The impact of primary care supported shielding on the risk of mortality in people vulnerable to COVID-19: English sentinel network matched cohort study

Postpandemic Sentinel Surveillance of Respiratory Diseases in the Context of the World Health Organization Mosaic Framework: Protocol for a Development and Evaluation Study Involving the English Primary Care Network 2023-2024

BACKGROUND

Prepandemic sentinel surveillance focused on improved management of winter pressures, with influenza-like illness (ILI) being the key clinical indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) global standards for influenza surveillance include monitoring acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI. The WHO's mosaic framework recommends that the surveillance strategies of countries include the virological monitoring of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential such as influenza. The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioner Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has provided sentinel surveillance since 1967, including virology since 1993.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe the RSC's plans for sentinel surveillance in the 2023-2024 season and evaluate these plans against the WHO mosaic framework.

METHODS

Our approach, which includes patient and public involvement, contributes to surveillance objectives across all 3 domains of the mosaic framework. We will generate an ARI phenotype to enable reporting of this indicator in addition to ILI. These data will support UKHSA's sentinel surveillance, including vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease studies. The panel of virology tests analyzed in UKHSA's reference laboratory will remain unchanged, with additional plans for point-of-care testing, pneumococcus testing, and asymptomatic screening. Our sampling framework for serological surveillance will provide greater representativeness and more samples from younger people. We will create a biomedical resource that enables linkage between clinical data held in the RSC and virology data, including sequencing data, held by the UKHSA. We describe the governance framework for the RSC.

RESULTS

We are co-designing our communication about data sharing and sampling, contextualized by the mosaic framework, with national and general practice patient and public involvement groups. We present our ARI digital phenotype and the key data RSC network members are requested to include in computerized medical records. We will share data with the UKHSA to report vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 and influenza, assess the disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus, and perform syndromic surveillance. Virological surveillance will include COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other common respiratory viruses. We plan to pilot point-of-care testing for group A streptococcus, urine tests for pneumococcus, and asymptomatic testing. We will integrate test requests and results with the laboratory-computerized medical record system. A biomedical resource will enable research linking clinical data to virology data. The legal basis for the RSC's pseudonymized data extract is The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, and all nonsurveillance uses require research ethics approval.

CONCLUSIONS

The RSC extended its surveillance activities to meet more but not all of the mosaic framework's objectives. We have introduced an ARI indicator. We seek to expand our surveillance scope and could do more around transmissibility and the benefits and risks of nonvaccine therapies.

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

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

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales

BACKGROUND

The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales.

METHODS

The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales).

RESULTS

At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person.

CONCLUSION

This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Did the UK's public health shielding policy protect the clinically extremely vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales? Results of EVITE Immunity, a linked data retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

The UK shielding policy intended to protect people at the highest risk of harm from COVID-19 infection. We aimed to describe intervention effects in Wales at 1 year.

METHODS

Retrospective comparison of linked demographic and clinical data for cohorts comprising people identified for shielding from 23 March to 21 May 2020; and the rest of the population. Health records were extracted with event dates between 23 March 2020 and 22 March 2021 for the comparator cohort and from the date of inclusion until 1 year later for the shielded cohort.

RESULTS

The shielded cohort included 117,415 people, with 3,086,385 in the comparator cohort. The largest clinical categories in the shielded cohort were severe respiratory condition (35.5%), immunosuppressive therapy (25.9%) and cancer (18.6%). People in the shielded cohort were more likely to be female, aged ≥50 years, living in relatively deprived areas, care home residents and frail. The proportion of people tested for COVID-19 was higher in the shielded cohort (odds ratio [OR] 1.616; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.597-1.637), with lower positivity rate incident rate ratios 0.716 (95% CI 0.697-0.736). The known infection rate was higher in the shielded cohort (5.9% vs 5.7%). People in the shielded cohort were more likely to die (OR 3.683; 95% CI: 3.583-3.786), have a critical care admission (OR 3.339; 95% CI: 3.111-3.583), hospital emergency admission (OR 2.883; 95% CI: 2.837-2.930), emergency department attendance (OR 1.893; 95% CI: 1.867-1.919) and common mental disorder (OR 1.762; 95% CI: 1.735-1.789).

CONCLUSION

Deaths and healthcare utilisation were higher amongst shielded people than the general population, as would be expected in the sicker population. Differences in testing rates, deprivation and pre-existing health are potential confounders; however, lack of clear impact on infection rates raises questions about the success of shielding and indicates that further research is required to fully evaluate this national policy intervention.

Sociodemographic disparities in COVID-19 seroprevalence across England in the Oxford RCGP primary care sentinel network

OBJECTIVES

To monitor changes in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in populations over time and between different demographic groups.

METHODS

A subset of practices in the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network provided serum samples, collected when volunteer patients had routine blood tests. We tested these samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using Abbott (Chicago, USA), Roche (Basel, Switzerland) and/or Euroimmun (Luebeck, Germany) assays, and linked the results to the patients' primary care computerised medical records. We report seropositivity by region and age group, and additionally examined the effects of gender, ethnicity, deprivation, rurality, shielding recommendation and smoking status.

RESULTS

We estimated seropositivity from patients aged 18-100 years old, which ranged from 4.1% (95% CI 3.1-5.3%) to 8.9% (95% CI 7.8-10.2%) across the different assays and time periods. We found higher Euroimmun seropositivity in younger age groups, people of Black and Asian ethnicity (compared to white), major conurbations, and non-smokers. We did not observe any significant effect by region, gender, deprivation, or shielding recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that prior to the vaccination programme, most of the population remained unexposed to SARS-CoV-2.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Oxford AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and immune response among individuals in clinical risk groups

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.

Risk of severe COVID-19 infection in persons with diabetes during the first and second waves in Denmark: A nationwide cohort study

OBJECTIVE

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) increases risk of hospitalization and death in diabetes and diabetes-related conditions. We examined the temporal trends in COVID-19-related hospitalization and mortality in the total Danish population by diabetes and diabetes-related conditions in the two first waves of COVID-19 in Denmark.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all persons with diabetes in the whole Danish population using national registries. COVID-19-related risks of hospitalization and death were assessed using Cox regression analysis in wave 1 (1 March-31 August 2020) and wave 2 (1 September 2020-28 February 2021) of the pandemic for persons with (n=321,933) and without diabetes (n=5,479,755). Analyses were stratified according to status of hypertension, obesity, cardiovascular and microvascular disease.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 hospitalization increased from wave 1 to wave 2 in both persons without (from 4 to 10 in 10,000) and with diabetes (from 16 to 54 per 10,000). The relative risk of hospitalization, however, increased more in patients with diabetes compared to persons without (age-, sex- and co-morbidity-adjusted HR [aHR] 1.40 (95% CI 1.27, 1.55) versus 1.76 (1.65, 1.87), p<0.001 for interaction with wave). The mortality rate, according to the whole population, increased similarly in persons without and with diabetes from wave 1 to wave 2 (from 0.63 to 1.5 versus from 4.3 to 10 in 10,000; aHR 1.65; 1.34, 2.03 and 1.64; 1.43, 1.88). However, when mortality was restricted to the hospitalized population, the crude mortality fell from 26.8% to 19.6% in persons with diabetes, while only a minor decrease was seen in persons without diabetes (from 16.7% to 15.5%).

CONCLUSION

The risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization increased more in persons with than without diabetes from wave 1 to wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Danish population. However, mortality according to the whole population did not change, due to reduced mortality among hospitalized persons with diabetes.