North West London Covid-19 Vaccination Programme: Real-world evidence for Vaccine uptake and effectiveness

  1. B Glampson
  2. J Brittain
  3. Amit Kaura
  4. A Mulla
  5. L Mercuri
  6. S Brett
  7. P Aylin
  8. T Sandall
  9. I Goodman
  10. J Redhead
  11. K Saravanakumar
  12. E K Mayer

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the early vaccine administration coverage and vaccine effectiveness and outcome data across an integrated care system of eight CCGs leveraging a unique population-level care dataset

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Individuals eligible for COVID 19 vaccination in North West London based on linked primary and secondary care data.

Participants

2,183,939 individuals eligible for COVID 19 vaccination

Results

During the NWL vaccine programme study time period 5.88% of individuals declined and did not receive a vaccination. Black or black British individuals had the highest rate of declining a vaccine at 16.14% (4,337). There was a strong negative association between deprivation and rate of declining vaccination (r=-0.94, p<0.01) with 13.5% of individuals declining vaccination in the most deprived postcodes compared to 0.98% in the least deprived postcodes.

In the first six days after vaccination 344 of 389587 individuals tested positive for COVID-19 (0.09%). The rate increased to 0.13% (525/389,243) between days 7 and 13, before then gradually falling week on week.

At 28 days post vaccination there was a 74% (HR 0.26 (0.19-0.35)) and 78% (HR 0.22 (0.18-0.27)) reduction in risk of testing positive for COVID-19 for individuals that received the Oxford/Astrazeneca and Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines respectively, when compared with unvaccinated individuals.

After vaccination very low rates of hospital admission were seen in individuals testing positive for COVID-19 (0.01% of all patients vaccinated).

Conclusions

This study provides further evidence that a single dose of either the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or the Oxford/Astrazeneca vaccine is effective at reducing the risk of testing positive for COVID-19 up to 60 days across all adult age groups, ethnic groups, and risk categories in an urban UK population. There was no difference in effectiveness up to 28 days between the Oxford/Astrazeneca and Pfizer/BioNtech vaccines.

In those declining vaccination higher rates were seen in those living in the most deprived areas and in Black and Black British groups.

There was no definitive evidence to suggest COVID-19 was transmitted as a result of vaccination hubs during vaccine the administration roll-out in NWL, and the risk of contracting COVID-19 and/or becoming hospitalised after vaccination has been demonstrated to be very low in the vaccinated population.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.04.08.21254580: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.04.08.21254580v1 on medRxiv