Introduction:Health care workers (HCWs) have been at increased risk of infection during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and as essential workers have been prioritised for vaccination. Due to increased exposure HCW are considered a predictor of what might happen in the general population, particularly working age adults. This study aims to summarise effect of vaccination in this 'at risk' cohort. Methods:Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched, and 358 individual articles were identified. Of these 49 met the inclusion criteria for review and 14 were included in a meta-analysis. Results:Participants included were predominantly female and working age. Median time to infection was 51 days. Reported vaccine effectiveness against infection, symptomatic infection, and infection requiring hospitalisation were between 5 and 100 %, 34 and 100 %, and 65 and 100 % (respectively). No vaccinated HCW deaths were recorded in any study. Pooled estimates of protection against infection, symptomatic infection, and hospitalisation were, respectively, 84.7 % (95 % CI 72.6-91.5 %, p < 0.0001), 86.0 % (95 % CI 67.2 %-94.0 %; p < 0.0001), and 96.1 % (95 % CI 90.4 %-98.4 %). Waning protection against infection was reported by four studies, although protection against hospitalisation for severe infection persists for at least 6 months post vaccination. Conclusions:Vaccination against SARS-CoV2 in HCWs is protective against infection, symptomatic infection, and hospitalisation. Waning protection is reported but this awaits more mature studies to understand durability more clearly. This study is limited by varying non-pharmacological responses to COVID-19 between included studies, a predominantly female and working age population, and limited information on asymptomatic transmission or long COVID protection.

Abstract T cells are important in preventing severe disease from SARS-CoV-2, but scalable and field-adaptable alternatives to expert T-cell assays are needed. The interferon-gamma release assay QuantiFERON platform was developed to detect T-cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 from whole blood with relatively basic equipment and flexibility of processing timelines. Forty-eight participants with different infection and vaccination backgrounds were recruited. Whole blood samples were analysed using the QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay in parallel with the well-established ‘Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare workers’ (PITCH) ELISpot, which can evaluate spike-specific T-cell responses. The primary aims of this cross-sectional observational cohort study were to establish if the QuantiFERON SARS-Co-V-2 assay could discern differences between specified groups and to assess the sensitivity of the assay compared with the PITCH ELISpot. The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 distinguished acutely infected individuals (12–21 days post positive PCR) from naïve individuals (P < 0.0001) with 100% sensitivity and specificity for SARS-CoV-2 T cells, whilst the PITCH ELISpot had reduced sensitivity (62.5%) for the acute infection group. Sensitivity with QuantiFERON for previous infection was 12.5% (172–444 days post positive test) and was inferior to the PITCH ELISpot (75%). Although the QuantiFERON assay could discern differences between unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals (55–166 days since second vaccination), the latter also had reduced sensitivity (44.4%) compared to the PITCH ELISpot (66.6%). The QuantiFERON SARS-CoV-2 assay showed potential as a T- cell evaluation tool soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection but has lower sensitivity for use in reliable evaluation of vaccination or more distant infection.

BACKGROUND:Both infection and vaccination, alone or in combination, generate antibody and T cell responses against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, the maintenance of such responses-and hence protection from disease-requires careful characterization. In a large prospective study of UK healthcare workers (HCWs) (Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare Workers [PITCH], within the larger SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation [SIREN] study), we previously observed that prior infection strongly affected subsequent cellular and humoral immunity induced after long and short dosing intervals of BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech) vaccination. METHODS:Here, we report longer follow-up of 684 HCWs in this cohort over 6-9 months following two doses of BNT162b2 or AZD1222 (Oxford/AstraZeneca) vaccination and up to 6 months following a subsequent mRNA booster vaccination. FINDINGS:We make three observations: first, the dynamics of humoral and cellular responses differ; binding and neutralizing antibodies declined, whereas T and memory B cell responses were maintained after the second vaccine dose. Second, vaccine boosting restored immunoglobulin (Ig) G levels; broadened neutralizing activity against variants of concern, including Omicron BA.1, BA.2, and BA.5; and boosted T cell responses above the 6-month level after dose 2. Third, prior infection maintained its impact driving larger and broader T cell responses compared with never-infected people, a feature maintained until 6 months after the third dose. CONCLUSIONS:Broadly cross-reactive T cell responses are well maintained over time-especially in those with combined vaccine and infection-induced immunity ("hybrid" immunity)-and may contribute to continued protection against severe disease. FUNDING:Department for Health and Social Care, Medical Research Council.

ABSTRACT Serological correlates of protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection after vaccination (“vaccine breakthrough”) have been described. However, T cell correlates of protection against breakthrough are incompletely defined, especially the specific contributions of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. Here, 279 volunteers in the Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare Workers (PITCH) UK cohort study were enrolled in a nested case-control study. Cases were those who tested SARS-CoV-2 PCR or lateral flow device (LFD) positive after two vaccine doses during the Delta-predominant era ( n = 32), while controls were those who did not report a positive test or undergo anti-nucleocapsid immunoglobulin G (IgG) seroconversion during this period ( n = 247). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to vaccination was associated with reduced odds of vaccine breakthrough. Using samples from 28 d after the second vaccine dose, before all breakthroughs occurred, we observed future cases had lower ancestral spike (S)- and receptor binding domain-specific IgG titers and S1- and S2-specific T cell interferon gamma (IFNγ) responses compared with controls, although these differences did not persist when individuals were stratified according to previous infection status before vaccination. In a subset of matched infection-naïve cases and controls, vaccine breakthrough cases had lower CD4+ and CD8+ IFNγ and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) responses to Delta S peptides compared with controls. For CD8+ responses, this difference appeared to be driven by reduced responses to Delta compared with ancestral peptides among cases; this reduced response to Delta peptides was not observed in controls. Our findings support a protective role for T cells against Delta breakthrough infection. IMPORTANCE Defining correlates of protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine breakthrough infection informs vaccine policy for booster doses and future vaccine designs. Existing studies demonstrate humoral correlates of protection, but the role of T cells in protection is still unclear. In this study, we explore antibody and T cell immune responses associated with protection against Delta variant vaccine breakthrough infection in a well-characterized cohort of UK Healthcare Workers (HCWs). We demonstrate evidence to support a role for CD4+ and CD8+ T cells as well as antibodies against Delta vaccine breakthrough infection. In addition, our results suggest a potential role for cross-reactive T cells in vaccine breakthrough.

ABSTRACT T cell correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination (‘vaccine breakthrough’) are incompletely defined, especially the specific contributions of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells. We studied 279 volunteers in the Protective Immunity from T Cells in Healthcare Workers (PITCH) UK study, including 32 cases (with SARS-CoV-2 positive testing after two vaccine doses during the Delta-dominant era) and 247 controls (no positive test nor anti-nucleocapsid seroconversion during this period). 28 days after second vaccination, before all breakthroughs occurred, cases had lower ancestral S- and RBD-specific immunoglobulin G titres and S1- and S2-specific T cell interferon gamma (IFNγ) responses compared with controls. In a subset of matched cases and controls, cases had lower CD4+ and CD8+ IFNγ and tumour necrosis factor responses to Delta S peptides with reduced CD8+ responses to Delta versus ancestral peptides compared with controls. Our findings support a protective role for T cells against Delta breakthrough infection.

Background: T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 following infection and vaccination are less characterised than antibody responses, due to a more complex experimental pathway. Methods: We measured T cell responses in 108 healthcare workers (HCWs) in an observational cohort study, using the commercialised Oxford Immunotec T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 assay (OI T-SPOT) and the PITCH ELISpot protocol established for academic research settings. Results: Both assays detected T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 spike, membrane and nucleocapsid proteins. Responses were significantly lower when reported by OI T-SPOT than by PITCH ELISpot. Four weeks after two doses of either Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 AZD1222 vaccine, the responder rate was 63% for OI T-SPOT Panels1+2 (peptides representing SARS-CoV-2 spike protein excluding regions present in seasonal coronaviruses), 69% for OI T-SPOT Panel 14 (peptides representing the entire SARS-CoV-2 spike), and 94% for the PITCH ELISpot assay. The two OI T-SPOT panels correlated strongly with each other showing that either readout quantifies spike-specific T cell responses, although the correlation between the OI T-SPOT panels and the PITCH ELISpot was moderate. Conclusion: The standardisation, relative scalability and longer interval between blood acquisition and processing are advantages of the commercial OI T-SPOT assay. However, the OI T-SPOT assay measures T cell responses at a significantly lower magnitude compared to the PITCH ELISpot assay, detecting T cell responses in a lower proportion of vaccinees. This has implications for the reporting of low-level T cell responses that may be observed in patient populations and for the assessment of T cell durability after vaccination.

Significance Statement Patients on hemodialysis (HD) are vulnerable to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and mount poor neutralizing antibody responses after two-dose vaccination. Although serological responses have been associated with reduced rates of reinfection, the relationship between cellular immunogenicity and protection has not been established. We report, for the first time, high incidence of reinfection in patients on HD who are vaccine naive (25%), which identifies that T cell responses do not predict protection against reinfection. Instead, patients on HD who went on to become reinfected had mounted highly variable and sometimes robust proliferative T cell responses to a broad array of SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools during the primary infection. The understanding that SARS-CoV-2–specific T cell responses are not predictive of protection against future infection will be a critical issue when measuring clinical efficacy of vaccination in these vulnerable cohorts, particularly when facing rapidly emerging variants of concern.

activated memory phenotype and had a marked expansion of plasmablasts by W48.In parallel, ELISPOT data showed an increase in SFU against HBsAg in the 3 patients with HBsAg loss and anti-HBs+ by W48, confirming the recovery of antibody-producing functionality.Conclusion: Functional cure (HBsAg loss) and viral control following NA withdrawal associate with recovery of the low frequencies and poor functionality of HBV-specific B cells in CHB.These findings support larger studies to explore the use of B cells as biomarkers of clinical outcome and as targets for further immunotherapeutic boosting.

Allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) recipients remain at high risk of adverse outcomes from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and emerging variants. The optimal prophylactic vaccine strategy for this cohort is not defined. T cell-mediated immunity is a critical component of graft-versus-tumour effect and in determining vaccine immunogenicity. Using validated anti-spike (S) immunoglobulin G (IgG) and S-specific interferon-gamma enzyme-linked immunospot (IFNγ-ELIspot) assays we analysed response to a two-dose vaccination schedule (either BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1) in 33 HSCT recipients at ≤2 years from transplant, alongside vaccine-matched healthy controls (HCs). After two vaccines, infection-naïve HSCT recipients had a significantly lower rate of seroconversion compared to infection-naïve HCs (25/32 HSCT vs. 39/39 HCs no responders) and had lower S-specific T-cell responses. The HSCT recipients who received BNT162b2 had a higher rate of seroconversion compared to ChAdOx1 (89% vs. 74%) and significantly higher anti-S IgG titres (p = 0.022). S-specific T-cell responses were seen after one vaccine in HCs and HSCT recipients. However, two vaccines enhanced S-specific T-cell responses in HCs but not in the majority of HSCT recipients. These data demonstrate limited immunogenicity of two-dose vaccination strategies in HSCT recipients, bolstering evidence of the need for additional boosters and/or alternative prophylactic measures in this group.

BackgroundThe cell-based quadrivalent influenza vaccine (QIVc) is now offered as an alternative to egg-based quadrivalent (QIVe) and adjuvanted trivalent (aTIV) influenza vaccines in the UK. While post-licensure studies show non-inferiority of cell-based vaccines, it is not known how its safety profile compares to other types of vaccines in real-world use.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using computerised medical records from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) sentinel network database. We used a self-controlled case series design and calculated the relative incidence (RI) of adverse events of interest (AEIs) over different risk periods. We then compared the RIs of AEIs within seven days of vaccination overall and between QIVc and QIVe in the 18–64 years age group, and between QIVc and aTIV in the ≥65 years age group.FindingsThe majority of AEIs occurred within seven days of vaccination, and a seasonal effect was observed. Using QIVc as the reference group, QIVe showed similar incidence of AEIs whereas live attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) and aTIV had lower incidence of AEIs. In the stratified analyses, QIVe and aTIV were associated with a 16% lower incidence of AEIs in the seven days post-vaccination in both the 18–64 years and ≥65 years age groups.InterpretationRoutine sentinel network data allow comparisons of safety profiles of equally suitable seasonal influenza vaccines. The higher incidence of AEIs associated with QIVc suggest monitoring of several seasons would allow robust comparisons to be made.FundingPublic Health England.

Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the United Kingdom to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. At this time, trial data were lacking, and we addressed this in a study of United Kingdom healthcare workers. The first vaccine dose induced protection from infection from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant over several weeks. In a substudy of 589 individuals, we show that this single dose induces severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) neutralizing antibody (NAb) responses and a sustained B and T cell response to the spike protein. NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6-14 weeks) compared with the conventional 3- to 4-week regimen, accompanied by enrichment of CD4+ T cells expressing interleukin-2 (IL-2). Prior SARS-CoV-2 infection amplified and accelerated the response. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective immunogenic protocol.

Extension of the interval between vaccine doses for the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine was introduced in the UK to accelerate population coverage with a single dose. In a study of 503 healthcare workers, we show that after priming following the first vaccine there is a marked decline in SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels, but, in contrast, a sustained T cell response to spike protein. This divergent immune profile was accompanied by robust protection from infection over this period from the circulating alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. Importantly, following the second vaccine dose, NAb levels were higher after the extended dosing interval (6-14 weeks) compared to the conventional 3-4 week regimen, accompanied by a clear enrichment of CD4+ T cells expressing IL2. These data on dynamic cellular and humoral responses indicate that extension of the dosing interval is an effective, immunogenic protocol and that antiviral T cell responses are a potential mechanism of protection.Trial Registration Details: PITCH is a sub-study of the SIREN study which is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050,Funding Information: This work was funded by the UK Department of Health and Social Care as part of the PITCH (Protective Immunity from T cells to Covid-19 in Health workers) Consortium, with contributions from UKRI/NIHR through the UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium (UK-CIC), the Huo Family Foundation and The National Institute for Health Research (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call, Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS).EB and PK are NIHR Senior Investigators and PK is funded by WT109965MA. SJD is funded by an NIHR Global Research Professorship (NIHR300791). TdS is funded by a Wellcome Trust Intermediate Clinical Fellowship (110058/Z/15/Z). RPP is funded by a Career Re-entry Fellowship (204721/Z/16/Z). CJAD is funded by a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (211153/Z/18/Z). DS is supported by the NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer programme in Oxford. LT is supported by the Wellcome Trust (grant number 205228/Z/16/Z) and the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections (NIHR200907) at University of Liverpool in partnership with Public Health England (PHE), in collaboration with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford. DGW is supported by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship in Liverpool. LT and MC are supported by U.S. Food and Drug Administration Medical Countermeasures Initiative contract 75F40120C00085. Declaration of Interests: AJP is Chair of UK Dept. Health and Social Care's (DHSC) Joint Committee on Vaccination & Immunisation (JCVI), but does not participate in policy decisions on COVID-19 vaccines. He is a member of the WHO's SAGE. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of DHSC, JCVI, or WHO. AJP is chief investigator on clinical trials of Oxford University's COVID-19 vaccine funded by NIHR. Oxford University has entered a joint COVID-19 vaccine development partnership with AstraZeneca. Ethics Approval Statement: PITCH is a sub-study of the SIREN study which was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research 250 Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230), with PITCH recognised as a sub-study on 2 December 2020. SIREN is registered with ISRCTN (Trial ID:252 ISRCTN11041050). Some participants were recruited under aligned study protocols. In Birmingham participants were recruited under the Determining the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in convalescent health care workers (COCO) study (IRAS ID: 282525). In Liverpool some participants were recruited under the "Human immune responses to acute virus infections" Study (16/NW/0170), approved by North West - Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee on 8 March 2016, and amended on 14th September 2020 and 4th May 2021. In Oxford, participants were recruited under the GI Biobank Study 16/YH/0247, approved by the research ethics committee (REC) at Yorkshire & The Humber - Sheffield Research Ethics Committee on 29 July 2016, which has been amended for this purpose on 8 June 2020. In Sheffield, participants were recruited under the Observational Biobanking study STHObs (18/YH/0441), which was amended for this study on 10 September 2020. The study was conducted in compliance with all relevant ethical regulations for work with human participants, and according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2008) and the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients enrolled in the study.

Background: Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection and mount poor antibody responses to standard vaccines. We addressed whether ESRD patients could mount immune responses that protected against re-infection following natural SARS-CoV-2 infection or 2-dose vaccination.Methods: Haemodialysis (HD and renal transplant patients were recruited following SARS-CoV-2 infection (n=46) or before SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (n=94). SARS-CoV-2 IgG responses, surrogate neutralising antibody (NAb) titres to wildtype and VOCs, T cell responses and viral sequencing in the vaccine-naïve convalescent cohort were serially assessed following infection. Surrogate NAb titres were measured pre-vaccination and 33 days after 2nd vaccine. Incidence of breakthrough infection was assessed 180 days following 1st vaccination. Findings: 22% of vaccine-naive HD (n=9/36) and transplant patients (n=1/10) demonstrated PCR-positive re-infection (RI) at median 212 days (IQR 140-239) post 1st infection. Prior to RI episodes, RI patients demonstrated poor IgG Spike and RBD responses which were equivalent to levels in pre-pandemic sera (median RI titres: Spike 187 AU/ml, IQR 143-3432, p=0.96; RBD 145 AU/ml, IQR 85-938, p>0.99), unlike patients who developed a single infection only (SI) when compared to pre-pandemic sera (median SI titres: Spike 22826 AU/ml, IQR 1255-63811, p<0.0001; RBD 9588 AU/ml, IQR 270-21616, p=0.001). IgG Spike and RBD titres increased following RI compared to pre-pandemic sera (median RI titres: Spike 22611 AU/ml, IQR 4488-75509, p=0.0006; RBD 6354 AU/ml, IQR 1671-20962, p=0.01). T cell analysis revealed no differences between RI and SI cohorts. Following 2-dose vaccination, 5% of the HD cohort who received AZD1222 (n=3/61) developed breakthrough infection at 6 months following 1st vaccination, unlike those who received BNT162b2 (n=0/16). AZD1222-vaccinated, infection-naïve (I-N) HD patients (n=32) and immunosuppressed transplant recipients (n=17) made poor NAb responses to wildtype, alpha, beta and gamma when compared to infection-experienced (I-E) HD patients (n=29) (I-N vs I-E HD wildtype p<0.0001, alpha p=0.0007, beta p<0.0001, gamma p=0.002). NAb responses improved with BNT162b2 vaccination (n=16); RI patients mounted larger NAb responses to AZD1222 vaccination than SI patients (wildtype p=0.01, alpha p=0.02, beta p<0.02). Interpretation: ESRD patients are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 re-infection, or breakthrough infection following vaccination, associated with poor protective antibody responses. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG and surrogate NAb responses increase with repeated exposure (infection experience and/or vaccination) in patients who survive infections. Our findings support the case for specific booster regimens in such immune-incompetent patients. Funding Information: Oxford Transplant Foundation, Oxfordshire Health Services Research Committee, UK Department of Health and Social Care, Huo Family Foundation, NIHR (COV19-RECPLAS), UK Coronavirus Immunology Consortium, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, WT109965MA.Declaration of Interests: We declare no competing interestsEthics Approval Statement: Haemodialysis (HD) and transplant cohorts: In this prospective, observational cohort study, HD and transplant patients within Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust(OUH) were recruited under Oxford Radcliffe Biobank approved studies, "Biomarkers to stratify risk in Renal Transplant Recipients and Dialysis Patients with Covid-19" (ref: ORB 20/A056), and "Immunological responses to COVID-19 vaccines in transplant and haemodialysis patients" (ref: ORB 21/A014). The Oxford Radcliffe Biobank has a favorable ethics opinion from the South Central Oxford Committee C (REC: 19/SC/0173). Healthcare Worker cohort (HC, PITCH study): PITCH is a sub-study of the SIREN study which was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research 250 Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230), with PITCH recognised as a sub-study on 2 December 2020. SIREN is registered with ISRCTN (Trial ID:252 ISRCTN11041050)The study was conducted in compliance with all relevant ethical regulations for work with human participants, and according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (2008) and the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines. Written informed consent was obtained for all patients enrolled in the study.

Background The aim of RApid community Point-of-care Testing fOR COVID-19 (RAPTOR-C19) is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of multiple current and emerging point-of-care tests (POCTs) for active and past SARS-CoV2 infection in the community setting. RAPTOR-C19 will provide the community testbed to the COVID-19 National DiagnOstic Research and Evaluation Platform (CONDOR). Methods RAPTOR-C19 incorporates a series of prospective observational parallel diagnostic accuracy studies of SARS-CoV2 POCTs against laboratory and composite reference standards in patients with suspected current or past SARS-CoV2 infection attending community settings. Adults and children with suspected current SARS-CoV2 infection who are having an oropharyngeal/nasopharyngeal (OP/NP) swab for laboratory SARS-CoV2 reverse transcriptase Digital/Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (d/rRT-PCR) as part of clinical care or community-based testing will be invited to participate. Adults ( ≥ 16 years) with suspected past symptomatic infection will also be recruited. Asymptomatic individuals will not be eligible. At the baseline visit, all participants will be asked to submit samples for at least one candidate point-of-care test (POCT) being evaluated (index test/s) as well as an OP/NP swab for laboratory SARS-CoV2 RT-PCR performed by Public Health England (PHE) (reference standard for current infection). Adults will also be asked for a blood sample for laboratory SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by PHE (reference standard for past infection), where feasible adults will be invited to attend a second visit at 28 days for repeat antibody testing. Additional study data (e.g. demographics, symptoms, observations, household contacts) will be captured electronically. Sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values for each POCT will be calculated with exact 95% confidence intervals when compared to the reference standard. POCTs will also be compared to composite reference standards constructed using paired antibody test results, patient reported outcomes, linked electronic health records for outcomes related to COVID-19 such as hospitalisation or death, and other test results. Discussion High-performing POCTs for community use could be transformational. Real-time results could lead to personal and public health impacts such as reducing onward household transmission of SARS-CoV2 infection, improving surveillance of health and social care staff, contributing to accurate prevalence estimates, and understanding of SARS-CoV2 transmission dynamics in the population. In contrast, poorly performing POCTs could have negative effects, so it is necessary to undertake community-based diagnostic accuracy evaluations before rolling these out. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN14226970

Objectives: To mitigate risk of mortality from coronavirus 2019 infection (COVID-19), the UK government recommended `shielding' of vulnerable people through self-isolation for 12 weeks. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using a nationally representative English primary care database comparing people aged >=40 years who were recorded as being advised to shield using a fixed ratio of 1:1, matching to people with the same diagnoses not advised to shield (n = 77,360 per group). Time-todeath was compared using Cox regression, reporting the hazard ratio (HR) of mortality between groups. A sensitivity analysis compared exact matched cohorts (n = 24,752 shielded, n = 61,566 exact matches). Results: We found a time-varying HR of mortality between groups. In the first 21 days, the mortality risk in people shielding was half those not (HR = 0.50, 95%CI:0.41-0.59. p < 0.0001). Over the remaining nine weeks, mortality risk was 54% higher in the shielded group (HR=1.54, 95%CI:1.41-1.70, p < 0.0001). Beyond the shielding period, mortality risk was over two-and-a-half times higher in the shielded group (HR=2.61, 95%CI:2.38-2.87, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Shielding halved the risk of mortality for 21 days. Mortality risk became higher across the remainder of the shielding period, rising to two-and-a-half times greater post-shielding. Shielding may be beneficial in the next wave of COVID-19. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of The British Infection Association.

Background The Oxford–Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) and Public Health England (PHE) are commencing their 54th season of collaboration at a time when SARS-CoV-2 infections are likely to be cocirculating with the usual winter infections. Objective The aim of this study is to conduct surveillance of influenza and other monitored respiratory conditions and to report on vaccine uptake and effectiveness using nationally representative surveillance data extracted from primary care computerized medical records systems. We also aim to have general practices collect virology and serology specimens and to participate in trials and other interventional research. Methods The RCGP RSC network comprises over 1700 general practices in England and Wales. We will extract pseudonymized data twice weekly and are migrating to a system of daily extracts. First, we will collect pseudonymized, routine, coded clinical data for the surveillance of monitored and unexpected conditions; data on vaccine exposure and adverse events of interest; and data on approved research study outcomes. Second, we will provide dashboards to give general practices feedback about levels of care and data quality, as compared to other network practices. We will focus on collecting data on influenza-like illness, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and suspected COVID-19. Third, approximately 300 practices will participate in the 2020-2021 virology and serology surveillance; this will include responsive surveillance and long-term follow-up of previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Fourth, member practices will be able to recruit volunteer patients to trials, including early interventions to improve COVID-19 outcomes and point-of-care testing. Lastly, the legal basis for our surveillance with PHE is Regulation 3 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002; other studies require appropriate ethical approval. Results The RCGP RSC network has tripled in size; there were previously 100 virology practices and 500 practices overall in the network and we now have 322 and 1724, respectively. The Oxford–RCGP Clinical Informatics Digital Hub (ORCHID) secure networks enable the daily analysis of the extended network; currently, 1076 practices are uploaded. We are implementing a central swab distribution system for patients self-swabbing at home in addition to in-practice sampling. We have converted all our primary care coding to Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) coding. Throughout spring and summer 2020, the network has continued to collect specimens in preparation for the winter or for any second wave of COVID-19 cases. We have collected 5404 swabs and detected 623 cases of COVID-19 through extended virological sampling, and 19,341 samples have been collected for serology. This shows our preparedness for the winter season. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with a groundswell of general practices joining our network. It has also created a permissive environment in which we have developed the capacity and capability of the national primary care surveillance systems and our unique public health institute, the RCGP and University of Oxford collaboration.