Mass testing after a single suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 in London care homes, April-May 2020: implications for policy and practice.

INTRODUCTION: Previous investigations have identified high rates of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among residents and staff in care homes reporting an outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We investigated care homes reporting a single suspected or confirmed case to assess whether early mass testing might reduce risk of transmission during the peak of the pandemic in London. METHODS: Between 18 and 27 April 2020, residents and staff in care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19 to Public Health England had a nasal swab to test for SARS-CoV-2 infection by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction and subsequent whole-genome sequencing. Residents and staff in two care homes were re-tested 8 days later. RESULTS: Four care homes were investigated. SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 20% (65/333) overall, ranging between 3 and 59%. Among residents, positivity ranged between 3 and 76% compared with 3 and 40% in staff. Half of the SARS-CoV-2-positive residents (23/46, 50%) and 63% of staff (12/19) reported symptoms within 14 days before or after testing. Repeat testing 8 days later in two care homes with the highest infection rates identified only two new cases. Genomic analysis demonstrated a small number of introduction of the virus into care homes, and distinct clusters within three of the care homes. CONCLUSIONS: We found extensive but variable rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff in care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19. Although routine whole-home testing has now been adopted into practice, care homes must remain vigilant and should be encouraged to report a single suspected case, which should trigger appropriate outbreak control measures.

Cross sectional investigation of a COVID-19 outbreak at a London Army barracks: Neutralising antibodies and virus isolation.

BACKGROUND: Military personnel in enclosed societies are at increased risk of respiratory infections. We investigated an outbreak of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in a London Army barracks early in the pandemic. METHODS: Army personnel, their families and civilians had nasal and throat swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse transcriptase -polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), virus isolation and whole genome sequencing, along with blood samples for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All tests were repeated 36 days later. FINDINGS: During the first visit, 304 (254 Army personnel, 10 family members, 36 civilians, 4 not stated) participated and 24/304 (8%) were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive. Infectious virus was isolated from 7/24 (29%). Of the 285 who provided a blood sample, 7% (19/285) were antibody positive and 63% (12/19) had neutralising antibodies. Twenty-two (22/34, 64%) individuals with laboratory-confirmed infection were asymptomatic. Nine SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive participants were also antibody positive but those who had neutralising antibodies did not have infectious virus. At the second visit, no new infections were detected, and 13% (25/193) were seropositive, including 52% (13/25) with neutralising antibodies. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity included contact with a confirmed case (RR 25.2; 95% CI 14-45), being female (RR 2.5; 95% CI 1.0-6.0) and two-person shared bathroom (RR 2.6; 95% CI 1.1-6.4). INTERPRETATION: We identified high rates of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public Health control measures can mitigate spread but virus re-introduction from asymptomatic individuals remains a risk. Most seropositive individuals had neutralising antibodies and infectious virus was not recovered from anyone with neutralising antibodies. FUNDING: PHE.

Infection and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in London care homes reporting no cases or outbreaks of COVID-19: Prospective observational cohort study, England 2020.

BACKGROUND: Care homes have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the potential role of asymptomatic infection and silent transmission in London care homes that reported no cases of COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Five care homes with no cases and two care homes reporting a single case of COVID-19 (non-outbreak homes) were investigated with nasal swabbing for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and serology for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies five weeks later. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on RT-PCR positive samples. Serology results were compared with those of six care homes with recognised outbreaks. FINDINGS: Across seven non-outbreak homes, 718 (387 staff, 331 residents) individuals had a nasal swab and 651 (386 staff, 265 residents) had follow-up serology. Sixteen individuals (13 residents, 3 staff) in five care homes with no reported cases were RT-PCR positive (care home positivity rates, 0 to 7.6%) compared to 13 individuals (3.0 and 10.8% positivity) in two homes reporting a single case.Seropositivity across these seven homes varied between 10.7-56.5%, with four exceeding community seroprevalence in London (14.8%). Seropositivity rates for staff and residents correlated significantly (rs 0.84, [95% CI 0.51-0.95] p <0.001) across the 13 homes. WGS identified multiple introductions into some homes and silent transmission of a single lineage between staff and residents in one home. INTERPRETATION: We found high rates of asymptomatic infection and transmission even in care homes with no COVID-19 cases. The higher seropositivity rates compared to RT-PCR positivity highlights the true extent of the silent outbreak. FUNDING: PHE.

Enhanced recovery following hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of cost-effectiveness evidence.

OBJECTIVES: To assess cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways following total hip and knee arthroplasties. Secondary objectives were to report on quality of studies and identify research gaps for future work. DESIGN: Systematic review of cost-utility analyses. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database and EconLit, January 2000 to August 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English-language peer-reviewed cost-utility analyses of enhanced recovery pathways, or components of one, compared with usual care, in patients having total hip or knee arthroplasties for osteoarthritis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extracted by three reviewers with disagreements resolved by a fourth. Study quality assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria list, the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and Assessment of the Validation Status of Health-Economic decision models tools; for trial-based studies the Cochrane Collaboration's tool to assess risk of bias. No quantitative synthesis was undertaken. RESULTS: We identified 17 studies: five trial-based and 12 model-based studies. Two analyses evaluated entire enhanced recovery pathways and reported them to be cost-effective compared with usual care. Ten pathway components were more effective and cost-saving compared with usual care, three were cost-effective, and two were not cost-effective. We had concerns around risk of bias for all included studies, particularly regarding the short time horizon of the trials and lack of reporting of model validation. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent results supported enhanced recovery pathways as a whole, prophylactic systemic antibiotics, antibiotic-impregnated cement and conventional ventilation for infection prevention. No other interventions were subject of more than one study. We found ample scope for future cost-effectiveness studies, particularly analyses of entire recovery pathways and comparison of incremental changes within pathways. A key limitation is that standard practices have changed over the period covered by the included studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017059473.

Increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff working across different care homes: enhanced CoVID-19 outbreak investigations in London care Homes.

BACKGROUND: Care homes have been disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to suffer large outbreaks even when community infection rates are declining, thus representing important pockets of transmission. We assessed occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among staff in six care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak during the peak of the pandemic in London, England. METHODS: Care home staff were tested for SARS-COV-2 infection by RT-PCR and asked to report any symptoms, their contact with residents and if they worked in different care homes. Whole genome sequencing (WGS) was performed on RT-PCR positive samples. RESULTS: In total, 53 (21%) of 254 staff were SARS-CoV-2 positive but only 12/53 (23%) were symptomatic. Among staff working in a single care home, SARS-CoV-2 positivity was 15% (2/13), 16% (7/45) and 18% (30/169) in those reporting no, occasional and regular contact with residents. In contrast, staff working across different care homes (14/27, 52%) had a 3.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-4.8; P<0.001) higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 positivity than staff working in single care homes (39/227, 17%). WGS identified SARS-CoV-2 clusters involving staff only, including some that included staff working across different care homes. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 positivity was significantly higher among staff working across different care homes than those who were working in the same care home. We found local clusters of SARS-CoV-2 infection between staff only, including those with minimal resident contact. Infection control should be extended for all contact, including those between staff, whilst on care home premises.

Investigation of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks in six care homes in London, April 2020.

BACKGROUND: Care homes are experiencing large outbreaks of COVID-19 associated with high case-fatality rates. We conducted detailed investigations in six London care homes reporting suspected COVID-19 outbreaks during April 2020. METHODS: Residents and staff had nasal swabs for SARS CoV-2 testing using RT-PCR and were followed-up for 14 days. They were categorized as symptomatic, post-symptomatic or pre-symptomatic if they had symptoms at the time of testing, in the two weeks before or two weeks after testing, respectively, or asymptomatic throughout. Virus isolation and whole genome sequencing (WGS) was also performed. FINDINGS: Across the six care homes, 105/264 (39.8%) residents were SARS CoV-2 positive, including 28 (26.7%) symptomatic, 10 (9.5%) post-symptomatic, 21 (20.0%) pre-symptomatic and 46 (43.8%) who remained asymptomatic. Case-fatality at 14-day follow-up was highest among symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive residents (10/28, 35.7%) compared to asymptomatic (2/46, 4.3%), post-symptomatic (2/10, 20.0%) or pre-symptomatic (3/21,14.3%) residents. Among staff, 53/254 (20.9%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive and 26/53 (49.1%) remained asymptomatic. RT-PCR cycle-thresholds and live-virus recovery were similar between symptomatic/asymptomatic residents/staff. Higher RT-PCR cycle threshold values (lower virus load) samples were associated with exponentially decreasing ability to recover infectious virus (P<0.001). WGS identified multiple (up to 9) separate introductions of different SARS-CoV-2 strains into individual care homes. INTERPRETATION: A high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 positivity was found in care homes residents and staff, half of whom were asymptomatic and potential reservoirs for on-going transmission. A third of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 residents died within 14 days. Symptom-based screening alone is not sufficient for outbreak control. FUNDING: None.

High prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in care homes affected by COVID-19: Prospective cohort study, England.

BACKGROUND: We investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff. Here we report follow-up investigations including antibody testing in the same care homes five weeks later. METHODS: Residents and staff in the initial investigation had a repeat nasal swab for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR and a blood test for SARS CoV-2 antibodies using ELISA based on SARS-CoV-2 native viral antigens derived from infected cells and virus neutralisation. FINDINGS: Of the 518 residents and staff in the initial investigation, 186/241 (77.2%) surviving residents and 208/254 (81.9%) staff underwent serological testing. Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were seropositive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.5%). Symptomatic but SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative residents and staff also had high seropositivity rates (residents 23/27, 85.2%; staff 18/21, 85.7%), as did asymptomatic RT-PCR negative individuals (residents 61/91, 67.0%; staff 95/143, 66.4%). Neutralising antibody was detected in 118/132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms. Ten residents (10/79 re-tested, 12.7%) remained RT-PCR positive but with higher RT-PCR cycle threshold values; 7/10 had serological testing and all were seropositive. New infections were detected in three residents and one staff. INTERPRETATION: RT-PCR provides a point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection but significantly underestimates total exposure in outbreak settings. In care homes experiencing large COVID-19 outbreaks, most residents and staff had neutralising SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, which was not associated with age or symptoms. FUNDING: PHE.

Cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hip and knee replacement represents a significant burden to the UK healthcare system. 'Enhanced recovery' pathways have been introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) for patients undergoing hip and knee replacement, with the aim of improving outcomes and timely recovery after surgery. To support policymaking, there is a need to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery pathways across jurisdictions. Our aim is to systematically summarise the published cost-effectiveness evidence on enhanced recovery in hip and knee replacement, both as a whole and for each of the various components of enhanced recovery pathways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Econlit and the National Health Service Economic Evaluations Database. Separate search strategies were developed for each database including terms relating to hip and knee replacement/arthroplasty, economic evaluations, decision modelling and quality of life measures.We will extract peer-reviewed studies published between 2000 and 2017 reporting economic evaluations of preoperative, perioperative or postoperative enhanced recovery interventions within hip or knee replacement. Economic evaluations alongside cohort studies or based on decision models will be included. Only studies with patients undergoing elective replacement surgery of the hip or knee will be included. Data will be extracted using a predefined pro forma following best practice guidelines for economic evaluation, decision modelling and model validation.Our primary outcome will be the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery (entire pathway and individual components) in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year. A narrative synthesis of all studies will be presented, focussing on cost-effectiveness results, study design, quality and validation status. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review is exempted from ethics approval because the work is carried out on published documents. The results of the review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed academic journal and at conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017059473.