Search

Background The Omicron B.1.1.529 variant increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in doubly vaccinated individuals, particularly in the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1) recipients. To tackle infections, the UK’s booster vaccination programmes used messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines irrespective of an individual’s primary course vaccine type, and prioritized the clinically vulnerable. These mRNA vaccines included the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2) the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (mRNA-1273). There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders affect these evaluations. Methods Trial emulation was applied to a prospective community observational cohort in England and Wales to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritizing vaccination based upon age, vulnerability and exposure. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight adult cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16 September 2021 and 05 January 2022 and followed until 23 January 2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end of study was modelled using Cox proportional hazard models and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability and deprivation. Results A total of 19 159 participants were analysed, with 11 709 ChAdOx1 primary courses and 7450 BNT162b2 primary courses. Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. In mRNA-boosted adults, 7.4% (n = 863) of boosted adults with a ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with 7.7% (n = 571) of those who had BNT162b2 as a primary course. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) was 1.01 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of: 0.90 to 1.13. Conclusion After an mRNA booster dose, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 with those with a ChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

Against a background of stalling UK life expectancy, the COVID-19 pandemic is a major crisis for public health with impacts differing markedly by ethnicity, gender, and age. Direct health impacts include mortality and long-term harms among survivors. Social disruption and lockdown measures arising from uncontrolled infection have destabilised healthcare and other essential services. The economic crisis resulting from the pandemic is already triggering job losses, which will in turn have their own adverse health effects. These myriad impacts of the pandemic are not affecting everyone equally. Ethnic minorities, men and older people have disproportionately suffered from COVID-19, including their risk of mortality. However, some indirect impacts – including those on mental health and employment – are more likely to affect women and younger people. The health consequences of the pandemic will affect the lives of people in the UK for decades.

Key FeaturesVirus Watch is a national community cohort study of COVID-19 in households in England and Wales, established in June 2020. The study aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most effective in reducing transmission, and investigate community incidence, symptoms, and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours.28,527 households and 58,628 participants of age (0-98 years, mean age 48), were recruited between June 2020 - July 2022Data collected include demographics, details on occupation, co-morbidities, medications, and infection-prevention behaviours. Households are followed up weekly with illness surveys capturing symptoms and their severity, activities in the week prior to symptom onset and any COVID-19 test results. Monthly surveys capture household finance, employment, mental health, access to healthcare, vaccination uptake, activities and contacts. Data have been linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), inpatient and critical care episodes, outpatient visits, emergency care contacts, mortality, virology testing and vaccination data held by NHS Digital.Nested within Virus Watch are a serology & PCR cohort study (n=12,877) and a vaccine evaluation study (n=19,555).Study data are deposited in the Office of National Statistics (ONS) Secure Research Service (SRS). Survey data are available under restricted access upon request to ONS SRS.

BackgroundMigrants in the UK may be at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, little is known about their risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation during waves 1-3 of the pandemic.MethodsWe analysed secondary care data linked to Virus Watch study data for adults and estimated COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates by migration status. To estimate the total effect of migration status on COVID-19 hospitalisation rates, we ran fixed-effect Poisson regression for wave 1 (01/03/2020-31/08/2020; wildtype), and fixed-effect negative binomial regressions for waves 2 (01/09/2020-31/05/2021; Alpha) and 3 (01/06/2020-31/11/2021; Delta). Results of all models were then meta-analysed.ResultsOf 30,276 adults in the analyses, 26,492 (87.5%) were UK-born and 3,784 (12.5%) were migrants. COVID-19-related hospitalisation incidence rates for UK-born and migrant individuals across waves 1-3 were 2.7 [95% CI 2.2-3.2], and 4.6 [3.1-6.7] per 1,000 person-years, respectively. Pooled incidence rate ratios across waves suggested increased rate of COVID-19-related hospitalisation in migrants compared to UK-born individuals in unadjusted 1.68 [1.08-2.60] and adjusted analyses 1.35 [0.71-2.60].ConclusionOur findings suggest migration populations in the UK have excess risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisations and underscore the need for more equitable interventions particularly aimed at COVID-19 vaccination uptake among migrants.

BackgroundMigrants are over-represented in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections globally; however, evidence is limited for migrants in England and Wales. Household overcrowding is a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection, with migrants more likely to live in overcrowded households than UK-born individuals. We aimed to estimate the total effect of migration status on SARS-CoV-2 infection and to what extent household overcrowding mediated this effect.MethodsWe included a sub-cohort of individuals from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study during the second SARS-CoV-2 wave (1st September 2020–30th April 2021) who were aged ≥18 years, self-reported the number of rooms in their household and had no evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection pre-September 2020. We estimated total, indirect and direct effects using Buis’ logistic decomposition regression controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, clinical vulnerability, occupation, income and whether they lived with children.ResultsIn total, 23,478 individuals were included. 9.07% (187/2,062) of migrants had evidence of infection during the study period versus 6.27% (1,342/21,416) of UK-born individuals. Migrants had 22% higher odds of infection during the second wave (total effect; OR:1.22, 95%CI:1.01–1.47). Household overcrowding accounted for approximately 32% of these increased odds (indirect effect, OR:1.07, 95%CI:1.03–1.12; proportion accounted for: indirect effect[7]/total effect[22]=0.32).ConclusionMigrants had higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave compared with UK-born individuals and household overcrowding explained 32% of these increased odds. Policy interventions to reduce household overcrowding for migrants are needed as part of efforts to tackle health inequalities during the pandemic and beyond.Key messagesWhat is already known on this topicMigrants in England and Wales may be at greater risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to unique risk factors, including over-representation in front-line jobs, an increased likelihood of living in multigenerational households and difficulties in accessing primary care. Research shows that migrants in high-income countries have been disproportionally infected with SARS-CoV-2. It is likely that, due to their pre-existing vulnerabilities, this is similarly the case for migrants in England and Wales; however, quantitative evidence addressing this is lacking.What this study addsWe investigated the effect of being a migrant on SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second wave of the pandemic in a cohort in England and Wales. We also determined the proportion of the effect mediated by household overcrowding after controlling for age, sex, ethnicity, clinical vulnerability, occupation, income and the presence of children in the household. Migrants had 22% higher odds of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 than their UK-born counterparts, and household overcrowding accounted for approximately 32% of these increased odds.How this study might affect research, practice or policyOur findings highlight the role of household overcrowding in the disproportionate impact of SARS-CoV-2 infections on migrants. They also demonstrate the urgent need for policy interventions that improve housing conditions as part of efforts to reduce health inequalities. Further research investigating other causes of migrants’ over-representation in infection cases is also needed to inform further targeted policy interventions.

Purpose We aimed to understand which non-household activities increased infection odds and contributed greatest to SARS-CoV-2 infections following the lifting of public health restrictions in England and Wales. Procedures We undertook multivariable logistic regressions assessing the contribution to infections of activities reported by adult Virus Watch Community Cohort Study participants. We calculated adjusted weighted population attributable fractions (aPAF) estimating which activity contributed greatest to infections. Findings Among 11 413 participants (493 infections), infection was associated with: leaving home for work (aOR 1.35 (1.11–1.64), aPAF 17%), public transport (aOR 1.27 (1.04–1.57), aPAF 12%), shopping once (aOR 1.83 (1.36–2.45)) vs. more than three times a week, indoor leisure (aOR 1.24 (1.02–1.51), aPAF 10%) and indoor hospitality (aOR 1.21 (0.98–1.48), aPAF 7%). We found no association for outdoor hospitality (1.14 (0.94–1.39), aPAF 5%) or outdoor leisure (1.14 (0.82–1.59), aPAF 1%). Conclusion Essential activities (work and public transport) carried the greatest risk and were the dominant contributors to infections. Non-essential indoor activities (hospitality and leisure) increased risk but contributed less. Outdoor activities carried no statistical risk and contributed to fewer infections. As countries aim to ‘live with COVID’, mitigating transmission in essential and indoor venues becomes increasingly relevant.

BackgroundDifferential exposure to public activities may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch—a large community cohort study based in England and Wales—reported differential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the autumn–winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation.MethodsParticipants (n=20 120–25 228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during 3 weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants’ residential postcode using English or Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed-effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period.ResultsRelative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) range across time points: 1.73–8.52), public transport (aRR: 3.13–5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR: 1.09–1.21), essential shops (aRR: 1.09–1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR: 1.15–1.19) across multiple survey periods.ConclusionDifferential exposure to essential public activities—such as attending workplaces and visiting essential shops—is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities.

BackgroundCOVID-19 pandemic mitigations have had a profound impact on workplaces, however, multisectoral comparison of how work-related mitigations were applied across different phases of the pandemic are limited. This study aimed to investigate occupational differences in the usage of key work-related mitigations over time, and to investigate workers’ perceptions of these mitigations.MethodsA survey covering the periods of late December 2020–February 2022 was developed and disseminated online to employed or self-employed participants in the Virus Watch study (n=6,279 respondents). Logistic regression was used to investigate occupation- and time-related differences in the usage of work-related mitigation methods. Responses regarding workers’ perceptions of mitigation methods were investigated descriptively using proportions.FindingsUsage of work-related mitigation methods differed between occupations and over time, likely reflecting variation in job roles, workplace environments, legislation and guidance. Healthcare workers had the highest predicted probabilities for several mitigations, including frequent hand and surface hygiene (up to 0.61 [0.56, 0.66]), wearing face coverings (up to 0.80 [0.76, 0.84]), and employers providing face coverings for workers (0.96 [0.94, 0.98]) and other people on worksites (0.90 [0.87, 0.93]). There was a cross-occupational trend towards reduced mitigations during periods of less stringent national restrictions. The majority of workers across occupations (55-88%) agreed that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile; agreement was lower for physical distancing (39-44%).InterpretationWhile usage of work-related mitigations appeared to vary alongside stringency of national restrictions, agreement that most mitigations were reasonable and worthwhile remained substantial. Further investigation into the factors underlying between-occupational differences could assist pandemic planning and prevention of workplace COVID-19 transmission.

BackgroundStudies of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness show increases in COVID-19 cases within 14 days of a first dose, potentially reflecting post-vaccination behaviour changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 transmission before vaccine protection. However, direct evidence for a relationship between vaccination and behaviour is lacking. We aimed to examine the association between vaccination status and self-reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities during a national lockdown in England and Wales.MethodsParticipants (n=1,154) who had received the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine reported non-household contacts and non-essential activities from February to March 2021 in monthly surveys during a national lockdown in England and Wales. We used a case-crossover study design and conditional logistic regression to examine the association between vaccination status (pre-vaccination vs. 14 days post-vaccination) and self-reported contacts and activities within individuals. Stratified subgroup analyses examined potential effect heterogeneity by sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, household income or age group.Results457/1,154 (39.60%) participants reported non-household contacts post-vaccination compared with 371/1,154 (32.15%) participants pre-vaccination. 100/1,154 (8.67%) participants reported use of non-essential shops or services post-vaccination compared with 74/1,154 (6.41%) participants pre-vaccination. Post-vaccination status was associated with increased odds of reporting non-household contacts (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.31-2.06, pConclusionParticipants had higher odds of reporting non-household contacts and use of non-essential shops or services within 14 days of their first COVID-19 vaccine compared to pre-vaccination. Public health emphasis on maintaining protective behaviours during this post-vaccination time period when individuals have yet to develop full protection from vaccination could reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background: The two most common SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the UK, BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca), employ different immunogenic mechanisms. Compared to BNT162b2, two-dose immunisation with ChAdOx1 induces substantially lower peak anti-spike antibody (anti-S) levels and is associated with a higher risk of breakthrough infections. To provide preliminary indication of how a third booster BNT162b2 dose impacts anti-S levels, we performed a cross-sectional analysis using capillary blood samples from vaccinated adults participating in Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study in England and Wales. Methods: Blood samples were analysed using Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay. We analysed anti-S levels by week since the third dose for vaccines administered on or after 1 September 2021 and stratified the results by second-dose vaccine type (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2), age, sex and clinical vulnerability. Results: Anti-S levels peaked at two weeks post-booster for BNT162b2 (22,185 U/mL; 95%CI: 21,406-22,990) and ChAdOx1 second-dose recipients (19,203 U/mL; 95%CI: 18,094-20,377). These were higher than the corresponding peak antibody levels post-second dose for BNT162b2 (12,386 U/mL; 95%CI: 9,801-15,653, week 2) and ChAdOx1 (1,192 U/mL; 95%CI: 818-1735, week 3). No differences emerged by second dose vaccine type, age, sex or clinical vulnerability. Anti-S levels declined post-booster for BNT162b2 (half-life=44 days) and ChAdOx1 second dose recipients (half-life=40 days). These rates of decline were steeper than those post-second dose for BNT162b2 (half-life=54 days) and ChAdOx1 (half-life=80 days). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that peak anti-S levels are higher post-booster than post-second dose, but levels are projected to be similar after six months for BNT162b2 recipients. Higher peak anti-S levels post-booster may partially explain the increased effectiveness of booster vaccination compared to two-dose vaccination against symptomatic infection with the Omicron variant. Faster waning trajectories post-third dose may have implications for the timing of future booster campaigns or four-dose vaccination regimens for the clinically vulnerable.

BackgroundOccupational disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake can impact the effectiveness of vaccination programmes and introduce particular risk for vulnerable workers and those with high workplace exposure. This study aimed to investigate COVID-19 vaccine uptake by occupation, including for vulnerable groups and by occupational exposure status.MethodsWe used data from employed or self-employed adults who provided occupational information as part of the Virus Watch prospective cohort study (n=19,595) and linked this to study-obtained information about vulnerability-relevant characteristics (age, medical conditions, obesity status) and work-related COVID-19 exposure based on the Job Exposure Matrix. Participant vaccination status for the first, second, and third dose of any COVID-19 vaccine was obtained based on linkage to national records and study records. We calculated proportions and Sison-Glaz multinomial 95% confidence intervals for vaccine uptake by occupation overall, by vulnerability-relevant characteristics, and by job exposure.FindingsVaccination uptake across occupations ranged from 89-96% for the first dose, 87-94% for the second dose, and 75-86% for the third dose, with transport, trade, service and sales workers persistently demonstrating the lowest uptake. Vulnerable workers tended to demonstrate fewer between-occupational differences in uptake than non-vulnerable workers, although clinically vulnerable transport workers (76%-89% across doses) had lower uptake than several other occupational groups (maximum across doses 86-96%). Workers with low SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk had higher vaccine uptake (86%-96% across doses) than those with elevated or high risk (81-94% across doses).InterpretationDifferential vaccination uptake by occupation, particularly amongst vulnerable and highly-exposed workers, is likely to worsen occupational and related socioeconomic inequalities in infection outcomes. Further investigation into occupational and non-occupational factors influencing differential uptake is required to inform relevant interventions for future COVID-19 booster rollouts and similar vaccination programmes.

Background: Effective monitoring of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) competence depends on psychometrically robust assessment methods. While the UK Cognitive Therapy Scale – Revised (CTS-R; Blackburn et al., 2001) has become a widely used competence measure in CBT training, practice and research, its underlying factor structure has never been investigated. Aims: This study aimed to present the first investigation into the factor structure of the CTS-R based on a large sample of postgraduate CBT trainee recordings. Method: Trainees (n = 382) provided 746 mid-treatment audio recordings for depression (n = 373) and anxiety (n = 373) cases scored on the CTS-R by expert markers. Tapes were split into two equal samples counterbalanced by diagnosis and with one tape per trainee. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted. The suggested factor structure and a widely used theoretical two-factor model were tested with confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement invariance was assessed by diagnostic group (depression versus anxiety). Results: Exploratory factor analysis suggested a single-factor solution (98.68% explained variance), which was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. All 12 CTS-R items were found to contribute to this single factor. The univariate model demonstrated full metric invariance and partial scalar invariance by diagnosis, with one item (item 10 – Conceptual Integration) demonstrating scalar non-invariance. Conclusions: Findings indicate that the CTS-R is a robust homogenous measure and do not support division into the widely used theoretical generic versus CBT-specific competency subscales. Investigation into the CTS-R factor structure in other populations is warranted.

Background:Evidence-based treatment for panic disorder consists of disorder-specific cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) protocols. However, most measures of CBT competence are generic and there is a clear need for disorder-specific assessment measures.Aims:To fill this gap, we evaluated the psychometric properties of the Cognitive Therapy Competence Scale (CTCP) for panic disorder.Method:CBT trainees (n = 60) submitted audio recordings of CBT for panic disorder that were scored on a generic competence measure, the Cognitive Therapy Scale – Revised (CTS-R), and the CTCP by markers with experience in CBT practice and evaluation. Trainees also provided pre- to post-treatment clinical outcomes on disorder-specific patient report measures for cases corresponding to their therapy recordings.Results:The CTCP exhibited strong internal consistency (α = .79–.91) and inter-rater reliability (ICC = .70–.88). The measure demonstrated convergent validity with the CTS-R (r = .40–.54), although investigation into competence classification indicated that the CTCP may be more sensitive at detecting competence for panic disorder-specific CBT skills. Notably, the CTCP demonstrated the first indication of a relationship between therapist competence and clinical outcome for panic disorder (r = .29–.35); no relationship was found for the CTS-R.Conclusions:These findings provide initial support for the reliability and validity of the CTCP for assessing therapist competence in CBT for panic disorder and support the use of anxiety disorder-specific competence measures. Further investigation into the psychometric properties of the measure in other therapist cohorts and its relationship with clinical outcomes is recommended.

Background: Workplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations across the COVID-19 pandemic in England. Methods: Data were obtained from electronic contact diaries (November 2020-November 2021) submitted by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants (n=4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the effects of occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people sharing workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings. Findings: Workplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75–81%]) and education workers (64% [59%–69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%–40%] and 38% [33%–43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%–57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, workspace sharing and close contact increased and usage of face coverings decreased during phases of less stringent restrictions. Interpretation: Major variations in workplace contact patterns and mask use likely contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Patterns of variation by occupation and restriction phase may inform interventions for future waves of COVID-19 or other respiratory epidemics. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced face covering usage is concerning given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants.

Background: Workers differ in their risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection according to their occupation; however, few studies have been able to control for multiple confounders or investigate the work-related factors that drive differences in occupational risk. Using data from the Virus Watch community cohort study in England and Wales, we set out to estimate the total effect of occupation on SARS-CoV-2 serological status, whether this is mediated by frequency of close contact within the workplace, and how exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces varied across occupations. Methods: We used data from a sub-cohort (n =3761) of adults (≥18) tested for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies between 01 February-28 April 2021 and responded to a questionnaire about work during the pandemic. Anti-nucleocapsid antibodies were used as a proxy of prior natural infection with COVID-19. We used logistic decomposition to estimate the total and direct effect of occupation and indirect effect of workplace contact frequency on odds of seropositivity, adjusting for age, sex, household income and region. We investigated the relationship between occupation and exposure to poorly-ventilated workplace environments using ordinal logistic regression. Results: Seropositivity was 16.0% (113/707) amongst workers with daily close contact, compared to 12.9% (120/933) for those with intermediate-frequency contact and 9.6% (203/2121) for those with no work-related close contact. Healthcare (OR= 2.14, 95% CI 1.47,3.12), indoor trade, process and plant (2.09, 1.31,3.33), leisure and personal service (1.96, 1.004,3.84), and transport and mobile machine (2.17, 1.12,4.18) workers had elevated total odds of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity compared to other professional and associate occupations. Frequency of workplace contact accounted for a variable part of the increased odds in different occupational groups (OR range 1.04 [1.0004,1.07] - 1.22 [1.07, 1.38]). Healthcare workers and indoor trades and process plant workers continued to have raised odds of infection after accounting for work-related contact, and also had had greater odds of frequent exposure to poorly-ventilated workplaces (respectively 2.15 [1.66, 2.79] and (1.51, [1.12, 2.04]). Discussion: Marked variations in occupational odds of seropositivity remain after accounting for age, sex, region, and household income. Close contact in the workplace appears to contribute substantially to this variation. Reducing frequency of workplace contact is a critical part of COVID-19 control measures.

SummaryBackgroundRespiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, can infect the eyes or pass into the nose via the nasolacrimal duct. The importance of transmission via the eyes is unknown but might plausibly be reduced in those who wear glasses. Previous studies have mainly focussed on protective eyewear in healthcare settings.MethodsParticipants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales responded to a questionnaire on the use of glasses and contact lenses. This included frequency of use, purpose, and likelihood of wearing a mask with glasses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage with Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2), weekly questionnaires to self-report positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike). A multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, income and occupation, was used to identify odds of infection depending on the frequency and purpose of using glasses or contact lenses.Findings19,166 Virus Watch participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore glasses. A multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using glasses always for general use (OR 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, p = 0.002) compared to those who never wore glasses. The protective effect was reduced in those who said that wearing glasses interfered with mask wearing. No protective effect was seen for contact lens wearers.InterpretationPeople who wear glasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection highlighting the importance of the eye as a route of infection. Eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings.FundingThe research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care’s Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602]. Funding from the HSE Protect study, GOSH Children’s Charity and the Great Ormond Street Hospital BRC supported the involvement of CO in the project.Research in contextEvidence before the studyDespite the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes, very few countries have advocated eye protection to reduce transmission amongst the public and, except when providing close care for those known or suspected to be infected, is variable and based on case-by-case assessment of exposure risk. The mechanism, but not the extent, of the transmission route through the eyes is well described in the literature, with several studies reporting detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the tear film, conjunctiva and conjunctival sac. There have been a small number of hospital based observational studies suggesting that eye protection may help prevent COVID-19 infection. A literature search was carried out on 23rd February 2022 across Medline and Embase using the search terms ‘eyewear’, ‘glasses’, ‘SARS-CoV-2’, ‘COVID-19’, ‘SARS’, ‘transmission’ and ‘infectivity’, providing 105 manuscripts. Of these, only eight investigated the risk of infection associated with eye protection, all in hospital settings or followed a cohort of healthcare workers. Among the studies was a systematic review that identified 5 observational studies from 898 articles that were screened. The cohort study with the largest sample size, 345 healthcare professionals, demonstrated a relative risk of 10.25 (95% CI 1.28–82.39; P = 0.009) for infection when not using eye protection. No studies of the potential protective effect of glasses wearing, for visual correction, in community settings were identified.Added value of this studyThe Virus Watch study is a prospective community household study across England and Wales. 19,166 participants responded to the monthly questionnaire on glasses and contact lens use, assessing reported frequency, the purpose of use and how likely they were to wear a mask with glasses. Infections were identified in data linked to the Second Generation Surveillance System (Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 testing), weekly surveys seeking self-reports of polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow device results and, in a subset of 11,701, self-collected capillary blood testing for antibodies (nucleocapsid and spike - nucleocapsid antibodies were taken as evidence of prior infection as these are unaffected by vaccination). Our multivariable logistic regression model, controlling for age, sex, household income and occupation, demonstrated 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported always using glasses for general use compared to those who never wear glasses. The protective effect was not observed in those who strongly agreed with the statement, ‘I am less likely to wear a face covering when I have my glasses on because my glasses steam up’. Counterfactual analysis of contact lenses did not suggest a protective effect regardless of frequency of use.Implications of all the available evidenceThe findings of this study demonstrate a moderate reduction in risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in those who always wear glasses compared to never. Unlike other studies, our results are representative of a community setting, adjust for potential confounders and provide a counterfactual analysis with contact lenses. This extends the current evidence to community settings and validates proposed biological mechanisms of eye protection reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

ImportanceThe Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant has increased SARs-CoV-2 infections in double vaccinated individuals globally, particularly in ChAdOx1 recipients. To tackle rising infections, the UK accelerated booster vaccination programmes used mRNA vaccines irrespective of an individual’s primary course vaccine type with booster doses rolled out according to clinical priority. There is limited understanding of the effectiveness of different primary vaccination courses on mRNA based booster vaccines against SARs-COV-2 infections and how time-varying confounders can impact the evaluations comparing different vaccines as primary courses for mRNA boosters.ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness of ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 as primary doses against SARs-CoV-2 in booster vaccine recipients whilst accounting for time-varying confounders.DesignTrial emulation was used to reduce time-varying confounding-by-indication driven by prioritising booster vaccines based upon age, vulnerability and exposure status e.g. healthcare worker. Trial emulation was conducted by meta-analysing eight cohort results whose booster vaccinations were staggered between 16/09/2021 to 05/01/2022 and followed until 23/01/2022. Time from booster vaccination until SARS-CoV-2 infection, loss of follow-up or end-of-study was modelled using Cox proportional hazards models for each cohort and adjusted for age, sex, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerability, and deprivation.SettingProspective observational study using the Virus Watch community cohort in England and Wales.ParticipantsPeople over the age of 18 years who had their booster vaccination between 16/09/2021 to 05/01/2022 without prior natural immunity.ExposuresChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2 as a primary dose, and an mRNA booster vaccine.ResultsAcross eight cohorts, 19,692 mRNA vaccine boosted participants were analysed with 12,036 ChAdOx1 and 7,656 BNT162b2 primary courses with a median follow-up time of 73 days (IQR:54-90). Median age, clinical vulnerability status and infection rates fluctuate through time. 7.2% (n=864) of boosted adults with ChAdOx1 primary course experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to 7.6% (n=582) of those with BNT162b2 primary course during follow-up. The pooled adjusted hazard ratio was 0.99 [95%CI:0.88-1.11], demonstrating no difference between the incidence of SARs-CoV-2 infections based upon the primary vaccine course.Conclusion and RelevanceIn mRNA boosted individuals, we found no difference in protection comparing those with a primary course of BNT162b2 to those with aChAdOx1 primary course. This contrasts with pre-booster findings where previous research shows greater effectiveness of BNT162b2 than ChAdOx1 in preventing infection.

IntroductionSeroprevalence studies can provide a measure of cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but a better understanding of antibody dynamics following infection is needed to assess longevity of detectability. Infection is characterised by detection of spike (anti-S) and nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies, whereas vaccination only stimulates anti-S. Consequently, in the context of a highly vaccinated population, presence of anti-N can be used as a marker of previous infection but waning over time may limit its use.MethodsAdults aged ≥18 years old, from households enrolled in the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided monthly capillary blood samples which were tested for anti-S and anti-N. Participants self-reported vaccination dates and past medical history. Prior polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs were obtained through Second Generation Surveillance System (SGSS) linkage data. Primary outcome variables were seropositivity (antibodies at or above the manufacturer’s cut-off for positivity) and total anti-N and anti-S levels after PCR confirmed infection. Outcomes were analysed by days since infection, self-reported demographic and clinical factors.ResultsA total of 13,802 eligible individuals, median age 63, provided 58,770 capillary blood samples. 537 of these had a prior positive PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection 0-269 days before the antibody sample date. 432 out of the 537 (80.44%) were anti-N positive and detection remained stable through-out follow-up. Median anti-N levels peaked between days 90 and 119 post PCR results and then began to decline. Logistic regression models, both univariable and multivariable, only showed higher odds of positive anti-N result between 0-269 days for 35-49 year olds, compared to 18-34 year olds. There is evidence of anti-N waning from 120 days onwards, with earlier waning for females and younger age categories.DiscussionApproximately 4 in 5 participants with prior PCR-confirmed infection were anti-N positive, and this remained stable through follow-up for at least 269 days. However, median antibody levels began to decline from about 120 days post-infection. This suggests that anti-N have around 80% sensitivity for identifying previous COVID-19 infection and that this sensitivity is maintained through 269 days of follow up.FundingThe research costs for the study have been supported by the MRC Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070 awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and MRC Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1 awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of Facebook advertising credit to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. The study also received funding from the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care’s Vaccine Evaluation Programme to provide monthly Thriva antibody tests to adult participants. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RA [206602].

IntroductionInfections of SARS-CoV-2 in vaccinated individuals have been increasing globally. Understanding the associations between vaccine type and a post-vaccination infection could help prevent further COVID-19 waves. In this paper, we use trial emulation to understand the impact of a phased introduction of the vaccine in the UK driven by vulnerability and exposure status. We estimate the comparative effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 versus BNT162b2) against post-vaccination infections of SARS-CoV-2 in a community setting in England and Wales.MethodTrial emulation was conducted by pooling results from six cohorts whose recruitment was staggered between 1st January 2021 and 31st March 2021 and followed until 12th November 2021. Eligibility for each trial was based upon age (18+ at the time of vaccination), without prior signs of infection or an infection within the first 14 days of the first dose. Time from vaccination of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 until SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow test after 14 of the vaccination) was modelled using Cox proportional hazards model for each cohort and adjusted for age at vaccination, gender, minority ethnic status, clinically vulnerable status and index of multiple deprivation quintile. For those without SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period, follow-up was until loss-of-follow-up or end of study (12th November 2021). Pooled hazard ratios were generated using random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsAcross six cohorts, there were a total of 21,283 participants who were eligible and vaccinated with either ChAdOx1 (n = 13,813) or BNT162b2 (n = 7,470) with a median follow-up time of 266 days (IQR: 235 - 282). By November 12th 2021, 750 (5.4%) adults who had ChAdOx1 as their vaccine experienced a SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to 296 (4.0%) who had BNT162b2. We found that people who received ChAdOx1 vaccinations had 10.54 per 1000 people higher cumulative incidence for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to BNT162b2 for infections during a maximum of 315 days of follow-up. When adjusted for age at vaccination, sex, minority ethnic status, index of multiple deprivation, and clinical vulnerability status, we found a pooled adjusted hazard ratio of 1.35 [HR: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15 - 1.58], demonstrating a 35% increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections in people who received ChAdOx1 compared to BNT162b2.DiscussionWe found evidence of greater effectiveness of receiving BNT162b2 compared to ChAdOx1 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection in England and Wales during a time period when Delta became the most prevalent variant of concern. Our findings demonstrate the importance of booster (third) doses to maintain protection and suggest that these should be prioritised to those who received ChAdOx1 as their primary course.

BackgroundWorkplaces are an important potential source of SARS-CoV-2 exposure; however, investigation into workplace contact patterns is lacking. This study aimed to investigate how workplace attendance and features of contact varied between occupations and over time during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.MethodsData were obtained from electronic contact diaries submitted between November 2020 and November 2021 by employed/self-employed prospective cohort study participants (n=4,616). We used mixed models to investigate the main effects and potential interactions between occupation and time for: workplace attendance, number of people in shared workspace, time spent sharing workspace, number of close contacts, and usage of face coverings.FindingsWorkplace attendance and contact patterns varied across occupations and time. The predicted probability of intense space sharing during the day was highest for healthcare (78% [95% CI: 75-81%]) and education workers (64% [59%-69%]), who also had the highest probabilities for larger numbers of close contacts (36% [32%-40%] and 38% [33%-43%] respectively). Education workers also demonstrated relatively low predicted probability (51% [44%-57%]) of wearing a face covering during close contact. Across all occupational groups, levels of workspace sharing and close contact were higher and usage of face coverings at work lower in later phases of the pandemic compared to earlier phases.InterpretationMajor variations in patterns of workplace contact and mask use are likely to contribute to differential COVID-19 risk. Across occupations, increasing workplace contact and reduced usage of face coverings presents an area of concern given ongoing high levels of community transmission and emergence of variants.

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales. We calculated overcrowding using the measure of persons per room for each household. We considered two primary outcomes: PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results: 26,367 participants were included in our analyses. The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (9.0%; 99/1,100) and lowest in the under-occupied group (4.2%; 980/23,196). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (odds ratio 2.45; 95% CI:1.43–4.19; p-value=0.001) and increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (3.32; 95% CI:1.54–7.15; p-value Conclusion: Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission.

BackgroundWorkers differ in their risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to their occupation, but the direct contribution of occupation to this relationship is unclear. This study aimed to investigate how infection risk differed across occupational groups in England and Wales up to April 2022, after adjustment for potential confounding and stratification by pandemic phase.MethodsData from 15,190 employed/self-employed participants in the Virus Watch prospective cohort study were used to generate risk ratios for virologically- or serologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection using robust Poisson regression, adjusting for socio-demographic and health-related factors and non-work public activities. We calculated attributable fractions (AF) amongst the exposed for belonging to each occupational group based on adjusted risk ratios (aRR).FindingsIncreased risk was seen in nurses (aRR=1.44, 1.25-1.65; AF=30%, 20-39%), doctors (aRR=1.33, 1.08-1.65; AF=25%, 7-39%), carers (1.45, 1.19-1.76; AF=31%, 16-43%), primary school teachers (aRR=1.67, 1.42-1.96; AF=40%, 30-49%), secondary school teachers (aRR=1.48, 1.26-1.72; AF=32%, 21-42%), and teaching support occupations (aRR=1.42, 1.23-1.64; AF=29%, 18-39%) compared to office-based professional occupations. Differential risk was apparent in the earlier phases (Feb 2020 - May 2021) and attenuated later (June - October 2021) for most groups, although teachers and teaching support workers demonstrated persistently elevated risk across waves.InterpretationOccupational differentials in SARS-CoV-2 infection risk vary over time and are robust to adjustment for socio-demographic, health-related, and non-workplace activity-related potential confounders. Direct investigation into workplace factors underlying elevated risk and how these change over time is needed to inform occupational health interventions.