Dataset Information

Predictive symptoms for COVID-19 in the community: REACT-1 study of over 1 million people.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Rapid detection, isolation, and contact tracing of community COVID-19 cases are essential measures to limit the community spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to identify a parsimonious set of symptoms that jointly predict COVID-19 and investigated whether predictive symptoms differ between the B.1.1.7 (Alpha) lineage (predominating as of April 2021 in the US, UK, and elsewhere) and wild type.

Methods and findings

We obtained throat and nose swabs with valid SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results from 1,147,370 volunteers aged 5 years and above (6,450 positive cases) in the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. This study involved repeated community-based random surveys of prevalence in England (study rounds 2 to 8, June 2020 to January 2021, response rates 22%-27%). Participants were asked about symptoms occurring in the week prior to testing. Viral genome sequencing was carried out for PCR-positive samples with N-gene cycle threshold value < 34 (N = 1,079) in round 8 (January 2021). In univariate analysis, all 26 surveyed symptoms were associated with PCR positivity compared with non-symptomatic people. Stability selection (1,000 penalized logistic regression models with 50% subsampling) among people reporting at least 1 symptom identified 7 symptoms as jointly and positively predictive of PCR positivity in rounds 2-7 (June to December 2020): loss or change of sense of smell, loss or change of sense of taste, fever, new persistent cough, chills, appetite loss, and muscle aches. The resulting model (rounds 2-7) predicted PCR positivity in round 8 with area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77. The same 7 symptoms were selected as jointly predictive of B.1.1.7 infection in round 8, although when comparing B.1.1.7 with wild type, new persistent cough and sore throat were more predictive of B.1.1.7 infection while loss or change of sense of smell was more predictive of the wild type. The main limitations of our study are (i) potential participation bias despite random sampling of named individuals from the National Health Service register and weighting designed to achieve a representative sample of the population of England and (ii) the necessary reliance on self-reported symptoms, which may be prone to recall bias and may therefore lead to biased estimates of symptom prevalence in England.

Conclusions

Where testing capacity is limited, it is important to use tests in the most efficient way possible. We identified a set of 7 symptoms that, when considered together, maximize detection of COVID-19 in the community, including infection with the B.1.1.7 lineage.

SUBMITTER: Elliott J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478234 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCOVID-19-related social isolation and stress may have significant mental health effects, including post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression. These factors are thought to disproportionately affect populations at risk of psychopathology, such as adolescents with a history of childhood adversity (CA). Therefore, examining which factors may buffer the impact of COVID-19-related stress and isolation in vulnerable adolescents is critical. The Resilience After the COVID-19 Threat (REACT) study assesses whether emotion regulation capacity, inflammation and neuroimmune responses to stress induced in the laboratory prior to the pandemic predict responses to COVID-19-related social isolation and stress in adolescents with CA. We aim to elucidate the mechanisms that enable vulnerable adolescents to maintain or regain good mental health when confronted with COVID-19.Methods and analysisWe recruited 79 adolescents aged 16-26 with CA experiences from the Resilience After Individual Stress Exposure study in which we assessed emotion regulation, neural and immune stress responses to an acute stress task. Our sample completed questionnaires at the start of the UK lockdown ('baseline'; April 2020) and three (July 2020) and 6 months later (October 2020) providing crucial longitudinal information across phases of the pandemic progression and government response. The questionnaires assess (1) mental health, (2) number and severity of life events, (3) physical health, (4) stress perception and (5) loneliness and friendship support. We will use multilevel modelling to examine whether individual differences at baseline are associated with responses to COVID-19-related social isolation and stress.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee (PRE.2020.037). Results of the REACT study will be disseminated in publications in scientific peer-reviewed journals, presentations at scientific conferences and meetings, publications and presentations for the general public, and through social media.

Project description:BackgroundObesity is a major risk factor for adverse outcomes after infection with SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to examine this association, including interactions with demographic and behavioural characteristics, type 2 diabetes, and other health conditions.MethodsIn this prospective, community-based, cohort study, we used de-identified patient-level data from the QResearch database of general practices in England, UK. We extracted data for patients aged 20 years and older who were registered at a practice eligible for inclusion in the QResearch database between Jan 24, 2020 (date of the first recorded infection in the UK) and April 30, 2020, and with available data on BMI. Data extracted included demographic, clinical, clinical values linked with Public Health England's database of positive SARS-CoV-2 test results, and death certificates from the Office of National Statistics. Outcomes, as a proxy measure of severe COVID-19, were admission to hospital, admission to an intensive care unit (ICU), and death due to COVID-19. We used Cox proportional hazard models to estimate the risk of severe COVID-19, sequentially adjusting for demographic characteristics, behavioural factors, and comorbidities.FindingsAmong 6 910 695 eligible individuals (mean BMI 26·78 kg/m2 [SD 5·59]), 13 503 (0·20%) were admitted to hospital, 1601 (0·02%) to an ICU, and 5479 (0·08%) died after a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. We found J-shaped associations between BMI and admission to hospital due to COVID-19 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] per kg/m2 from the nadir at BMI of 23 kg/m2 of 1·05 [95% CI 1·05-1·05]) and death (1·04 [1·04-1·05]), and a linear association across the whole BMI range with ICU admission (1·10 [1·09-1·10]). We found a significant interaction between BMI and age and ethnicity, with higher HR per kg/m2 above BMI 23 kg/m2 for younger people (adjusted HR per kg/m2 above BMI 23 kg/m2 for hospital admission 1·09 [95% CI 1·08-1·10] in 20-39 years age group vs 80-100 years group 1·01 [1·00-1·02]) and Black people than White people (1·07 [1·06-1·08] vs 1·04 [1·04-1·05]). The risk of admission to hospital and ICU due to COVID-19 associated with unit increase in BMI was slightly lower in people with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease than in those without these morbidities.InterpretationAt a BMI of more than 23 kg/m2, we found a linear increase in risk of severe COVID-19 leading to admission to hospital and death, and a linear increase in admission to an ICU across the whole BMI range, which is not attributable to excess risks of related diseases. The relative risk due to increasing BMI is particularly notable people younger than 40 years and of Black ethnicity.FundingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 places immense worldwide demand on healthcare services. Earlier identification of patients at risk of severe disease may allow intervention with experimental targeted treatments, mitigating the course of their disease and reducing critical care service demand.Methods and analysisThis prospective observational study of patients tested or treated for SARS-CoV-2, who are under the care of the tertiary University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (UHSFT), captured data from admission to discharge; data collection commenced on 7 March 2020. Core demographic and clinical information, as well as results of disease-defining characteristics, was captured and recorded electronically from hospital clinical record systems at the point of testing. Manual data were collected and recorded by the clinical research team for assessments which are not part of the structured electronic healthcare record, for example, symptom onset date. Thereafter, participant records were continuously updated during hospital stay and their follow-up period. Participants aged >16 years were given the opportunity to provide consent for excess clinical sample storage with optional further biological sampling. These anonymised samples were linked to the clinical data in the Real-time Analytics for Clinical Trials platform and were stored within a biorepository at UHSFT.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the HRA Specific Review Board (REC 20/HRA/2986) for waiver of informed consent for the database-only cohort; the procedures conform with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study design, protocol and patient-facing documentation for the biobanking arm of the study have been approved by North West Research Ethics Committee (REC 17/NW/0632) as an amendment to the National Institute for Health Research Southampton Clinical Research Facility-managed Southampton Research Biorepository. This study will be published as peer-reviewed articles and presented at conferences, presentations and workshops.

Project description:BackgroundUncontrolled infection and lockdown measures introduced in response have resulted in an unprecedented challenge for health systems internationally. Whether such unprecedented impact was due to lockdown itself and recedes when such measures are lifted is unclear. We assessed the short- and medium-term impacts of the first lockdown measures on hospital care for tracer non-COVID-19 conditions in England, Scotland and Wales across diseases, sexes, and socioeconomic and ethnic groups.MethodsWe used OpenSAFELY (for England), EAVEII (Scotland), and SAIL Databank (Wales) to extract weekly hospital admission rates for cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory conditions (excluding COVID-19) from the pre-pandemic period until 25/10/2020 and conducted a controlled interrupted time series analysis. We undertook stratified analyses and assessed admission rates over seven months during which lockdown restrictions were gradually lifted.FindingsOur combined dataset included 32 million people who contributed over 74 million person-years. Admission rates for all three conditions fell by 34.2% (Confidence Interval (CI): -43.0, -25.3) in England, 20.9% (CI: -27.8, -14.1) in Scotland, and 24.7% (CI: -36.7, -12.7) in Wales, with falls across every stratum considered. In all three nations, cancer-related admissions fell the most while respiratory-related admissions fell the least (e.g., rates fell by 40.5% (CI: -47.4, -33.6), 21.9% (CI: -35.4, -8.4), and 19.0% (CI: -30.6, -7.4) in England for cancer, cardiovascular-related, and respiratory-related admissions respectively). Unscheduled admissions rates fell more in the most than the least deprived quintile across all three nations. Some ethnic minority groups experienced greater falls in admissions (e.g., in England, unscheduled admissions fell by 9.5% (CI: -20.2, 1.2) for Whites, but 44.3% (CI: -71.0, -17.6), 34.6% (CI: -63.8, -5.3), and 25.6% (CI: -45.0, -6.3) for Mixed, Other and Black ethnic groups respectively). Despite easing of restrictions, the overall admission rates remained lower in England, Scotland, and Wales by 20.8%, 21.6%, and 22.0%, respectively when compared to the same period (August-September) during the pre-pandemic years. This corresponds to a reduction of 26.2, 23.8 and 30.2 admissions per 100,000 people in England, Scotland, and Wales respectively.InterpretationHospital care for non-COVID diseases fell substantially across England, Scotland, and Wales during the first lockdown, with reductions persisting for at least six months. The most deprived and minority ethnic groups were impacted more severely.FundingThis work was funded by the Medical Research Council as part of the Lifelong Health and Wellbeing study as part of National Core Studies (MC_PC_20030). SVK acknowledges funding from the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). EAVE II is funded by the Medical Research Council (MR/R008345/1) with the support of BREATHE - The Health Data Research Hub for Respiratory Health (MC_PC_19004), which is funded through the UK Research and Innovation Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund and delivered through Health Data Research UK. BG has received research funding from the NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Wellcome Trust, Health Data Research UK, Asthma UK, the British Lung Foundation, and the Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing strand of the National Core Studies programme.