Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Understanding reported COVID-19 cases in England following changes to testing, between November 2021 and April 2022

Florence Halford, View ORCID ProfileSophie Nash, View ORCID ProfileElise Tessier, View ORCID ProfileMeaghan Kall, View ORCID ProfileGavin Dabrera
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.28.22276549
Florence Halford
UK Health Security Agency
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: florence.halford@ukhsa.gov.uk
Sophie Nash
UK Health Security Agency
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Sophie Nash
Elise Tessier
UK Health Security Agency
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Elise Tessier
Meaghan Kall
UK Health Security Agency
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Meaghan Kall
Gavin Dabrera
UK Health Security Agency
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gavin Dabrera
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background Over the course of the pandemic, testing policies for SARS-CoV-2 have varied considerably in England, particularly in the five months up to 1 April 2022 when free community testing ended. We described the trends and demographics of COVID-19 cases during this period.

Methods COVID-19 cases reported between 15 November 2021 and 30 April 2022 were extracted and aggregated by testing pillar: Pillar 1 for those tested within the NHS, private or public health laboratories, and Pillar 2 for community testing. COVID-19 cases were described by epi-week, and stratified by test type, age, sex, index of multiple deprivation (IMD), region, and population density. Incidence rates were also calculated and stratified by IMD and region.

Results Of 10,196,425 COVID-19 cases, 7.3% were reported under Pillar 1 and 92.7% under Pillar 2. From 15 November 2021 to 31 March 2022, most Pillar 2 cases were tested either by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) only or PCR with lateral flow device (LFD) (70.8%) and three in ten cases tested using LFD only. However, between 1 April and 30 April 2022 this rose to nine out of ten cases testing using LFD only. Over the whole period studied and under both pillars, the majority of cases were female (55.2%), resided in the South East (17.0%) and in the age group 30-39 years (18.6%). Trends in IMD and population density varied over the period. When stratifying by IMD the highest case numbers and incidence rates reported under Pillar 1 and NHS were in those in the most deprived quintile. This was also seen for cases reported under Pillar 2 by LFD until 11 January 2022, where a reverse in the trend occurred with the highest cases and rates in the least deprived quintile. This same pattern was observed when describing the cases by population density, with Pillar 2 LFD reported cases being highest in the most densely populated regions until 11 January, from when there was a switch to the highest cases being in the least densely populated regions.

Conclusion Differences and trends were observed in reported COVID-19 cases in England, particularly those tested under Pillar 2 following the introduction of testing policy changes. To better understand the impact of these changes over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as to predict the impact of future testing policies, it would be beneficial to investigate the accessibility of testing amongst different populations. Currently, Pillar 1 COVID-19 cases are likely to be more representative of symptomatic cases requiring testing for a clinical need, as these are less impacted by variations in testing patterns compared to Pillar 2. However, a limitation of that approach is that use of Pillar 1 alone would be biased towards those more likely to be clinically unwell.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

There was no external funding for this study.

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethics committee of UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) was waived ethical approval for this work as the use COVID-19 data is part of UKHSA's responsibility to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. UKHSA has legal permission, provided by Regulation 3 of the Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 20220 to collect confidential patient information. (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/1438/regulation/3/made) This study fall under the following sections as part of outbreak response activities: 3(i) (a) to (c), 3(i)(d) (i) and (ii) and 3(3)

I 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.

Yes

I 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).

Yes

I 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.

Yes

Data Availability

No additional data available.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted June 29, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Understanding reported COVID-19 cases in England following changes to testing, between November 2021 and April 2022
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Understanding reported COVID-19 cases in England following changes to testing, between November 2021 and April 2022
Florence Halford, Sophie Nash, Elise Tessier, Meaghan Kall, Gavin Dabrera
medRxiv 2022.06.28.22276549; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.28.22276549
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Understanding reported COVID-19 cases in England following changes to testing, between November 2021 and April 2022
Florence Halford, Sophie Nash, Elise Tessier, Meaghan Kall, Gavin Dabrera
medRxiv 2022.06.28.22276549; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.06.28.22276549

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (214)
  • Allergy and Immunology (495)
  • Anesthesia (106)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (1091)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (194)
  • Dermatology (141)
  • Emergency Medicine (274)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (497)
  • Epidemiology (9747)
  • Forensic Medicine (5)
  • Gastroenterology (480)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (2299)
  • Geriatric Medicine (221)
  • Health Economics (461)
  • Health Informatics (1548)
  • Health Policy (729)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (600)
  • Hematology (236)
  • HIV/AIDS (500)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (11623)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (615)
  • Medical Education (236)
  • Medical Ethics (67)
  • Nephrology (256)
  • Neurology (2137)
  • Nursing (133)
  • Nutrition (332)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (424)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (516)
  • Oncology (1171)
  • Ophthalmology (363)
  • Orthopedics (128)
  • Otolaryngology (220)
  • Pain Medicine (145)
  • Palliative Medicine (50)
  • Pathology (308)
  • Pediatrics (693)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (298)
  • Primary Care Research (265)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (2168)
  • Public and Global Health (4640)
  • Radiology and Imaging (775)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (451)
  • Respiratory Medicine (622)
  • Rheumatology (273)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (224)
  • Sports Medicine (208)
  • Surgery (250)
  • Toxicology (42)
  • Transplantation (120)
  • Urology (94)