Did the UK's public health shielding policy protect the clinically extremely vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic in Wales? Results of EVITE Immunity, a linked data retrospective study

Shielding the immunocompromised: COVID-19 prevention strategies for patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiencies

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted immunocompromised patients, particularly those with inborn errors of immunity (IEI), transplant recipients, hematologic malignancies, and those undergoing treatment with immunosuppressive biologics and medications. These patients face an elevated risk of experiencing severe or even fatal consequences following SARS-CoV-2 infections. Vaccination is the primary defense against COVID-19; however, immune responses following immunization are often suboptimal in these patients, with variable specific humoral response rates. Despite the expedited regulatory approval and the widespread implementation of COVID-19 vaccines, the efficacy and safety for immunocompromised populations require thorough investigation. In future pandemics, including vulnerable populations (VPs) in vaccine and monoclonal antibody (mAb) trials is crucial to develop safe, effective immunization strategies, address gaps in vaccine efficacy and safety data, and create tailored guidelines for at-risk groups. This review provides a comprehensive examination of the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and mAbs in patients with primary and secondary immunodeficiency, with a specific focus on individuals with IEI, considering previous regulatory aspects and the necessity of including VPs in vaccine trials to enhance the quality of patient care and promote equitable health outcomes in future pandemics.

Effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Although non-pharmaceutical inventions (NPIs) were used globally to control the spread of COVID-19, their effectiveness remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the evidence on NPIs as implemented in the UK, to allow public health bodies to prepare for future pandemics.

METHODS

We used rapid systematic methods (search date: January 2024) to identify, critically appraise and synthesize interventional, observational and modelling studies reporting on NPI effectiveness in the UK.

RESULTS

Eighty-five modelling, nine observational and three interventional studies were included. Modelling studies had multiple quality issues; six of the 12 non-modelling studies were high quality. The best available evidence was for test and release strategies for case contacts (moderate certainty), which was suggestive of a protective effect. Although evidence for school-related NPIs and universal lockdown was also suggestive of a protective effect, this evidence was considered low certainty. Evidence certainty for the remaining NPIs was very low or inconclusive.

CONCLUSION

The validity and reliability of evidence on the effectiveness of NPIs as implemented in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic is weak. To improve evidence generation and support decision-making during future pandemics or other public health emergencies, it is essential to build evaluation into the design of public health interventions.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody positivity on infection and hospitalisation rates in immunosuppressed populations during the omicron period: the MELODY study

BACKGROUND

In the UK, booster COVID-19 vaccinations have been recommended biannually to people considered immune vulnerable. We investigated, at a population level, whether the absence of detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike protein IgG antibody (anti-S Ab) following three or more vaccinations in immunosuppressed individuals was associated with greater risks of infection and severity of infection.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study using UK national disease registers, we recruited participants with solid organ transplants (SOTs), rare autoimmune rheumatic diseases (RAIRDs), and lymphoid malignancies. All participants were tested for anti-S Ab using a lateral flow immunoassay, completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and were followed up for 6 months using linked data from the National Health Service in England. SARS-CoV-2 infection was primarily defined using UK Health Security Agency data and supplemented with hospitalisation and therapeutics data, and hospitalisation due to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as an admission within 14 days of a positive test.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 7, 2021, and June 26, 2022, we recruited 21 575 participants. Anti-S Ab was detected in 6519 (77·0%) of 8466 participants with SOTs, 5594 (85·9%) of 6516 with RAIRDs, and 5227 (79·3%) of 6593 with lymphoid malignancies. COVID-19 infection was recorded in 3907 (18·5%) participants, with 556 requiring a COVID-19-related hospital admission and 17 dying within 28 days of infection. Rates of infection varied by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics but, in adjusted analysis, having detectable anti-S Ab was independently associated with a reduced incidence of infection, with incident rate ratios (IRRs) of 0·69 (95% CI 0·65-0·73) in the SOT cohort, 0·57 (0·49-0·67) in the RAIRD cohort, and 0·62 (0·54-0·71) in the lymphoid malignancy cohort. In adjusted analysis, having detectable anti-S Ab was also associated with a reduced incidence of hospitalisation, with IRRs of 0·40 (0·35-0·46) in the SOT cohort, 0·32 (0·22-0·46) in the RAIRD cohort, and 0·41 (0·29-0·58) in the lymphoid malignancy cohort.

INTERPRETATION

All people with immunosuppression require ongoing access to COVID-19 protection strategies. Assessment of anti-S Ab responses, which can be performed at scale, can identify people with immunosuppression who remain most at risk, providing a mechanism to further individualise protection approaches.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation, Kidney Research UK, Blood Cancer UK, Vasculitis UK, and Cystic Fibrosis Trust.

Impact of COVID-19 on immunocompromised populations during the Omicron era: insights from the observational population-based INFORM study

Background

Immunocompromised individuals are not optimally protected by COVID-19 vaccines and potentially require additional preventive interventions to mitigate the risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to characterise and describe the risk of severe COVID-19 across immunocompromised groups as the pandemic began to transition to an endemic phase.

Methods

COVID-19-related hospitalisations, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and deaths (01/01/2022-31/12/2022) were compared among different groups of immunocompromised individuals vs the general population, using a retrospective cohort design and electronic health data from a random 25% sample of the English population aged ≥12 years (Registration number: ISRCTN53375662).

Findings

Overall, immunocompromised individuals accounted for 3.9% of the study population, but 22% (4585/20,910) of COVID-19 hospitalisations, 28% (125/440) of COVID-19 ICU admissions, and 24% (1145/4810) of COVID-19 deaths in 2022. Restricting to those vaccinated with ≥3 doses of COVID-19 vaccine (∼84% of immunocompromised and 51% of the general population), all immunocompromised groups remained at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) for hospitalisation ranging from 1.3 to 13.1. At highest risk for COVID-19 hospitalisation were individuals with: solid organ transplant (aIRR 13.1, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 11.2-15.3), moderate to severe primary immunodeficiency (aIRR 9.7, 95% CI 6.3-14.9), stem cell transplant (aIRR 11.0, 95% CI 6.8-17.6), and recent treatment for haematological malignancy (aIRR 10.6, 95% CI 9.5-11.9). Results were similar for COVID-19 ICU admissions and deaths.

Interpretation

Immunocompromised individuals continue to be impacted disproportionately by COVID-19 and have an urgent need for additional preventive measures beyond current vaccination programmes. These data can help determine the immunocompromised groups for which targeted prevention strategies may have the highest impact.

Funding

This study was funded by AstraZeneca UK.

The cost of implementing the COVID-19 shielding policy in Wales

BACKGROUND

The EVITE Immunity study investigated the effects of shielding Clinically Extremely Vulnerable (CEV) people during the COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes and healthcare costs in Wales, United Kingdom, to help prepare for future pandemics. Shielding was intended to protect those at highest risk of serious harm from COVID-19. We report the cost of implementing shielding in Wales.

METHODS

The number of people shielding was extracted from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank. Resources supporting shielding between March and June 2020 were mapped using published reports, web pages, freedom of information requests to Welsh Government and personal communications (e.g. with the office of the Chief Medical Officer for Wales).

RESULTS

At the beginning of shielding, 117,415 people were on the shielding list. The total additional cost to support those advised to stay home during the initial 14 weeks of the pandemic was £13,307,654 (£113 per person shielded). This included the new resources required to compile the shielding list, inform CEV people of the shielding intervention and provide medicine and food deliveries. The list was adjusted weekly over the 3-month period (130,000 people identified by June 2020). Therefore the cost per person shielded lies between £102 and £113 per person.

CONCLUSION

This is the first evaluation of the cost of the measures put in place to support those identified to shield in Wales. However, no data on opportunity cost was available. The true costs of shielding including its budget impact and opportunity costs need to be investigated to decide whether shielding is a worthwhile policy for future health emergencies.

Rationale for the shielding policy for clinically vulnerable people in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Shielding aimed to protect those predicted to be at highest risk from COVID-19 and was uniquely implemented in the UK during the first year of the pandemic from March 2020. As the first stage in the EVITE Immunity evaluation (Effects of shielding for vulnerable people during COVID-19 pandemic on health outcomes, costs and immunity, including those with cancer:quasi-experimental evaluation), we generated a logic model to describe the programme theory underlying the shielding intervention.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

We reviewed published documentation on shielding to develop an initial draft of the logic model. We then discussed this draft during interviews with 13 key stakeholders involved in putting shielding into effect in Wales and England. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically to inform a final draft of the logic model.

RESULTS

The shielding intervention was a complex one, introduced at pace by multiple agencies working together. We identified three core components: agreement on clinical criteria; development of the list of people appropriate for shielding; and communication of shielding advice. In addition, there was a support programme, available as required to shielding people, including food parcels, financial support and social support. The predicted mechanism of change was that people would isolate themselves and so avoid infection, with the primary intended outcome being reduction in mortality in the shielding group. Unintended impacts included negative impact on mental and physical health and well-being. Details of the intervention varied slightly across the home nations of the UK and were subject to minor revisions during the time the intervention was in place.

CONCLUSIONS

Shielding was a largely untested strategy, aiming to mitigate risk by placing a responsibility on individuals to protect themselves. The model of its rationale, components and outcomes (intended and unintended) will inform evaluation of the impact of shielding and help us to understand its effect and limitations.