Background Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. Methods A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2–4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. Findings From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. Interpretation A previous histo...

We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using naso-/oro-pharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. 1128/10,034(11.2%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time. Using questionnaire data provided on potential risk-factors, staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.82 [95%CI 3.45-6.72]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (22.6% vs. 8.6% elsewhere) (aOR 2.47 [1.99-3.08]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.52 [1.07-2.16]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit staff were relatively protected (0.44 [0.28-0.69]), likely by a bundle of PPE-related measures. Positive results were more likely in Black (1.66 [1.25-2.21]) and Asian (1.51 [1.28-1.77]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (2.06 [1.34-3.15]).

Background Despite the high burden of pneumococcal disease, pneumococcal vaccine coverage continues to fall short of Healthy People 2020 goals. A quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the impact of pneumococcal-specific best-practice alerts (BPAs) with and without workflow redesign compared to health maintenance notifications only, on pneumococcal vaccination rates in at-risk and high-risk adults, and on series completion in immunocompetent adults aged 65+ years. Methods This retrospective study used electronic health record and administrative data to identify pneumococcal vaccinations using cross sectional and historical cohorts of adults age 19+ years from 2013 to 2017 who attended clinics associated with the University of Utah Health. Difference-in-differences (DD) analyses was used to assess the impact of interventions across three observation periods (Baseline, Interim, and Follow Up). Adherence to the 2-dose vaccination schedule in older adults was measured through a longitudinal analysis. Results In DD analyses, implementing both workflow redesign and the BPA raised the vaccination rate by 8 percentage points (pp) ( P < 0.001) and implementing the BPA only raised the rate by 7 pp. (P < 0.001) among at-risk adults age 19–64 years, relative to implementing health maintenance notifications (i.e., usual care) only in comparison clinics. In high-risk adults age 19–64 years, the BPA with or without workflow redesign did not significantly affect vaccination rates from baseline to follow up relative to health maintenance notifications. Per DD analyses, the effect of the BPA was mixed in immunocompetent and immunocompromised adults age 65+ years. However, immunocompetent older adults attending a clinic that implemented the BPA plus health maintenance notifications and workflow redesign (all 3 interventions) had 1.94 times higher odds (Odds ratio (OR) 1.94; P = 0.0003, 95% CI 1.24, 3.01) to receive the second pneumococcal dose than patients attending a usual practice clinic (i.e., no intervention). Conclusions A pneumococcal BPA tool that reflects current guidelines implemented with and without workflow redesign improved vaccination rates for at-risk adults age 19–64 years and increased the likelihood of adults aged 65+ to complete the recommended 2-dose series. However, in other adult patient groups, the BPA was not consistently associated with improvements in pneumococcal vaccination rates. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4263-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Population-based studies can provide important evidence on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines. Using data from the United Kingdom, here we compare observed rates of thrombosis and thrombocytopenia following vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 and infection with SARS-CoV-2 with background (expected) rates in the general population. First and second dose cohorts for ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 between 8 December 2020 and 2 May 2021 in the United Kingdom were identified. A further cohort consisted of people with no prior COVID-19 vaccination who were infected with SARS-Cov-2 identified by a first positive PCR test between 1 September 2020 and 2 May 2021. The fourth general population cohort for background rates included those people in the database as of 1 January 2017. In total, we included 3,768,517 ChAdOx1 and 1,832,841 BNT162b2 vaccinees, 401,691 people infected with SARS-CoV-2, and 9,414,403 people from the general population. An increased risk of venous thromboembolism was seen after first dose of ChAdOx1 (standardized incidence ratio: 1.12 [95% CI: 1.05 to 1.20]), BNT162b2 (1.12 [1.03 to 1.21]), and positive PCR test (7.27 [6.86 to 7.72]). Rates of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis were higher than otherwise expected after first dose of ChAdOx1 (4.14 [2.54 to 6.76]) and a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (3.74 [1.56 to 8.98]). Rates of arterial thromboembolism after vaccination were no higher than expected but were increased after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (1.39 [1.21 to 1.61]). Rates of venous thromboembolism with thrombocytopenia were higher than expected after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive test (5.76 [3.19 to 10.40]).