Publications
414 results found
Flower B, McCabe L, Le Ngoc C, et al., 2021, High cure rates for HCV genotype 6 in advanced liver fibrosis with 12 weeks sofosbuvir and daclatasvir: the Vietnam SEARCH study, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, Vol: 8, ISSN: 2328-8957
BackgroundGenotype 6 is the most genetically diverse lineage of hepatitis C virus (HCV), and predominates in Vietnam. It can be treated with sofosbuvir with daclatasvir (SOF/DCV), the lowest costing treatment combination globally. In regional guidelines, longer treatment durations of SOF/DCV (24 weeks) are recommended for cirrhotic individuals, compared with other pangenotypic regimens (12 weeks), based on sparse data. Early on-treatment virological response may offer means of reducing length and cost of therapy in patients with liver fibrosis.MethodsIn this prospective trial in Vietnam, genotype 6-infected adults with advanced liver fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis were treated with SOF/DCV. Day 14 viral load was used to guide duration of therapy: participants with viral load <500 IU/ml at day 14 were treated with 12 weeks of SOF/DCV and those ≥500 IU/ml received 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was sustained virological response.FindingsOf 41 individuals with advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis who commenced treatment, 51% had genotype 6a, 34% 6e. The remainder had 6h, 6k, 6l or 6o. 100% had viral load <500 IU/ml by day 14, meaning all received 12 weeks of SOF/DCV. 100% achieved SVR12 despite a high frequency of putative NS5A inhibitor resistance-associated substitutions (RAS) at baseline.Interpretation12 weeks of SOF/DCV achieves excellent cure rates in this population. This data supports the removal of costly genotyping in countries where genotype 3 prevalence in <5%, in keeping with WHO guidelines. NS5A-resistance associated mutations in isolation, do not affect efficacy of SOF/DCV therapy. Wider evaluation of response-guided therapy is warranted.
Ward H, Atchison C, Whitaker M, et al., 2021, Increasing SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in England at the start of the second wave: REACT-2 Round 4 cross-sectional study in 160,000 adults
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Background</jats:title><jats:p>REACT-2 Study 5 is a population survey of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the community in England.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods</jats:title><jats:p>We contacted a random sample of the population by sending a letter to named individuals aged 18 or over from the NHS GP registrations list. We then sent respondents a lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) kit for SARS-CoV-2 antibody self-testing and asked them to perform the test at home and complete a questionnaire, including reporting of their test result. Overall, 161,537 adults completed questionnaires and self-administered LFIA tests for IgG against SARS-CoV-2 between 27 October and 10 November 2020.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>The overall adjusted and weighted prevalence was 5.6% (95% CI 5.4-5.7). This was an increase from 4.4% (4.3-4.5) in round 3 (September), a relative increase of 26.9% (24.0-29.9).The largest increase by age was in the 18 to 24 year old age group, which increased (adjusted and weighted) from 6.7% (6.3-7.2) to 9.9% (9.3-10.4), and in students, (adjusted, unweighted) from 5.9% (4.8-7.1) to 12.1% (10.8-13.5). Prevalence increased most in Yorkshire and The Humber, from 3.4% (3.0-3.8) to 6.3% (5.9-6.8) and the North West from 4.5% (4.2-4.9) to 7.7% (7.2-8.1). In contrast, the prevalence in London was stable, at 9.5% (9.0-9.9) and 9.5% (9.1-10.0) in rounds 3 and 4 respectively. We found the highest prevalence in people of Bangladeshi 15.1% (10.9-20.5), Pakistani 13.9% (11.2-17.2) and African 13.5% (10.7-16.8) ethnicity, and lowest in those of white British ethnicity at 4.2% (4.0-4.3).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Interpretation</jats:title><jats:p>The second wave of infection in England is apparen
Drake TM, Riad AM, Fairfield CJ, et al., 2021, Characterisation of in-hospital complications associated with COVID-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK: a prospective, multicentre cohort study, The Lancet, Vol: 398, Pages: 223-237, ISSN: 0140-6736
BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a multisystem disease and patients who survive might have in-hospital complications. These complications are likely to have important short-term and long-term consequences for patients, health-care utilisation, health-care system preparedness, and society amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim was to characterise the extent and effect of COVID-19 complications, particularly in those who survive, using the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre cohort study in 302 UK health-care facilities. Adult patients aged 19 years or older, with confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 were included in the study. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of in-hospital complications, defined as organ-specific diagnoses occurring alone or in addition to any hallmarks of COVID-19 illness. We used multilevel logistic regression and survival models to explore associations between these outcomes and in-hospital complications, age, and pre-existing comorbidities. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17 and Aug 4, 2020, 80 388 patients were included in the study. Of the patients admitted to hospital for management of COVID-19, 49·7% (36 367 of 73 197) had at least one complication. The mean age of our cohort was 71·1 years (SD 18·7), with 56·0% (41 025 of 73 197) being male and 81·0% (59 289 of 73 197) having at least one comorbidity. Males and those aged older than 60 years were most likely to have a complication (aged ≥60 years: 54·5% [16 579 of 30 416] in males and 48·2% [11 707 of 24 288] in females; aged <60 years: 48·8% [5179 of 10 609] in males and 36·6% [2814 of 7689] in females). Renal (24·3%, 17 752 of 73 197), complex respiratory (18·4%, 13 486 of 73 197), and systemic (16·3%, 11 895 of 73 197) complications were
Lazarus JV, Safreed-Harmon K, Kamarulzaman A, et al., 2021, Consensus statement on the role of health systems in advancing the long-term well-being of people living with HIV, NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, Vol: 12, Pages: 1-14
Health systems have improved their abilities to identify, diagnose, treat and, increasingly, achieve viral suppression among people living with HIV (PLHIV). Despite these advances, a higher burden of multimorbidity and poorer health-related quality of life are reported by many PLHIV in comparison to people without HIV. Stigma and discrimination further exacerbate these poor outcomes. A global multidisciplinary group of HIV experts developed a consensus statement identifying key issues that health systems must address in order to move beyond the HIV field’s longtime emphasis on viral suppression to instead deliver integrated, person-centered healthcare for PLHIV throughout their lives.
Ward H, Whitaker M, Tang SN, et al., 2021, Vaccine uptake and SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among 207,337 adults during May 2021 in England: REACT-2 study
Background The programme to vaccinate adults in England has been rapidly implementedsince it began in December 2020. The community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spikeprotein antibodies provides an estimate of total cumulative response to natural infection andvaccination. We describe the distribution of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in adults inEngland in May 2021 at a time when approximately 7 in 10 adults had received at least onedose of vaccine.Methods Sixth round of REACT-2 (REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-2),a cross-sectional random community survey of adults in England, from 12 to 25 May 2021;207,337 participants completed questionnaires and self-administered a lateral flowimmunoassay test producing a positive or negative result.Results Vaccine coverage with one or more doses, weighted to the adult population inEngland, was 72.9% (95% confidence interval 72.7-73.0), varying by age from 25.1% (24.5-25.6) of those aged 18 to 24 years, to 99.2% (99.1-99.3) of those 75 years and older. Inadjusted models, odds of vaccination were lower in men (odds ratio [OR] 0.89 [0.85-0.94])than women, and in people of Black (0.41 [0.34-0.49]) compared to white ethnicity. Therewas higher vaccine coverage in the least deprived and highest income households. Peoplewho reported a history of COVID-19 were less likely to be vaccinated (OR 0.61 [0.55-0.67]).There was high coverage among health workers (OR 9.84 [8.79-11.02] and care workers (OR4.17 [3.20-5.43]) compared to non-key workers, but lower in hospitality and retail workers(OR 0.73 [0.64-0.82] and 0.77 [0.70-0.85] respectively) after adjusting for age and keycovariates.
Riley S, Eales O, Haw D, et al., 2021, REACT-1 round 13 interim report: acceleration of SARS-CoV-2 Delta epidemic in the community in England during late June and early July 2021
BackgroundDespite high levels of vaccination in the adult population, cases of COVID-19 have risenexponentially in England since the start of May 2021 driven by the Delta variant. However,with far fewer hospitalisations and deaths per case during the recent growth in casescompared with 2020, it is intended that all remaining social distancing legislation in Englandwill be removed from 19 July 2021.MethodsWe report interim results from round 13 of the REal-time Assessment of CommunityTransmission-1 (REACT-1) study in which a cross-sectional sample of the population ofEngland was asked to provide a throat and nose swab for RT-PCR and to answer aquestionnaire. Data collection for this report (round 13 interim) was from 24 June to 5 July2021.ResultsIn round 13 interim, we found 237 positives from 47,729 swabs giving a weighted prevalenceof 0.59% (0.51%, 0.68%) which was approximately four-fold higher compared with round 12at 0.15% (0.12%, 0.18%). This resulted from continued exponential growth in prevalencewith an average doubling time of 15 (13, 17) days between round 12 and round 13.However, during the recent period of round 13 interim only, we observed a shorter doublingtime of 6.1 (4.0, 12) days with a corresponding R number of 1.87 (1.40, 2.45). There weresubstantial increases in all age groups under the age of 75 years, and especially at youngerages, with the highest prevalence in 13 to 17 year olds at 1.33% (0.97%, 1.82%) and in 18 to24 years olds at 1.40% (0.89%, 2.18%). Infections have increased in all regions with thelargest increase in London where prevalence increased more than eight-fold from 0.13%(0.08%, 0.20%) in round 12 to 1.08% (0.79%, 1.47%) in round 13 interim. Overall,prevalence was over 3 times higher in the unvaccinated compared with those reporting twodoses of vaccine in both round 12 and round 13 interim, although there was a similarproportional increase in prevalence in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals between thetwo rounds.DiscussionWe
COVID-19 Host Genetics Initiative, 2021, Mapping the human genetic architecture of COVID-19, Nature, Vol: 600, Pages: 472-477, ISSN: 0028-0836
The genetic make-up of an individual contributes to the susceptibility and response to viral infection. Although environmental, clinical and social factors have a role in the chance of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and the severity of COVID-191,2, host genetics may also be important. Identifying host-specific genetic factors may reveal biological mechanisms of therapeutic relevance and clarify causal relationships of modifiable environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes. We formed a global network of researchers to investigate the role of human genetics in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 severity. Here we describe the results of three genome-wide association meta-analyses that consist of up to 49,562 patients with COVID-19 from 46 studies across 19 countries. We report 13 genome-wide significant loci that are associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection or severe manifestations of COVID-19. Several of these loci correspond to previously documented associations to lung or autoimmune and inflammatory diseases3-7. They also represent potentially actionable mechanisms in response to infection. Mendelian randomization analyses support a causal role for smoking and body-mass index for severe COVID-19 although not for type II diabetes. The identification of novel host genetic factors associated with COVID-19 was made possible by the community of human genetics researchers coming together to prioritize the sharing of data, results, resources and analytical frameworks. This working model of international collaboration underscores what is possible for future genetic discoveries in emerging pandemics, or indeed for any complex human disease.
Alexander JL, Powell N, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in immunosuppressed patients with inflammatory bowel disease: should our approach change?, The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Vol: 6, Pages: S28-S29, ISSN: 2468-1253
Bloom CI, Drake TM, Docherty AB, et al., 2021, Risk of adverse outcomes in patients with underlying respiratory conditions admitted to hospital with COVID-19: a national, multicentre prospective cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Vol: 9, Pages: 699-711, ISSN: 2213-2600
BackgroundStudies of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 have found varying mortality outcomes associated with underlying respiratory conditions and inhaled corticosteroid use. Using data from a national, multicentre, prospective cohort, we aimed to characterise people with COVID-19 admitted to hospital with underlying respiratory disease, assess the level of care received, measure in-hospital mortality, and examine the effect of inhaled corticosteroid use.MethodsWe analysed data from the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK (CCP-UK) study. All patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 across England, Scotland, and Wales between Jan 17 and Aug 3, 2020, were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Patients with asthma, chronic pulmonary disease, or both, were identified and stratified by age (<16 years, 16–49 years, and ≥50 years). In-hospital mortality was measured by use of multilevel Cox proportional hazards, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and medications (inhaled corticosteroids, short-acting β-agonists [SABAs], and long-acting β-agonists [LABAs]). Patients with asthma who were taking an inhaled corticosteroid plus LABA plus another maintenance asthma medication were considered to have severe asthma.Findings75 463 patients from 258 participating health-care facilities were included in this analysis: 860 patients younger than 16 years (74 [8·6%] with asthma), 8950 patients aged 16–49 years (1867 [20·9%] with asthma), and 65 653 patients aged 50 years and older (5918 [9·0%] with asthma, 10 266 [15·6%] with chronic pulmonary disease, and 2071 [3·2%] with both asthma and chronic pulmonary disease). Patients with asthma were significantly more likely than those without asthma to receive critical care (patients aged 16–49 years: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·20 [95% CI
Drake TM, Fairfield CJ, Pius R, et al., 2021, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study, The Lancet Rheumatology, Vol: 3, Pages: e498-e506, ISSN: 2665-9913
Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no si
Lemoine M, Cooke GS, Thursz M, et al., 2021, Cuts to UK official development assistance budget jeopardise global viral hepatitis elimination goals., Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol, Vol: 6, Pages: 527-528
Adekoya I, Maraj D, Steiner L, et al., 2021, Comparison of antibiotics included in national essential medicines lists of 138 countries using the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) classification: a cross-sectional study, The Lancet Infectious Diseases, ISSN: 1473-3099
BackgroundThe WHO Model List of Essential Medicines classified antibiotics into Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) categories for the treatment of 31 priority bacterial infections as a tool to facilitate antibiotic stewardship and optimal use. We compared the listing of antibiotics on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) to those in the 2019 WHO Model List and the AWaRe classification database to determine the degree to which NEMLs are in alignment with the AWaRe classification framework recommended by WHO.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we obtained up-to-date (data after 2017) NEMLs from our Global Essential Medicines (GEM) database, WHO online resources, and individual countries' websites. From the 2019 WHO Model List we extracted, as a reference standard, a list of 37 antibiotics (44 unique antibiotics after accounting for combination drugs or therapeutically equivalent drugs as specified by WHO) that were considered essential in treating 31 of the most common and severe clinical infectious syndromes (priority infections). From the WHO AWaRe Classification Database, which contains commonly used antibiotics globally, we extracted a list of 122 AWaRe antibiotics listed by at least one country in the GEM database. We then assessed individual countries' NEMLs for listing of the 44 essential and 122 commonly used antibiotics, overall and according to AWaRe classification group. We also evaluated and summarised the listing of both first-choice and second-choice treatments for the 31 priority infections. A total coverage score was calculated for each country by assigning a treatment score of 0–3 for each priority infection on the basis of whether first-choice and second-choice treatments, according to the 2019 WHO Model List, were included in the country's NEML. Coverage scores were then compared against the score of the 2019 WHO Model List and across World Bank income groups and WHO regions.FindingsAs of July 7, 2020, we had up-to-date NEMLs for 138 c
Lazarus J, Picchio C, Byrne C, et al., 2021, A global systematic review of efforts to accelerate the elimination of hepatitis C virus (HCV) through micro-elimination, Publisher: ELSEVIER, Pages: S661-S662, ISSN: 0168-8278
ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Group, 2021, COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study, Infection: journal of infectious disease, Vol: 49, Pages: 899-905, ISSN: 0300-8126
BACKGROUND: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. METHODS: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. RESULTS: 'Typical' symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. INTERPRETATION: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men.
Whitaker M, Elliott J, Chadeau-Hyam M, et al., 2021, Persistent symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection in a random community sample of 508,707 people
IntroductionLong COVID, describing the long-term sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection, remains a poorlydefined syndrome. There is uncertainty about its predisposing factors and the extent of theresultant public health burden, with estimates of prevalence and duration varying widely.MethodsWithin rounds 3–5 of the REACT-2 study, 508,707 people in the community in England wereasked about a prior history of COVID-19 and the presence and duration of 29 differentsymptoms. We used uni- and multivariable models to identify predictors of persistence ofsymptoms (12 weeks or more). We estimated the prevalence of symptom persistence at 12weeks, and used unsupervised learning to cluster individuals by symptoms experienced.ResultsAmong the 508,707 participants, the weighted prevalence of self-reported COVID-19 was 19.2%(95% CI: 19.1,19.3). 37.7% of 76,155 symptomatic people post COVID-19 experienced at leastone symptom, while 14.8% experienced three or more symptoms, lasting 12 weeks or more. Thisgives a weighted population prevalence of persistent symptoms of 5.75% (5.68, 5.81) for one and2.22% (2.1, 2.26) for three or more symptoms. Almost a third of people 8,771/28,713 (30.5%)with at least one symptom lasting 12 weeks or more reported having had severe COVID-19symptoms (“significant effect on my daily life”) at the time of their illness, giving a weightedprevalence overall for this group of 1.72% (1.69,1.76). The prevalence of persistent symptomswas higher in women than men (OR: 1.51 [1.46,1.55]) and, conditional on reporting symptoms,risk of persistent symptoms increased linearly with age by 3.5 percentage points per decade oflife. Obesity, smoking or vaping, hospitalisation , and deprivation were also associated with ahigher probability of persistent symptoms, while Asian ethnicity was associated with a lowerprobability. Two stable clusters were identified based on symptoms that persisted for 12 weeks ormore: in the largest cluster, tiredness predominated
Davies B, Araghi M, Moshe M, et al., 2021, Acceptability, usability and performance of lateral flow immunoassay tests for SARSCoV-2 antibodies: REACT-2 study of self-testing in non-healthcare key workers, Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
BackgroundSeroprevalence studies in key worker populations are essential to understand the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. Various technologies, including laboratory assays and pointof-care self-tests, are available for antibody testing. The interpretation of seroprevalence studies requires comparative data on the performance of antibody tests.MethodsIn June 2020, current and former members of the UK Police forces and Fire service performed a self-test lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) and provided a saliva sample, nasopharyngeal swab, venous blood samples for Abbott ELISA and had a nurse performed LFIA. We present the prevalence of PCR positivity and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in this cohort following the first wave of infection in England; the acceptability and usability of selftest LFIAs (defined as use of the LFIA kit and provision of a valid result, respectively); and determine the sensitivity and specificity of LFIAs compared to laboratory ELISAs.ResultsIn this cohort of non-healthcare key workers, 7.4% (396/5,348; 95% CI, 6.7-8.1) were antibody positive. Seroprevalence was 8.9% (6.9-11.4) in those under 40 years, 11.5% (8.8-15.0) in those of non-white British ethnicity and 7.8% (7.1-8.7) in those currently working.The self-test LFIA had an acceptability of 97.7% and a usability of 90.0%. There was substantial agreement between within-participant LFIA results (kappa 0.80; 0.77-0.83). The LFIAs (self-test and nurse-performed) had a similar performance: compared to ELISA, sensitivity was 82.1% (77.7-86.0) self-test and 76.4% (71.9-80.5) nurse-performed with specificity of 97.8% (97.3-98.2) and 98.5% (98.1-98.8) respectively.ConclusionA greater proportion of the non-healthcare key worker cohort showed evidence of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 than the general population at 6.0% (5.8-6.1) following the first wave in England. The high acceptability and usability reported by participants and the similar performance of self-test and nurse-performed LFIAs indicate that t
Riley S, Wang H, Eales O, et al., 2021, REACT-1 round 12 report: resurgence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in England associated with increased frequency of the Delta variant
BackgroundEngland entered a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021 due to the COVID-19pandemic. Despite a successful vaccine rollout during the first half of 2021, cases andhospitalisations have started to increase since the end of May as the SARS-CoV-2 Delta(B.1.617.2) variant increases in frequency. The final step of relaxation of COVID-19restrictions in England has been delayed from 21 June to 19 July 2021.MethodsThe REal-time Assessment of Community Transmision-1 (REACT-1) study measures theprevalence of swab-positivity among random samples of the population of England. Round12 of REACT-1 obtained self-administered swab collections from participants from 20 May2021 to 7 June 2021; results are compared with those for round 11, in which swabs werecollected from 15 April to 3 May 2021.ResultsBetween rounds 11 and 12, national prevalence increased from 0.10% (0.08%, 0.13%) to0.15% (0.12%, 0.18%). During round 12, we detected exponential growth with a doublingtime of 11 (7.1, 23) days and an R number of 1.44 (1.20, 1.73). The highest prevalence wasfound in the North West at 0.26% (0.16%, 0.41%) compared to 0.05% (0.02%, 0.12%) in theSouth West. In the North West, the locations of positive samples suggested a cluster inGreater Manchester and the east Lancashire area. Prevalence in those aged 5-49 was 2.5times higher at 0.20% (0.16%, 0.26%) compared with those aged 50 years and above at0.08% (0.06%, 0.11%). At the beginning of February 2021, the link between infection ratesand hospitalisations and deaths started to weaken, although in late April 2021, infectionrates and hospital admissions started to reconverge. When split by age, the weakened linkbetween infection rates and hospitalisations at ages 65 years and above was maintained,while the trends converged below the age of 65 years. The majority of the infections in theyounger group occurred in the unvaccinated population or those without a stated vaccinehistory. We observed the rapid replacement of the Alpha (
Leclerc QJ, Fuller NM, Keogh RH, et al., 2021, Importance of patient bed pathways and length of stay differences in predicting COVID-19 hospital bed occupancy in England., BMC Health Services Research, Vol: 21, Pages: 1-15, ISSN: 1472-6963
BACKGROUND: Predicting bed occupancy for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requires understanding of length of stay (LoS) in particular bed types. LoS can vary depending on the patient's "bed pathway" - the sequence of transfers of individual patients between bed types during a hospital stay. In this study, we characterise these pathways, and their impact on predicted hospital bed occupancy. METHODS: We obtained data from University College Hospital (UCH) and the ISARIC4C COVID-19 Clinical Information Network (CO-CIN) on hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who required care in general ward or critical care (CC) beds to determine possible bed pathways and LoS. We developed a discrete-time model to examine the implications of using either bed pathways or only average LoS by bed type to forecast bed occupancy. We compared model-predicted bed occupancy to publicly available bed occupancy data on COVID-19 in England between March and August 2020. RESULTS: In both the UCH and CO-CIN datasets, 82% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 only received care in general ward beds. We identified four other bed pathways, present in both datasets: "Ward, CC, Ward", "Ward, CC", "CC" and "CC, Ward". Mean LoS varied by bed type, pathway, and dataset, between 1.78 and 13.53 days. For UCH, we found that using bed pathways improved the accuracy of bed occupancy predictions, while only using an average LoS for each bed type underestimated true bed occupancy. However, using the CO-CIN LoS dataset we were not able to replicate past data on bed occupancy in England, suggesting regional LoS heterogeneities. CONCLUSIONS: We identified five bed pathways, with substantial variation in LoS by bed type, pathway, and geography. This might be caused by local differences in patient characteristics, clinical care strategies, or resource availability, and suggests that national LoS averages may not be appropriate for local forecasts of bed occ
The Lancet Rheumatology, 2021, Going viral: misinformation in the time of COVID-19., Lancet Rheumatol, Vol: 3
Riley S, Ainslie KEC, Eales O, et al., 2021, Resurgence of SARS-CoV-2: detection by community viral surveillance, Science, Vol: 372, Pages: 990-995, ISSN: 0036-8075
Surveillance of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has mainly relied on case reporting, which is biased by health service performance, test availability, and test-seeking behaviors. We report a community-wide national representative surveillance program in England based on self-administered swab results from ~594,000 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of symptoms, between May and the beginning of September 2020. The epidemic declined between May and July 2020 but then increased gradually from mid-August, accelerating into early September 2020 at the start of the second wave. When compared with cases detected through routine surveillance, we report here a longer period of decline and a younger age distribution. Representative community sampling for SARS-CoV-2 can substantially improve situational awareness and feed into the public health response even at low prevalence.
Boncea E, Expert P, Mitchell C, et al., 2021, Association between intrahospital transfer and hospital-acquired infection in the elderly: A retrospective case-control study in a UK hospital network, BMJ Quality & Safety, Vol: 30, Pages: 457-466, ISSN: 2044-5415
Background Intrahospital transfers have become more common as hospital staff balance patient needs with bed availability. However, this may leave patients more vulnerable to potential pathogen transmission routes via increased exposure to contaminated surfaces and contacts with individuals.Objective This study aimed to quantify the association between the number of intrahospital transfers undergone during a hospital spell and the development of a hospital-acquired infection (HAI).Methods A retrospective case–control study was conducted using data extracted from electronic health records and microbiology cultures of non-elective, medical admissions to a large urban hospital network which consists of three hospital sites between 2015 and 2018 (n=24 240). As elderly patients comprise a large proportion of hospital users and are a high-risk population for HAIs, the analysis focused on those aged 65 years or over. Logistic regression was conducted to obtain the OR for developing an HAI as a function of intrahospital transfers until onset of HAI for cases, or hospital discharge for controls, while controlling for age, gender, time at risk, Elixhauser comorbidities, hospital site of admission, specialty of the dominant healthcare professional providing care, intensive care admission, total number of procedures and discharge destination.Results Of the 24 240 spells, 2877 cases were included in the analysis. 72.2% of spells contained at least one intrahospital transfer. On multivariable analysis, each additional intrahospital transfer increased the odds of acquiring an HAI by 9% (OR=1.09; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.13).Conclusion Intrahospital transfers are associated with increased odds of developing an HAI. Strategies for minimising intrahospital transfers should be considered, and further research is needed to identify unnecessary transfers. Their reduction may diminish spread of contagious pathogens in the hospital environment.
Docherty AB, Mulholland RH, Lone NI, et al., 2021, Changes in in-hospital mortality in the first wave of COVID-19: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study using the WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK, The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Vol: 9, Pages: 773-785, ISSN: 2213-2600
BACKGROUND: Mortality rates in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the UK appeared to decline during the first wave of the pandemic. We aimed to quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 247 acute hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic (between March 9 and Aug 2, 2020). We included all patients aged 18 years and older with clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19 (by RT-PCR test) from assumed community-acquired infection. We did a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness) and quantifying potential mediators (level of respiratory support and steroid treatment). The primary outcome was weekly in-hospital mortality at 28 days, defined as the proportion of patients who had died within 28 days of admission of all patients admitted in the observed week, and it was assessed in all patients with an outcome. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between March 9, and Aug 2, 2020, we recruited 80 713 patients, of whom 63 972 were eligible and included in the study. Unadjusted weekly in-hospital mortality declined from 32·3% (95% CI 31·8-32·7) in March 9 to April 26, 2020, to 16·4% (15·0-17·8) in June 15 to Aug 2, 2020. Reductions in mortality were observed in all age groups, in all ethnic groups, for both sexes, and in patients with and without comorbidities. After adjustment, there was a 32% reduction in
Riley S, Haw D, Walters C, et al., 2021, REACT-1 round 11 report: low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community prior to the third step of the English roadmap out of lockdown
BackgroundNational epidemic dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infections are being driven by: the degree of recent indoor mixing (both social and workplace), vaccine coverage, intrinsic properties of the circulating lineages, and prior history of infection (via natural immunity). In England, infections, hospitalisations and deaths fell during the first two steps of the “roadmap” for exiting the third national lockdown. The third step of the roadmap in England takes place on 17 May 2021.MethodsWe report the most recent findings on community infections from the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study in which a swab is obtained from a representative cross-sectional sample of the population in England and tested using PCR. Round 11 of REACT-1 commenced self-administered swab-collection on 15 April 2021 and completed collections on 3 May 2021. We compare the results of REACT-1 round 11 to round 10, in which swabs were collected from 11 to 30 March 2021.ResultsBetween rounds 10 and 11, prevalence of swab-positivity dropped by 50% in England from 0.20% (0.17%, 0.23%) to 0.10% (0.08%, 0.13%), with a corresponding R estimate of 0.90 (0.87, 0.94). Rates of swab-positivity fell in the 55 to 64 year old group from 0.17% (0.12%, 0.25%) in round 10 to 0.06% (0.04%, 0.11%) in round 11. Prevalence in round 11 was higher in the 25 to 34 year old group at 0.21% (0.12%, 0.38%) than in the 55 to 64 year olds and also higher in participants of Asian ethnicity at 0.31% (0.16%, 0.60%) compared with white participants at 0.09% (0.07%, 0.11%). Based on sequence data for positive samples for which a lineage could be identified, we estimate that 92.3% (75.9%, 97.9%, n=24) of infections were from the B.1.1.7 lineage compared to 7.7% (2.1%, 24.1%, n=2) from the B.1.617.2 lineage. Both samples from the B.1.617.2 lineage were detected in London from participants not reporting travel in the previous two weeks. Also, allowing for suitable lag periods, the prior close alig
Eales O, Page AJ, Tang S, et al., 2021, SARS-CoV-2 lineage dynamics in England from January to March 2021 inferred from representative community samples
Genomic surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 lineages informs our understanding of possible future changes in transmissibility and vaccine efficacy. However, small changes in the frequency of one lineage over another are often difficult to interpret because surveillance samples are obtained from a variety of sources. Here, we describe lineage dynamics and phylogenetic relationships using sequences obtained from a random community sample who provided a throat and nose swab for rt-PCR during the first three months of 2021 as part of the REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission-1 (REACT-1) study. Overall, diversity decreased during the first quarter of 2021, with the B.1.1.7 lineage (first identified in Kent) predominant, driven by a 0.3 unit higher reproduction number over the prior wild type. During January, positive samples were more likely B.1.1.7 in younger and middle-aged adults (aged 18 to 54) than in other age groups. Although individuals infected with the B.1.1.7 lineage were no more likely to report one or more classic COVID-19 symptoms compared to those infected with wild type, they were more likely to be antibody positive 6 weeks after infection. Viral load was higher in B.1.1.7 infection as measured by cycle threshold (Ct) values, but did not account for the increased rate of testing positive for antibodies. The presence of infections with non-imported B.1.351 lineage (first identified in South Africa) during January, but not during February or March, suggests initial establishment in the community followed by fade-out. However, this occurred during a period of stringent social distancing and targeted public health interventions and does not immediately imply similar lineages could not become established in the future. Sequence data from representative community surveys such as REACT-1 can augment routine genomic surveillance.
Honeyford K, Coughlan C, Nijman R, et al., 2021, Changes in emergency department activity and the first COVID-19 lockdown; a cross sectional study, Western Journal of Emergency Medicine : Integrating Emergency Care with Population Health, Vol: 22, Pages: 603-607, ISSN: 1936-900X
BackgroundEmergency Department (ED) attendances fell across the UK after the ‘lockdown’ introduced on 23rd March 2020 to limit the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We hypothesised that reductions would vary by patient age and disease type. We examined pre- and in-lockdown ED attendances for two COVID-19 unrelated diagnoses; one likely to be affected by lockdown measures (gastroenteritis) and one likely to be unaffected (appendicitis). MethodsRetrospective cross-sectional study conducted across two EDs in one London hospital Trust. We compared all adult and paediatric ED attendances, before (January 2020) and during lockdown (March/April 2020). Key patient demographics, method of arrival and discharge location were compared. We used SNOMED codes to define attendances for gastroenteritis and appendicitis. ResultsED attendances fell from 1129 per day before lockdown to 584 in-lockdown; 51.7% of pre-lockdown rates. In-lockdown attendances were lowest for under-18s (16.0% of pre-lockdown). The proportion of patients admitted to hospital increased from 17.3% to 24.0% and the proportion admitted to intensive care increased four-fold. Attendances for gastroenteritis fell from 511 to 103; 20.2% of pre-lockdown rates. Attendances for appendicitis also decreased, from 144 to 41; 28.5% of pre-lockdown rates.ConclusionED attendances fell substantially following lockdown implementation. The biggest reduction was for under-18s. We observed reductions in attendances for gastroenteritis and appendicitis. This may reflect lower rates of infectious disease transmission, though the fall in appendicitis-related attendances suggests that behavioural factors are also important. Larger studies are urgently needed to understand changing patterns of ED use and access to emergency care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Horby PW, Landray MJ, 2021, Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial, The Lancet, Vol: 397, Pages: 1637-1645, ISSN: 0140-6736
BackgroundIn this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation.MethodsThis randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936).FindingsBetween April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ra
Ward H, Cooke GS, Atchison C, et al., 2021, Prevalence of antibody positivity to SARS-CoV-2 following the first peak of infection in England: Serial cross-sectional studies of 365,000 adults, The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, Vol: 4, Pages: 1-7, ISSN: 2666-7762
BackgroundThe time-concentrated nature of the first wave of the COVID-19 epidemic in England in March and April 2020 provides a natural experiment to measure changes in antibody positivity at the population level before onset of the second wave and initiation of the vaccination programme.MethodsThree cross-sectional national surveys with non-overlapping random samples of the population in England undertaken between late June and September 2020 (REACT-2 study). 365,104 adults completed questionnaires and self-administered lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) tests for IgG against SARS-CoV-2.FindingsOverall, 17,576 people had detectable antibodies, a prevalence of 4.9% (95% confidence intervals 4.9, 5.0) when adjusted for test characteristics and weighted to the adult population of England. The prevalence declined from 6.0% (5.8, 6.1), to 4.8% (4.7, 5.0) and 4.4% (4.3, 4.5), over the three rounds of the study a difference of -26.5% (-29.0, -23.8). The highest prevalence and smallest overall decline in positivity was in the youngest age group (18-24 years) at -14.9% (-21.6, -8.1), and lowest prevalence and largest decline in the oldest group (>74 years) at -39.0% (-50.8, -27.2). The decline from June to September 2020 was largest in those who did not report a history of COVID-19 at -64.0% (-75.6, -52.3), compared to -22.3% (-27.0, -17.7) in those with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed on PCR.InterpretationA large proportion of the population remained susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection in England based on naturally acquired immunity from the first wave. Widespread vaccination is needed to confer immunity and control the epidemic at population level.FundingThis work was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care in England.
Cooke GS, Pett S, McCabe L, et al., 2021, Strategic treatment optimization for HCV (STOPHCV1): a randomised controlled trial of ultrashort duration therapy for chronic hepatitis C, Wellcome Open Research, Vol: 6, Pages: 93-93
<ns3:p><ns3:bold>Background: </ns3:bold>The world health organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy.</ns3:p><ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Methods: </ns3:bold>A total of<ns3:bold> </ns3:bold>202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment.</ns3:p><ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Results: </ns3:bold>All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01).</ns3:p><ns3:p> <ns3:bold>Conclusions: </ns3:bold>Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced re
Joshi M, Archer S, Morbi A, et al., 2021, Short-term wearable sensors for in-hospital medical and surgical patients: mixed methods analysis of patient perspectives, JMIR Perioperative Medicine, Vol: 4, ISSN: 2561-9128
Background: Continuous vital sign monitoring using wearable sensors may enable early detection of patient deterioration and sepsis.Objective: This study aimed to explore patient experiences with wearable sensor technology and carry out continuous monitoring through questionnaire and interview studies in an acute hospital setting.Methods: Patients were recruited for a wearable sensor study and were asked to complete a 9-item questionnaire. Patients responses were evaluated using a Likert scale and with continuous variables. A subgroup of surgical patients wearing a Sensium Vital Sign Sensor was invited to participate in semistructured interviews. The Sensium wearable sensor measures the vital signs: heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature. All interview data were subjected to thematic analysis.Results: Out of a total of 500 patients, 453 (90.6%) completed the questionnaire. Furthermore, 427 (85.4%) patients agreed that the wearable sensor was comfortable, 429 (85.8%) patients agreed to wear the patch again when in hospital, and 398 (79.6%) patients agreed to wear the patch at home. Overall, 12 surgical patients consented to the interviews. Five main themes of interest to patients emerged from the interviews: (1) centralized monitoring, (2) enhanced feelings of patient safety, (3) impact on nursing staff, (4) comfort and usability, and (5) future use and views on technology.Conclusions: Overall, the feedback from patients using wearable monitoring sensors was strongly positive with relatively few concerns raised. Patients felt that the wearable sensors would improve their sense of safety, relieve pressure on health care staff, and serve as a favorable aspect of future health care technology.
Vergis N, Phillips R, Cornelius V, et al., 2021, Multi-arm Trial of Inflammatory Signal Inhibitors (MATIS) for hospitalised patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia: a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial, Trials, Vol: 22, ISSN: 1745-6215
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of MATIS is to determine the efficacy of ruxolitinib (RUX) or fostamatinib (FOS) compared to standard of care (SOC) with respect to reducing the proportion of hospitalised patients progressing from mild or moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Secondary objectives, at 14 and 28 days, are to: Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce mortality Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for invasive ventilation or ECMO Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for non-invasive ventilation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the proportion of participants suffering significant oxygen desaturation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce the need for renal replacement therapy Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the incidence of venous thromboembolism Determine the efficacy of RUX and FOS to reduce the severity of COVID-19 pneumonia [graded by a 9-point modified WHO Ordinal Scale* Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce systemic inflammation Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to the incidence of renal impairment Determine the efficacy of RUX or FOS to reduce duration of hospital stay Evaluate the safety of RUX and FOS for treatment of COVID-19 pneumonia. TRIAL DESIGN: A multi-arm, multi-stage (3-arm parallel-group, 2-stage) randomised controlled trial that allocates participants 1:1:1 and tests for superiority in experimental arms versus standard of care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients will be recruited while inpatients during hospitalisation for COVID-19 in multiple centres throughout the UK including Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. INCLUSION: Patients age ≥ 18 years at screening Patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 pneumonia, defined as Grade 3 or 4 severity by the WHO COVID-19 Ordinal Scale Patients meeting criteria: Hospitalization AND SARS-CoV2 infection (clinically suspected or laboratory confirmed) AND Radiological change consistent with COVID-19 disease C
This data is extracted from the Web of Science and reproduced under a licence from Thomson Reuters. You may not copy or re-distribute this data in whole or in part without the written consent of the Science business of Thomson Reuters.