analysed using the Abbott SARS-CoV-2 N antibody and/or an in-house receptor binding domain (RBD) assay., Findings: SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in 2,905 university students was 17.8% (95%CI, 16.5-19.3), ranging between 7.6%-29.7% across the five universities. Seropositivity was associated with being younger likely to represent first year undergraduates (aOR 3.2, 95% CI 2.0-4.9), living in halls of residence (aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7-2.7) and sharing a kitchen with an increasing number of students (shared with 4-7 individuals, aOR 1.43, 95%CI 1.12-1.82; shared with 8 or more individuals, aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.04-2.24). Seropositivity was 49% in students living in halls of residence that reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates (>8%) during the autumn term., Interpretation: Despite large numbers of cases and outbreaks in universities, less than one in five students (17.8%) overall had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at the end of the autumn term in England. In university halls of residence affected by a COVID-19 outbreak, however, nearly half the resident students became infected and developed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies., (Crown Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We investigated a COVID-19 outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant of concern in a London care home, where 8/21 residents and 14/21 staff had received a single dose of Vaxzevria (ChAdOx1-S; AstraZeneca) vaccine. We identified 24 SARS-CoV-2 infections (16 residents, 8 staff) among 40 individuals (19 residents, 21 staff); four (3 residents, 1 staff) were hospitalised, and none died. The attack rate after one vaccine dose was 35.7% (5/14) for staff and 81.3% (13/16) for residents.

Background: Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection., Methods: A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts., Findings: From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13-0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days., Interpretation: A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals., Funding: Department of Health and Social Care of the UK Government, Public Health England, The National Institute for Health Research, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Crown copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Characterising the size and distribution of the population at risk of severe COVID-19 is vital for effective policy and planning. Older age, and underlying health conditions, are associated with higher risk of death from COVID-19. This study aimed to describe the population at risk of severe COVID-19 due to underlying health conditions across the United Kingdom., Methods: We used anonymised electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD to estimate the point prevalence on 5 March 2019 of the at-risk population following national guidance. Prevalence for any risk condition and for each individual condition is given overall and stratified by age and region with binomial exact confidence intervals. We repeated the analysis on 5 March 2014 for full regional representation and to describe prevalence of underlying health conditions in pregnancy. We additionally described the population of cancer survivors, and assessed the value of linked secondary care records for ascertaining COVID-19 at-risk status., Results: On 5 March 2019, 24.4% of the UK population were at risk due to a record of at least one underlying health condition, including 8.3% of school-aged children, 19.6% of working-aged adults, and 66.2% of individuals aged 70 years or more. 7.1% of the population had multimorbidity. The size of the at-risk population was stable over time comparing 2014 to 2019, despite increases in chronic liver disease and diabetes and decreases in chronic kidney disease and current asthma. Separately, 1.6% of the population had a new diagnosis of cancer in the past 5 y., Conclusions: The population at risk of severe COVID-19 (defined as either aged ≥70 years, or younger with an underlying health condition) comprises 18.5 million individuals in the UK, including a considerable proportion of school-aged and working-aged individuals. Our national estimates broadly support the use of Global Burden of Disease modelled estimates in other countries. We provide age- and region- stratified prevalence for each condition to support effective modelling of public health interventions and planning of vaccine resource allocation. The high prevalence of health conditions among older age groups suggests that age-targeted vaccination strategies may efficiently target individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19.

Objective: To describe the clinical presentation, course of disease and health-care seeking behaviour of the first few hundred cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland., Methods: We implemented the World Health Organization's First Few X cases and contacts investigation protocol for COVID-19. Trained public health professionals collected information on 381 virologically confirmed COVID-19 cases from 31 January 2020 to 9 April 2020. We actively followed up cases to identify exposure to infection, symptoms and outcomes. We also collected limited data on 752 symptomatic people testing negative for COVID-19, as a control group for analyses of the sensitivity, specificity and predictive value of symptoms., Findings: Approximately half of the COVID-19 cases were imported (196 cases; 51.4%), of whom the majority had recent travel to Italy (140 cases; 71.4%). Of the 94 (24.7%) secondary cases, almost all reported close contact with a confirmed case (93 cases; 98.9%), many through household contact (37 cases; 39.8%). By age, a lower proportion of children had COVID-19. Most cases presented with cough, fever and fatigue. The sensitivity and specificity of symptoms varied by age, with nonlinear relationships with age. Although the proportion of COVID-19 cases with fever increased with age, for those with other respiratory infections the occurrence of fever decreased with age. The occurrence of shortness of breath also increased with age in a greater proportion of COVID-19 cases., Conclusion: The study has provided useful evidence for generating case definitions and has informed modelling studies of the likely burden of COVID-19., ((c) 2021 The authors; licensee World Health Organization.)

BackgroundA multi-tiered surveillance system based on influenza surveillance was adopted in the United Kingdom in the early stages of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic to monitor different stages of the disease. Mandatory social and physical distancing measures (SPDM) were introduced on 23 March 2020 to attempt to limit transmission.AimTo describe the impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity as detected through the different surveillance systems.MethodsData from national population surveys, web-based indicators, syndromic surveillance, sentinel swabbing, respiratory outbreaks, secondary care admissions and mortality indicators from the start of the epidemic to week 18 2020 were used to identify the timing of peaks in surveillance indicators relative to the introduction of SPDM. This timing was compared with median time from symptom onset to different stages of illness and levels of care or interactions with healthcare services.ResultsThe impact of SPDM was detected within 1 week through population surveys, web search indicators and sentinel swabbing reported by onset date. There were detectable impacts on syndromic surveillance indicators for difficulty breathing, influenza-like illness and COVID-19 coding at 2, 7 and 12 days respectively, hospitalisations and critical care admissions (both 12 days), laboratory positivity (14 days), deaths (17 days) and nursing home outbreaks (4 weeks).ConclusionThe impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity was detectable within 1 week through community surveillance indicators, highlighting their importance in early detection of changes in activity. Community swabbing surveillance may be increasingly important as a specific indicator, should circulation of seasonal respiratory viruses increase.

Background: The UK has been one of the European countries most affected by COVID-19 pandemic. The UK implemented a lockdown in March 2020, when testing policy at the time was focusing on hospitalised cases. Limited information is therefore available on the impact of the lockdown on point prevalence in the community. We assessed COVID-19 point prevalence in London between early April and early May 2020, which approximately reflect infection around the time of the lockdown and 3-5 weeks into lockdown., Methods: We tested 1064 participants of a community surveillance cohort for acute COVID-19 infection using PCR in London in April and May 2020 and described positivity as well as characteristics and symptoms of the participants., Results: Point prevalence decreased from 2.2% (95% CI 1.4 to 3.5) in early April to 0.2% (95% CI 0.03 to 1.6) in early May. 22% of those who tested positive in April were asymptomatic. Extrapolation from reports of confirmed cases suggest that 5-7.6% of total infections were confirmed by testing during this period., Conclusion: COVID-19 point prevalence in the community sharply decreased after lockdown was implemented. This study is based on a small sample and regular seroprevalence studies are needed to better characterise population-level immunity., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This study was conducted by Public Health England as part of routine surveillance activities., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Internationally, key workers such as healthcare staff are advised to stay at home if they or household members experience coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-like symptoms. This potentially isolates/quarantines many staff without SARS-CoV-2, while not preventing transmission from staff with asymptomatic infection. We explored the impact of testing staff on absence durations from work and transmission risks to others., Methods: We used a decision-analytic model for 1000 key workers to compare the baseline strategy of (S0) no RT-PCR testing of workers to testing workers (S1) with COVID-19-like symptoms in isolation, (S2) without COVID-19-like symptoms but in household quarantine, and (S3) all staff. We explored confirmatory re-testing scenarios of repeating all initial tests, initially positive tests, initially negative tests, or no re-testing. We varied all parameters, including the infection rate (0.1-20%), proportion asymptomatic (10-80%), sensitivity (60-95%), and specificity (90-100%)., Results: Testing all staff (S3) changes the risk of workplace transmission by -56.9 to +1.0 workers/1000 tests (with reductions throughout at RT-PCR sensitivity ≥65%), and absences by -0.5 to +3.6 days/test but at heightened testing needs of 989.6-1995.9 tests/1000 workers. Testing workers in household quarantine (S2) reduces absences the most by 3.0-6.9 days/test (at 47.0-210.4 tests/1000 workers), while increasing risk of workplace transmission by 0.02-49.5 infected workers/1000 tests (which can be minimized when re-testing initially negative tests)., Conclusions: Based on optimizing absence durations or transmission risk, our modeling suggests testing staff in household quarantine or all staff, depending on infection levels and testing capacities., (© Crown copyright 2020.)

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has passed its first peak in Europe., Aim: To describe the mortality in England and its association with SARS-CoV-2 status and other demographic and risk factors., Design and Setting: Cross-sectional analyses of people with known SARS-CoV-2 status in the Oxford RCGP Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network., Method: Pseudonymised, coded clinical data were uploaded from volunteer general practice members of this nationally representative network ( n = 4 413 734). All-cause mortality was compared with national rates for 2019, using a relative survival model, reporting relative hazard ratios (RHR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A multivariable adjusted odds ratios (OR) analysis was conducted for those with known SARS-CoV-2 status ( n = 56 628, 1.3%) including multiple imputation and inverse probability analysis, and a complete cases sensitivity analysis., Results: Mortality peaked in week 16. People living in households of ≥9 had a fivefold increase in relative mortality (RHR = 5.1, 95% CI = 4.87 to 5.31, P <0.0001). The ORs of mortality were 8.9 (95% CI = 6.7 to 11.8, P <0.0001) and 9.7 (95% CI = 7.1 to 13.2, P <0.0001) for virologically and clinically diagnosed cases respectively, using people with negative tests as reference. The adjusted mortality for the virologically confirmed group was 18.1% (95% CI = 17.6 to 18.7). Male sex, population density, black ethnicity (compared to white), and people with long-term conditions, including learning disability (OR = 1.96, 95% CI = 1.22 to 3.18, P = 0.0056) had higher odds of mortality., Conclusion: The first SARS-CoV-2 peak in England has been associated with excess mortality. Planning for subsequent peaks needs to better manage risk in males, those of black ethnicity, older people, people with learning disabilities, and people who live in multi-occupancy dwellings., (©The Authors.)