RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in England during May 2020: REACT study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.10.20150524
DO 10.1101/2020.07.10.20150524
A1 ,
A1 Riley, Steven
A1 Ainslie, Kylie E. C.
A1 Eales, Oliver
A1 Jeffrey, Benjamin
A1 Walters, Caroline E.
A1 Atchison, Christina
A1 Diggle, Peter J.
A1 Ashby, Deborah
A1 Donnelly, Christl A.
A1 Cooke, Graham
A1 Barclay, Wendy
A1 Ward, Helen
A1 Taylor, Graham
A1 Darzi, Ara
A1 Elliott, Paul
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/07/11/2020.07.10.20150524.abstract
AB Background England has experienced one of the highest rates of confirmed COVID-19 mortality in the world. SARS-CoV-2 virus has circulated in hospitals, care homes and the community since January 2020. Our current epidemiological knowledge is largely informed by clinical cases with far less understanding of community transmission.Methods The REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission (REACT) study is a nationally representative prevalence survey of SARS-CoV-2 virus swab-positivity in the community in England. We recruited participants regardless of symptom status.Results We found 159 positives from 120,610 swabs giving an average prevalence of 0.13% (95% CI: 0.11%,0.15%) from 1st May to 1st June 2020. We showed decreasing prevalence with a halving time of 8.6 (6.2, 13.6) days, implying an overall reproduction number R of 0.57 (0.45, 0.72). Adults aged 18 to 24 yrs had the highest swab-positivity rates, while those >64 yrs had the lowest. Of the 126 participants who tested positive with known symptom status in the week prior to their swab, 39 reported symptoms while 87 did not, giving an estimate that 69% (61%,76%) of people were symptom-free for the 7 days prior testing positive in our community sample. Symptoms strongly associated with swab-positivity were: nausea and/or vomiting, diarrhoea, blocked nose, loss of smell, loss of taste, headache, chills and severe fatigue. Recent contact with a known COVID-19 case was associated with odds of 24 (16, 38) for swab-positivity. Compared with non-key workers, odds of swab-positivity were 7.7 (2.4, 25) among care home (long-term care facilities) workers and 5.2 (2.9, 9.3) among health care workers. However, some of the excess risk associated with key worker status was explained by recent contact with COVID-19 cases. We found no strong evidence for geographical variability in positive swab results.Conclusion Our results provide a reliable baseline against which the impact of subsequent relaxation of lockdown can be assessed to inform future public health efforts to control transmission.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care in England. SR acknowledges support: MRC Centre for Global Infectious Disease Analysis, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Protection Research Unit (HPRU), Wellcome Trust (200861/Z/16/Z, 200187/Z/15/Z), and Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (US, U01CK0005-01-02). GC is supported by an NIHR Professorship. PE is Director of the MRC Centre for Environment and Health (MR/L01341X/1, MR/S019669/1). PE acknowledges support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR HPRUs in Environmental Exposures and Health and Chemical and Radiation Threats and Hazards, and the British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence at Imperial College London (RE/18/4/34215).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:We obtained research ethics approval from the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 283787).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe original datasets generated or analysed, or both, during this study are not publicly available because of governance restrictions and the identifiable nature of the data.