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...

Background BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. MethodsThe SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing.Findings 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46•1 years (IQR 36•0-54•1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infecti...

Despite the well-recognised role of vitamin D in a wide range of physiological processes, hypovitaminosis is common worldwide (prevalence 30%-50%) presumably arising from inadequate exposure to ultraviolet radiation and insufficient consumption. While generally not at the very low levels associated with rickets, hypovitaminosis D has been implicated in various very different, pathophysiological processes. These include putative effects on the pathogenesis of neoplastic change, inflammatory and demyelinating conditions, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes. This review focuses on the association between hypovitaminosis D and the metabolic syndrome as well as its component characteristics which are central obesity, glucose homeostasis, insulin resistance, hypertension and atherogenic dyslipidaemia. We also consider the effects of hypovitaminosis D on outcomes associated with the metabolic syndrome such as CVD, diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. We structure this review into 3 distinct sections; the metabolic syndrome, vitamin D biochemistry and the putative association between hypovitaminosis D, the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk.

Identification of the correlation between HbA1c and diabetic complications has yielded one of the most clinically useful biomarkers. HbA1c has revolutionised the diagnosis and monitoring of diabetes mellitus. However, with widespread adoption of HbA1c has come increasing recognition that non-glycaemic variables can also affect HbA1c, with varying clinical significance. Furthermore, the identification of a discrepancy between predicted and measured HbA1c in some individuals, the so-called ‘glycation gap’, may be clinically significant. We aimed to review the current body of evidence relating to non-glycaemic variables to quantify any significance and provide subsequent suggestions. A PubMed-based literature search was performed, using a variety of search terms, to retrieve articles detailing the non-glycaemic variables suggested to affect HbA1c. Articles were reviewed to assess the relevance of any findings in clinical practice and where possible guidance is given. A range of non-glycaemic variables have statistically significant effects on HbA1c. While the clinical implications are generally irrelevant, a small number of non-glycaemic variables do have clinically significant effects and alternative biomarkers should be considered instead of, or in addition to, HbA1c. There are a small number of non-glycaemic variables which have a clinically significant effect on HbA1c, However, the vast majority of non-glycaemic variables have no clinical relevance. While clinicians should have an awareness of those non-glycaemic variables with clinical significance, in the vast majority of clinical scenarios HbA1c should continue to be used with confidence.

Background and aimsFamilial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) metabolism. It is associated with higher risk of premature coronary heart disease. Around 60% of patients with a clinical diagnosis of FH do not have a detectable mutation in the genes causing FH and are most likely to have a polygenic cause for their raised LDL-C. We assessed the degree of preclinical atherosclerosis in treated patients with monogenic FH versus polygenic hypercholesterolemia.MethodsFH mutation testing and genotypes of six LDL-C-associated single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were determined using routine methods. Those with a detected mutation (monogenic) and mutation-negative patients with LDL-C SNP score in the top two quartiles (polygenic) were recruited. Carotid intima media thickness (IMT) was measured by B-mode ultrasound and the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score was performed in three lipid clinics in the UK and the Netherlands.Results86 patients (56 monogenic FH, 30 polygenic) with carotid IMT measurement, and 166 patients (124 monogenic, 42 polygenic) with CAC score measurement were examined. After adjustment for age and gender, the mean of all the carotid IMT measurements and CAC scores were significantly greater in the monogenic than the polygenic patients [carotid IMT mean (95% CI): 0.74 mm (0.7–0.79) vs. 0.66 mm (0.61–0.72), p = 0.038 and CAC score mean (95%): 24.5 (14.4–41.8) vs. 2.65 (0.94–7.44), p = 0.0004].ConclusionsIn patients with a diagnosis of FH, those with a monogenic cause have a higher severity of carotid and coronary preclinical atherosclerosis than those with a polygenic aetiology.