Search

Background In October 2012, a maternal pertussis vaccination program was introduced in England for women between 28 and 32 weeks of pregnancy. In April 2016, the recommended optimal window was extended to 20–32 weeks to improve vaccine coverage and protect preterm infants. This study assesses the impact of offering maternal pertussis vaccination earlier in pregnancy on hospitalized infant pertussis cases. Methods Hospitalized pertussis cases ≤60 days old in England were extracted from Hospital Episode Statistics pre- and post-policy change. Data were linked to laboratory-confirmed cases, and clinical records were reviewed where cases were not matched. Maternal vaccine status of identified cases was established. Median hospital duration was calculated, and a competing risk survival analysis was undertaken to assess multiple factors. Results A total of 201 cases were included in the analysis. Of the 151 cases with reported gestational age, the number of hospitalizations among full-term infants was 60 cases pre-policy and 62 cases post-policy, respectively, while preterm cases declined from 20 to 9 (P = .06). Length of hospital stay did not differ significantly after the policy change. Significantly longer hospital stays were seen in cases aged 0–4 weeks (median of 3 more days than infants aged 5–8 weeks), premature infants (median of 4 more days than term infants), and cases with coinfections (median of 1 more day than those without coinfection). Conclusions The number of preterm infants hospitalized with pertussis in England was halved after the policy change and preterm infants were no longer overrepresented among hospitalized cases., This study evaluates the impact of offering pertussis vaccination earlier in pregnancy in the second trimester on hospitalized infant pertussis cases in England. We found a decline in hospitalizations in preterm infants from 20 (18.5%) to 9 (9.7%) (P = .06).

Schools are increasingly being used to deliver vaccines. In 2015/16 three school-based vaccination programmes were delivered to adolescents in England: human papillomavirus (HPV), meningococcal groups A, C, W and Y disease (MenACWY) and tetanus, diphtheria and polio (Td/IPV). We assessed how school delivery models impact vaccine coverage and how a delivery model for one programme may impact another. Routinely collected national data were analysed to ascertain the school grade achieving highest coverage within each one-dose programme and to compare two-dose delivery models (within year vs across years) for the HPV vaccine. We also assessed whether the HPV delivery model was associated with coverage in other programmes. MenACWY and Td/IPV coverage was highest in younger school grades. Overall similar HPV coverage was achieved with both models (86.7% two doses within one year, 85.8% two doses across two years, p = 0.20). High two-dose HPV coverage in 2015/16 was reported in areas that achieved high HPV coverage in 2013/14 when three doses were required. Areas with high three-dose coverage in 2013/14 achieved higher coverage with a within-one-year approach (92.0% vs 85.2%, p 0.001), whilst areas reporting low coverage in 2013/14 achieved lower but similar coverage in 2015/16 with both models (79.2% vs 80.9% p = 0.29). MenACWY and Td/IPV coverage were higher in areas with high HPV coverage in 2013/14. Among high HPV coverage areas, MenACWY coverage was higher when HPV doses were delivered within year. School-based programmes should be offered as early as feasible and acceptable to optimise coverage. The choice of delivery model for HPV should take into account local performance and provider experience. Single providers may delivery multiple vaccines and the delivery for one programme may affect the performance of other programmes. Providers should consider local circumstances including past and current vaccine coverage and factors influencing coverage when deciding what delivery model to adopt.

BackgroundThis study measured the long-term health-related quality of life of non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2(+) infection using the recommended instrument in England (the EQ-5D).MethodsProspective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2(+) cases aged 12-85 years and followed up for six months from 01 December 2020, with cross-sectional comparison to SARS-CoV-2(-) controls. Main outcomes were loss of quality-adjusted life days (QALDs); physical symptoms; and COVID-19-related private expenditures. We analysed 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.ResultsOf 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 non-prescription drugs (median: £10.0), and 52.7% missed work or school for a mean of 12 days (median: 10). On average, all cases lost 15.9 (95%-CI: 12.1, 19.7) QALDs, while those reporting symptoms at month 6 lost 34.1 (29.0, 39.2) QALDs. Losses also increased with older age. Cumulatively, the health loss from morbidity contributes at least 21% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in England.ConclusionsOne 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.summaryLosses of health-related quality of life in non-hospitalised COVID-19 cases increase by age and for cases with symptoms after 6 months. At a population level, at least 21% of the total COVID-19-related disease burden in England is attributable to morbidity.

In England, the National Immunisation Management System (NIMS) has been used to deliver COVID-19 vaccinations across England, monitor vaccine coverage, and assess vaccine effectiveness and safety.The NIMS was developed by a joint collaboration between a range of health and digital government agencies. Vaccinations delivered at large vaccination sites, pharmacies, hospitals and in primary care are entered on a point of care application which is verified using the unique NHS number in a centralised system containing information for everyone resident and registered with a GP in England. Vaccination details and additional data from hospital and GP records (such as priority groups) are sent to NHS Digital for data linkage. The NIMS constantly receives updated details from NHS Digital for all individuals and these data are provided to Public Health England (PHE) in a secure environment.PHE primarily use the NIMS for vaccine coverage, vaccine effectiveness and safety. Daily access to individual-level vaccine data has allowed PHE to rapidly and accurately estimate vaccine coverage and provide some of the world’s first vaccine effectiveness estimates.Other countries evaluating the roll-out and effect of COVID-19 vaccine programmes should consider a vaccine register or immunisation information system similar to the NIMS.

BackgroundCOVID-19 vaccines have been used for 9 months in the UK. Real world data have demonstrated the vaccines to be highly effective against COVID-19, severe disease and death. Here, we estimate vaccine effectiveness over time since the second dose of Comirnaty, Vaxzevria and Spikevax in England.MethodsWe used a test-negative case-control design to estimate vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease, hospitalisation and mortality by age, comorbidity status and over time after the second dose to investigate waning separately for Alpha and Delta variants.ResultsVaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease peaked in the early weeks after the second dose and then fell to 47.3 (95% CI 45 to 49.6) and 69.7 (95% CI 68.7 to 70.5) by 20+ weeks against the Delta variant for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty, respectively. Waning of vaccine effectiveness was greater for 65+ year-olds compared to 40-64 year-olds. Vaccine effectiveness fell less against hospitalisations to 77.0 (70.3 to 82.3) and 92.7 (90.3 to 94.6) beyond 20 weeks post-vaccination and 78.7 (95% CI 52.7 to 90.4) and 90.4 (95% CI 85.1 to 93.8) against death for Vaxzevria and Comirnaty, respectively. Greater waning was observed among 65+ year-olds in a clinically extremely vulnerable group and 40-64-year olds with underlying medical conditions compared to healthy adults.ConclusionsWe observed limited waning in vaccine effectiveness against hospitalisation and death more than 20 weeks post-vaccination with Vaxzevria or Comirnaty. Waning was greater in older adults and those in a clinical risk group, suggesting that these individuals should be prioritised for booster doses.

IntroductionIn January 2021, the UK decided to prioritise the delivery of the first dose of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) and AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) vaccines by extending the interval until the second dose up to 12 weeks.MethodsSerological responses were compared after BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccination with varying intervals in uninfected and previously-infected adults aged 50-89 years. These findings are evaluated against real-world national vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates against COVID-19 in England.ResultsWe recruited 750 participants aged 50-89 years, including 126 (16.8%) with evidence of previous infection; 421 received BNT162b2 and 329 and AZD1222. For both vaccines, over 95% had seroconverted 35-55 days after dose one, and 100% seroconverted 7+ days after dose 2. Following a 65-84 day interval between two doses, geometric mean titres (GMTs) at 14-34 days were 6-fold higher for BNT162b2 (6703; 95%CI, 5887-7633) than AZD1222 (1093; 806-1483), which in turn were higher than those receiving BNT162b2 19-29 days apart (694; 540 - 893). For both vaccines, VE was higher across all age-groups from 14 days after dose two compared to one dose, but the magnitude varied with interval between doses. Higher two-dose VE was observed with >6 week intervals between BNT162b2 doses compared to the authorised 3-week schedule, including ≥80 year-olds.ConclusionOur findings support the UK approach of prioritising the first dose of COVID-19 vaccines, with evidence of higher protection following extended schedules. Given global vaccine constraints, these results are relevant to policymakers, especially with highly transmissible variants and rising incidence in many countries.FundingPublic Health England

INTRODUCTION: An unexpected resurgence of pertussis cases and infant deaths was observed in some countries that had switched to acellular pertussis vaccines in the primary immunisation schedule. In response to the outbreaks, maternal pertussis vaccination programmes in pregnant women have been adopted worldwide, including the USA in 2011 and the UK in 2012. Following the success of the programme in England, we evaluated the health and economic impact of stopping versus continuing the maternal pertussis immunisation to inform public health policy making. METHODS: We used a mathematical model to estimate the number of infant hospitalisations and deaths related to pertussis in England over 2019–2038. Losses in quality-adjusted life years, QALYs, were considered for infants (aged 0–2 months) who survived or died from pertussis, bereaved parents (of infants who died from pertussis), and women with pertussis (aged 20–44 years). Direct medical costs to the National Health Service included infant hospitalisations, maternal vaccinations, and disease in women. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. Changes in the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, ICER, were explored in sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The model supports continuing the maternal pertussis immunisation programme as a cost-effective intervention at an ICER of £14,500/QALY (2.5% and 97.5%-quantile: £7,300/QALY to £32,400/QALY). Stopping versus continuing the maternal programme results in an estimated mean of 972 (range 582 to 1489) versus 308 (184 to 471) infant hospitalisations annually. Results were most sensitive to the number of hospitalisations and deaths when stopping the maternal programme. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £30,000/QALY, the probability of the maternal programme being cost-effective was 96.2%. CONCLUSION: Our findings support continuing the maternal pertussis vaccination programme as otherwise higher levels of disease activity and infant mortality are expected to return. These results have led policy makers to decide to continue the maternal programme in the UK routine immunisation schedule.

BackgroundIn 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and control measures such as national lockdowns threatened to disrupt routine childhood immunisation programmes. Initial reports from the early weeks of lockdown in the UK and worldwide suggested that uptake could fall putting children at risk from multiple other infectious diseases. In Scotland and England, enhanced surveillance of national data for childhood immunisations was established to inform and rapidly assess the impact of the pandemic on infant and preschool immunisation uptake rates.Methods and findingsWe undertook an observational study using routinely collected data for the year prior to the pandemic (2019), and immediately before, during and after the first period of the UK ‘lockdown’ in 2020. Data were obtained for Scotland from the Public Health Scotland “COVID19 wider impacts on the health care system” dashboard (https://scotland.shinyapps.io/phs-covid-wider-impact/) and for England from ImmForm.Five vaccinations delivered at different ages were evaluated; three doses of the ‘6-in-1’ DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB vaccine and two doses of MMR. Uptake in the periods in 2020 compared to that in the baseline year of 2019 using binary logistic regression analysis. For Scotland, we analysed timely uptake of immunisations, defined as uptake within four weeks of the child becoming eligible by age for each immunisation and data were also analysed by geographical region and indices of deprivation. For both Scotland and England, we assessed whether immunisations were up to date at approximately 6 months (all doses 6-in-1) and 16-18 months (first MMR) of age.We found that uptake rates within four weeks of eligibility in Scotland for all the five vaccine visits were higher during the 2020 lockdown period than in 2019. The difference ranged from 1.3% for the first dose of the 6-in-1 vaccine (95.3 vs 94%, OR 1.28, CI 1.18-1.39) to 14.3% for the second MMR dose (66.1 vs 51.8 %, OR 1.8, CI 1.74-1.87). Significant increases in uptake were seen across all deprivation levels, though, for MMR, there was evidence of greater improvement for children living in the least deprived areas.In England, fewer children who had been due to receive their immunisations during the lockdown period were up to date at 6 months (6-in-1) or 18 months (first dose MMR). The fall in percentage uptake ranged from 0.5% for first 6-in1 (95.8 vs 96.3%, OR 0.89, CI 0.86-0.91) to 2.1% for third 6-in-1 (86.6 vs 88.7%, OR 0.82, CI 0.81-0.83).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the national lockdown in Scotland was associated with a positive effect on timely childhood immunisation uptake, however in England a lower percentage of children were up to date at 6 and 18 months. Reason for the improve uptake in Scotland may include active measures taken to promote immunisation at local and national level during this period. Promoting immunisation uptake and addressing potential vaccine hesitancy is particularly important given the ongoing pandemic and COVID-19 vaccination campaigns.

Background A 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. Aim To describe the impact of SPDM on COVID-19 activity as detected through the different surveillance systems. Methods Data 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. Results The 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). Conclusion The 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.

BackgroundThe B.1.617.2 COVID-19 variant has contributed to the surge in cases in India and has now been detected across the globe, including a notable increase in cases in the UK. We estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines against this variant.MethodsA test negative case control design was used to estimate the effectiveness of vaccination against symptomatic disease with both variants over the period that B.1.617.2 began circulating with cases identified based on sequencing and S-gene target status. Data on all symptomatic sequenced cases of COVID-19 in England was used to estimate the proportion of cases with B.1.617.2 compared to the predominant strain (B.1.1.7) by vaccination status.ResultsEffectiveness was notably lower after 1 dose of vaccine with B.1.617.2 cases 33.5% (95%CI: 20.6 to 44.3) compared to B.1.1.7 cases 51.1% (95%CI: 47.3 to 54.7) with similar results for both vaccines. With BNT162b2 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 93.4% (95%CI: 90.4 to 95.5) with B.1.1.7 to 87.9% (95%CI: 78.2 to 93.2) with B.1.617.2. With ChAdOx1 2 dose effectiveness reduced from 66.1% (95% CI: 54.0 to 75.0) with B.1.1.7 to 59.8% (95%CI: 28.9 to 77.3) with B.1.617.2. Sequenced cases detected after 1 or 2 doses of vaccination had a higher odds of infection with B.1.617.2 compared to unvaccinated cases (OR 1.40; 95%CI: 1.13-1.75).ConclusionsAfter 2 doses of either vaccine there were only modest differences in vaccine effectiveness with the B.1.617.2 variant. Absolute differences in vaccine effectiveness were more marked with dose 1. This would support maximising vaccine uptake with two doses among vulnerable groups.

Objective To estimate the real world effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1-S vaccines against confirmed covid-19 symptoms (including the UK variant of concern B.1.1.7), admissions to hospital, and deaths. Design Test negative case-control study. Setting Community testing for covid-19 in England. Participants 156 930 adults aged 70 years and older who reported symptoms of covid-19 between 8 December 2020 and 19 February 2021 and were successfully linked to vaccination data in the National Immunisation Management System. Interventions Vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were polymerase chain reaction confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections, admissions to hospital for covid-19, and deaths with covid-19. Results Participants aged 80 years and older vaccinated with BNT162b2 before 4 January 2021 had a higher odds of testing positive for covid-19 in the first nine days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore compared with the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted 10 to 13 days after vaccination, reaching a vaccine effectiveness of 70% (95% confidence interval 59% to 78%), then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccination effectiveness of 89% (85% to 93%) was found compared with the increased baseline risk. Participants aged 70 years and older vaccinated from 4 January (when ChAdOx1-S delivery commenced) had a similar underlying risk of covid-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (51% to 69%) from 28 to 34 days after vaccination, then plateaued. With ChAdOx1-S, effects were seen from 14 to 20 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 60% (41% to 73%) from 28 to 34 days, increasing to 73% (27% to 90%) from day 35 onwards. On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, a further 43% (33% to 52%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission and 51% (37% to 62%) reduced risk of death was observed in those who had received one dose of BNT162b2. Participants who had received one dose of ChAdOx1-S had a further 37% (3% to 59%) reduced risk of emergency hospital admission. Follow-up was insufficient to assess the effect of ChAdOx1-S on mortality. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, a single dose of either vaccine was about 80% effective at preventing admission to hospital with covid-19 and a single dose of BNT162b2 was 85% effective at preventing death with covid-19. Conclusion Vaccination with either one dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic covid-19 in older adults, and with further protection against severe disease. Both vaccines showed similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 was associated with further protection against symptomatic disease. A clear effect of the vaccines against the B.1.1.7 variant was found.

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.

In March 2019, a pertussis outbreak occurred in children in a junior school (7–11 years) in England who had been offered pertussis-containing booster vaccine at 40 months of age. In a case–control investigation, we assessed the extent of transmission and any difference in protection afforded to those who had previously received a booster 3- or 5-component acellular pertussis vaccine (aP). We took oral fluid specimens from the students to determine IgG antibodies against pertussis toxin (anti-PT). Parents of students attending the school were sent a questionnaire on pertussis symptoms and vaccination status was retrieved from general practitioner records for all students. Of 381 students, 134 (35.2%) were classified as pertussis cases, 133 by demonstration of significant anti-PT IgG titres and one clinically. There was no significant difference in the risk of pertussis between students receiving 3-component (33.7%) or 5-component (32.3%) aP boosters. However, pertussis infection differed significantly in school year 4, with 22.9%, 50.0%, 23.7% and 38.1% pertussis cases in years 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The proportion of students with incomplete vaccinations recorded was higher than the proportion of those not covered according to the national reported coverage, possibly contributing to sustained transmission within the school.

ObjectivesTo estimate the real-world effectiveness of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine and Astrazeneca ChAdOx1 vaccine against Confirmed COVID-19, hospitalisations and deaths. To estimate effectiveness on the UK variant of concern.DesignTest negative case control designSettingCommunity COVID-19 PCR testing in EnglandParticipantsAll adults in England aged 70 years and older (over 7.5 million). All COVID-19 testing in the community among eligible individuals who reported symptoms between 8thDecember 2020 and 19thFebruary 2021 was included in the analysis.InterventionsOne and two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine. One dose of ChAdOx1 vaccine.Main outcome measuresSymptomatic PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisations and deaths with COVID-19.ResultsIndividuals aged >=80 years vaccinated with BNT162b2 prior to 4thJanuary, had a higher odds of testing positive in the first 9 days after vaccination (odds ratio up to 1.48, 95%CI 1.23-1.77), indicating that those initially targeted had a higher underlying risk of infection. Vaccine effectiveness was therefore estimated relative to the baseline post-vaccination period. Vaccine effects were noted from 10-13 days after vaccination, reaching an effectiveness of 70% (95% CI 59-78%) from 28-34 days, then plateauing. From 14 days after the second dose a vaccine effectiveness of 89% (95%CI: 85-93%) was seen.Individuals aged >=70 years vaccinated from 4thJanuary had a similar underlying risk of COVID-19 to unvaccinated individuals. With BNT162b2, vaccine effectiveness reached 61% (95%CI 51-69%) from 28-34 days after vaccination then plateaued. With the ChAdOx1 vaccine, vaccine effects were seen from 14-20 days after vaccination reaching an effectiveness of 60% (95%CI 41-73%) from 28-34 days and further increasing to 73% (95%CI 27-90%) from day 35 onwards.On top of the protection against symptomatic disease, cases who had been vaccinated with one dose of BNT162b2 had an additional 43% (95%CI 33-52%) lower risk of emergency hospitalisation and an additional 51% (95%CI 37-62%) lower risk of death. Cases who had been vaccinated with one dose of ChAdOx1 had an additional 37% (95% CI 3-59%) lower risk of emergency hospitalisation. There was insufficient follow-up to assess the effect of ChAdOx1 on mortality due to the later rollout of this vaccine. Combined with the effect against symptomatic disease, this indicates that a single dose of either vaccine is approximately 80% effective at preventing hospitalisation and a single dose of BNT162b2 is 85% effective at preventing death with COVID-19.ConclusionVaccination with either a single dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic SARS-CoV2 positive cases in older adults with even greater protection against severe disease. Both vaccines show similar effects. Protection was maintained for the duration of follow-up (>6 weeks). A second dose of BNT162b2 provides further protection against symptomatic disease but second doses of ChAdOx1 have not yet been rolled out in England. There is a clear effect of the vaccines against the UK variant of concern.

England’s influenza vaccination programme targets persons with clinical risk factors, pregnant women, those aged 65 years and older and children. Low vaccine uptake amongst primary school children was previously found to be significantly associated with increasing deprivation, Black or Minority Ethnic (BME) and certain religions. It is unknown whether these population predictors are associated with vaccine uptake in other groups. GP level data for target groups during the 2015/16 and 2016/17 seasons were linearly regressed against various factors to determine potential predictors associated with variation in uptake. Adjusted uptake for 2–4 year olds during both seasons was more than 11% lower in the most deprived decile and more than 3% lower in 34%+ BME populations compared to the least deprived and non-BME populations. Pregnant women in deprived areas had significantly lower vaccine uptake than in non-deprived areas. Patients 16–64 years old at risk showed no significant variation in uptake by deprivation, whereas patients 65 years and older had more than 3% higher vaccine uptake in the least deprived populations than the most deprived populations. Areas with the highest Muslim and BME populations had a significantly higher vaccine uptake among patients ages 16 to under 65 years old in a clinical risk group than non-Muslim and non-BME populations during both seasons. Population-factors have different effects on vaccine uptake for the various target groups. These findings support segmenting public health activities to improve vaccine uptake and reduce inequalities.

ObjectiveTo describe school-level and area-level factors that influence coverage of the school-delivered human papillomavirus (HPV) and meningococcal A, C, W and Y (MenACWY) programmes among adolescents.DesignEcological study.Setting and participantsAggregated 2016/2017 data from year 9 pupils were received from 1407 schools for HPV and 1432 schools for MenACWY. The unit of analysis was the school.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcome measures were percentage point (pp) difference in vaccine coverage by schools’ religious affiliation, school type, urban/rural, single sex/mixed and region. A subanalysis of mixed-sex, state-funded secondary schools also included deprivation, proportion of population from black and ethnic minorities, and school size.ResultsMuslim and Jewish schools had significantly lower coverage than schools of no religious character for HPV (24.0 (95% CI −38.2 to −9.8) and 20.5 (95% CI −30.7 to −10.4) pp lower, respectively) but not for MenACWY. Independent, special schools and pupil referral units had increasingly lower vaccine coverage compared with state-funded secondary schools for both HPV and MenACWY. For both vaccines, coverage was 2 pp higher in rural schools than in urban schools and lowest in London. Compared with mixed schools, HPV coverage was higher in male-only (3.7 pp, 95% CI 0.2 to 7.2) and female-only (4.8 pp, 95% CI 2 to 7.6) schools. In the subanalysis, schools located in least deprived areas had the highest coverage for both vaccines (3.8 (95% CI 0.9 to 6.8) and 10.4 (95% CI 7.0 to 13.8) pp for HPV and MenACWY, respectively), and the smallest schools had the lowest coverage (−10.4 (95% CI −14.1 to −6.8) and −7.9 (95% CI −12 to −3.8) for HPV and MenACWY, respectively).ConclusionsTailored approaches are required to improve HPV vaccine coverage in Muslim and Jewish schools. In addition, better ways of reaching pupils in smaller specialist schools are needed.

BackgroundVaccine uptake data is automatically extracted from all GP practices in England via the web-based reporting system, ImmForm, on behalf of Public Health England. In 2016/17, an Uptake Summary Tool was introduced on ImmForm for practice managers, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) and screening and immunisation teams (SCRIMMS) to help facilitate local and regional management of the influenza programme. The tool allows practices to view and evaluate influenza uptake rates by target cohorts, comparing them against the previous season and CCG average/overall national uptake each week.AimTo assess how many practices use the Uptake Summary Tool and whether there is a difference in vaccine uptake among practices that use the tool compared with those that don’t during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 influenza seasons.MethodPractice level use of the Uptake Summary Tool was examined for the 2016/17 influenza season and vaccine uptake compared between practices that used the tool and those that did not.ResultsAn average of 1272 practices used the tool each week during the 2016/17. Vaccine uptake was on average 2.9% greater for targeted cohorts in practices that used the tool than practices that did not during the 2016/17 season.ConclusionWhen used on a regular basis the Uptake Summary Tool can help GP practices, CCGs and SCRIMMS monitor vaccine and may be associated with increased vaccine uptake. Uptake for the 2017/18 season will be monitored and assessed throughout the current season. We aim to expand the tool to other vaccine collections in the near future.