RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Tracking COVID-19 in England and Wales: Insights from Virus Watch - a prospective community cohort study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.12.19.23299951
DO 10.1101/2023.12.19.23299951
A1 Erica Fong, Wing Lam
A1 Nguyen, Vincent Grigori
A1 Beale, Sarah
A1 Byrne, Thomas E
A1 Geismar, Cyril
A1 Fragaszy, Ellen
A1 Kovar, Jana
A1 Navaratnam, Annalan M D
A1 Yavlinsky, Alexei
A1 Abubakar, Ibrahim
A1 Hayward, Andrew C
A1 Aldridge, Robert W
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/12/19/2023.12.19.23299951.abstract
AB Background Virus Watch is a prospective community cohort study of COVID-19 of 28□,527 households in England and Wales designed to estimate the incidence of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 in those with respiratory presentations and examine symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviour. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 infection survey (CIS) was the largest regular survey of COVID-19 infections and antibodies in the UK and included 227,797 households. In this analysis, we aimed to compare incidence rate estimates from the two studies to understand differences in estimates from the two study designs.Methods We used the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study to estimate the overall SARS-CoV-2 incidence rate and incidence rate by age in England and Wales from June 2020 to February 2023. Virus Watch data consisted of self-reported laboratory COVID-19 test results and linkage to the Second Generation Surveillance System, the UK national database for COVID-19 testing. We compared our findings with modelled incidence rates from ONS CIS using 3-day rolling Pearson’s correlation to measure synchrony.Results 58,628 participants were recruited into the Virus Watch study between June 2020 and March 2022, of whom 52,526 (90%) were reported to be living in England and 1,532 (2.6%) in Wales. COVID-19 incidence rates were initially similar across age groups until the Delta wave when rates increased at different magnitudes. During the Omicron BA.1, the 0-14 age group had the highest incidence rates, which shifted to the 25-44 age group with Omicron BA.2, 4, and 5 dominance. We found strong synchrony between Virus Watch and ONS CIS COVID-19 incidence estimates for England and Wales, both with and without the incorporation of linked national testing data into the Virus Watch study. In particular, the magnitude and trend of Virus Watch- and ONS-estimated rates for England were generally consistent, although Virus Watch-estimated peaks of infection during the Omicron BA.1 and 2 waves were found to be lower than estimates from the ONS.Conclusion Our findings suggest that the Virus Watch research approach is a low-cost and effective method for on-going surveillance of COVID-19 regardless of the availability of national testing in the UK. Similar approaches can also be utilised by low-resource settings to provide accurate incidence rate estimates to better monitor and respond to COVID-19 as well as other acute respiratory diseases in the future.Competing Interest StatementACH serves on the UK New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group. The other authors declare no potential conflict of interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Medical Research Council [Grant Ref: MC_PC 19070] awarded to UCL on 30 March 2020 and Medical Research Council [Grant Ref: MR/V028375/1] awarded on 17 August 2020. The study also received $15,000 of advertising credit from Facebook to support a pilot social media recruitment campaign on 18th August 2020. This study was supported by the Wellcome Trust through a Wellcome Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship to RWA [206602]. IB is supported by an NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship. From 1 May 2022 Virus Watch received funding from the European Union (Project: 101046314). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA). Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Virus Watch study was approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee: 20/HRA/2320, and conformed to the ethical standards set out in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided informed consent for all aspects of the study. Approval was also obtained from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) to use the NHS Digital data under DSA DARS-NIC-372269-N8D7Z-v1.6I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.Yes