Dataset Information

SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine effectiveness in England (REACT-1): a series of cross-sectional random community surveys.

ABSTRACT:

Background

England has experienced a third wave of the COVID-19 epidemic since the end of May, 2021, coinciding with the rapid spread of the delta (B.1.617.2) variant, despite high levels of vaccination among adults. Vaccination rates (single dose) in England are lower among children aged 16-17 years and 12-15 years, whose vaccination in England commenced in August and September, 2021, respectively. We aimed to analyse the underlying dynamics driving patterns in SARS-CoV-2 prevalence during September, 2021, in England.

Methods

The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study, which commenced data collection in May, 2020, involves a series of random cross-sectional surveys in the general population of England aged 5 years and older. Using RT-PCR swab positivity data from 100 527 participants with valid throat and nose swabs in round 14 of REACT-1 (Sept 9-27, 2021), we estimated community-based prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and vaccine effectiveness against infection by combining round 14 data with data from round 13 (June 24 to July 12, 2021; n=172 862).

Findings

During September, 2021, we estimated a mean RT-PCR positivity rate of 0·83% (95% CrI 0·76-0·89), with a reproduction number (R) overall of 1·03 (95% CrI 0·94-1·14). Among the 475 (62·2%) of 764 sequenced positive swabs, all were of the delta variant; 22 (4·63%; 95% CI 3·07-6·91) included the Tyr145His mutation in the spike protein associated with the AY.4 sublineage, and there was one Glu484Lys mutation. Age, region, key worker status, and household size jointly contributed to the risk of swab positivity. The highest weighted prevalence was observed among children aged 5-12 years, at 2·32% (95% CrI 1·96-2·73) and those aged 13-17 years, at 2·55% (2·11-3·08). The SARS-CoV-2 epidemic grew in those aged 5-11 years, with an R of 1·42 (95% CrI 1·18-1·68), but declined in those aged 18-54 years, with an R of 0·81 (0·68-0·97). At ages 18-64 years, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness against infection was 62·8% (95% CI 49·3-72·7) after two doses compared to unvaccinated people, for all vaccines combined, 44·8% (22·5-60·7) for the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccine, and 71·3% (56·6-81·0) for the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine. In individuals aged 18 years and older, the weighted prevalence of swab positivity was 0·35% (95% CrI 0·31-0·40) if the second dose was administered up to 3 months before their swab but 0·55% (0·50-0·61) for those who received their second dose 3-6 months before their swab, compared to 1·76% (1·60-1·95) among unvaccinated individuals.

Interpretation

In September, 2021, at the start of the autumn school term in England, infections were increasing exponentially in children aged 5-17 years, at a time when vaccination rates were low in this age group. In adults, compared to those who received their second dose less than 3 months ago, the higher prevalence of swab positivity at 3-6 months following two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine suggests an increased risk of breakthrough infections during this period. The vaccination programme needs to reach children as well as unvaccinated and partially vaccinated adults to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and associated disruptions to work and education.

Funding

Department of Health and Social Care, England.

SUBMITTER: Chadeau-Hyam M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8786320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe UK faces major problems in retaining general practitioners (GPs). Scotland introduced a new GP contract in April 2018, intended to better support GPs. This study compares the career intentions and working lives of GPs in Scotland with GPs in England, shortly after the new Scotland contract was introduced.Design and settingComparison of cross-sectional analysis of survey responses of GPs in England and Scotland in 2017 and 2018, respectively, using linear regression to adjust the differences for gender, age, ethnicity, urbanicity and deprivation.Participants2048 GPs in Scotland and 879 GPs in England.Main outcome measuresFour intentions to reduce work participation (5-point scales: 1='none', 5='high'): reducing working hours; leaving medical work entirely; leaving direct patient care; or continuing medical work but outside the UK. Four domains of working life: job satisfaction (7-point scale: 1='extremely dissatisfied', 7='extremely satisfied'); job stressors (5-point-scale: 1='no pressure', 5='high pressure); positive and negative job attributes (5-point scales: 1='strongly disagree', 5='strongly agree').ResultsCompared with England, GPs in Scotland had lower intention to reduce work participation, including a lower likelihood of reducing work hours (2.78 vs 3.54; adjusted difference=-0.52; 95% CI -0.64 to -0.41), a lower likelihood of leaving medical work entirely (2.11 vs 2.76; adjusted difference=-0.32; 95% CI -0.42 to -0.22), a lower likelihood of leaving direct patient care (2.23 vs 2.93; adjusted difference=-0.37; 95% CI -0.47 to -0.27), and a lower likelihood of continuing medical work but outside of the UK (1.41 vs 1.61; adjusted difference=-0.2; 95% CI -0.28 to -0.12). GPs in Scotland reported higher job satisfaction, lower job stressors, similar positive job attributes and lower negative job attributes.ConclusionFollowing the introduction of the new contract in Scotland, GPs in Scotland reported significantly better working lives and lower intention to reduce work participation than England.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2).DesignDiagnostic accuracy study.SettingLaboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts.ParticipantsSensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing.InterventionsLaboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards.Main outcome measuresThe accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs.ConclusionsOne new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.