Assessing the impact of discordant antibiotic treatment on adverse outcomes in community-onset UTI: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the risk of adverse outcomes following discordant antibiotic treatment (urinary organism resistant) for culture-confirmed community-onset lower urinary tract infection (UTI). METHODS: Cohort study using routinely collected linked primary care, secondary care and microbiology data from patients with culture-confirmed community-onset lower UTI (COLUTI). Antibiotic treatment within ±3 days was considered concordant if the urinary organism was sensitive and discordant if resistant.The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing urinary infection-related hospital admission (UHA) within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing reconsultation within 30 days, and the odds of UHA and reconsultation following discordant treatment, adjusting for sex, age, risk factors for complicated UTI, previous antibiotic treatment, recurrent UTI and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 11 963 UTI episodes in 8324 patients were included, and 1686 episodes (14.1%, 95% CI 13.5%-14.7%) were discordant. UHA occurred in 212/10 277 concordant episodes (2.1%, 95% CI 1.8%-2.4%) and 88/1686 discordant episodes (5.2%, 95% CI 4.2%-6.4%). Reconsultation occurred in 3961 concordant (38.5%, 95% CI 37.6%-39.5%) and 1472 discordant episodes (87.3%, 95% CI 85.6%-88.8%). Discordant treatment compared with concordant was associated with increased odds of UHA (adjusted OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.77-3.0, P < 0.001) and reconsultation (adjusted OR 11.25, 95% CI 9.66-13.11, P < 0.001) on multivariable analysis. Chronic kidney disease and diabetes mellitus were also independently associated with increased odds of UHA. CONCLUSIONS: One in seven COLUTI episodes in primary care were treated with discordant antibiotics. In higher risk patients requiring urine culture, empirical antibiotic choice optimization could meaningfully reduce adverse outcomes.

Inequalities in access to paid sick leave among workers in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: It is poorly understood which workers lack access to sick pay in England and Wales. This evidence gap has been of particular interest in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic given the relationship between presenteeism and infectious disease transmission. METHOD: This cross-sectional analysis (n = 8874) was nested within a large community cohort study based across England and Wales (Virus Watch). An online survey in February 2021 asked participants in work if they had access to paid sick leave. We used logistic regression to examine sociodemographic factors associated with lacking access to sick pay. RESULTS: Only 66% (n = 5864) of participants reported access to sick pay. South Asian workers (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.83) and those from Other minority ethnic backgrounds (OR 2.93, 95% CI 1.54-5.59) were more likely to lack access to sick pay compared to White British workers. Older workers (OR range 1.72 [1.53-1.93]-5.26 [4.42-6.26]), workers in low-income households (OR 2.53, 95% CI 2.15-2.98) and those in transport, trade, and service occupations (OR range 2.03 [1.58-2.61]-5.29 [3.67-7.72]) were also more likely to lack access to sick pay compared respectively to workers aged 25-44, those in high income households and managerial occupations. DISCUSSION: Unwarranted age and ethnic inequalities in sick pay access are suggestive of labour market discrimination. Occupational differences are also cause for concern. Policymakers should consider expanding access to sick pay to mitigate transmission of Covid-19 and other endemic respiratory infections in the community, and in the context of pandemic preparation.

Occupation, work-related contact and SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid serological status: findings from the Virus Watch prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection varies across occupations; however, investigation into factors underlying differential risk is limited. We aimed to estimate the total effect of occupation on SARS-CoV-2 serological status, whether this is mediated by workplace close contact, and how exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces varied across occupations. METHODS: We used data from a subcohort (n=3775) of adults in the UK-based Virus Watch cohort study who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies (indicating natural infection). We used logistic decomposition to investigate the relationship between occupation, contact and seropositivity, and logistic regression to investigate exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces. RESULTS: Seropositivity was 17.1% among workers with daily close contact vs 10.0% for those with no work-related close contact. Compared with other professional occupations, healthcare, indoor trade/process/plant, leisure/personal service, and transport/mobile machine workers had elevated adjusted total odds of seropositivity (1.80 (1.03 to 3.14) - 2.46 (1.82 to 3.33)). Work-related contact accounted for a variable part of increased odds across occupations (1.04 (1.01 to 1.08) - 1.23 (1.09 to 1.40)). Occupations with raised odds of infection after accounting for work-related contact also had greater exposure to poorly ventilated workplaces. CONCLUSIONS: Work-related close contact appears to contribute to occupational variation in seropositivity. Reducing contact in workplaces is an important COVID-19 control measure.

Opportunities to reduce antibiotic prescribing for patients with COPD in primary care: a cohort study using electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

BACKGROUND: In primary care there is uncertainty about which patients with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) benefit from antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: To identify which types of COPD patients get the most antibiotics in primary care to support targeted antibiotic stewardship. METHODS: Observational study of COPD patients using a large English primary care database with 12 month follow-up. We estimated the incidence of and risk factors for antibiotic prescribing relative to the number of AECOPD during follow-up, considering COPD severity, smoking, obesity and comorbidity. RESULTS: From 157 practices, 19594 patients were diagnosed with COPD, representing 2.6% of patients and 11.5% of all prescribed antibiotics. Eight hundred and thirty-three (4.5%) patients with severe COPD and frequent AECOPD were prescribed six to nine prescriptions per year and accounted for 13.0% of antibiotics. Individuals with mild to moderate COPD and zero or one AECOPD received one to three prescriptions per year but accounted for 42.5% of all prescriptions. In addition to COPD severity, asthma, chronic heart disease, diabetes, heart failure and influenza vaccination were independently associated with increased antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe COPD have the highest rates of antibiotic prescribing but most antibiotics are prescribed for patients with mild to moderate COPD. Antibiotic stewardship should focus on the dual goals of safely reducing the volume of prescribing in patients with mild to moderate COPD, and optimizing prescribing in patients with severe disease who are at significant risk of drug resistance.

Carriage, Clinical Microbiology and Transmission of Staphylococcus aureus.

Staphylococcus aureus is one of the most important bacterial pathogens in clinical practice and a major diagnostic focus for the routine microbiology laboratory. It is carried as a harmless commensal in up to two-thirds of the population at any one time predominantly not only in the anterior nares, but also in multiple other sites such as the groin, axilla, throat, perineum, vagina and rectum. It colonizes skin breach sites, such as ulcers and wounds, and causes superficial and deep skin and soft tissue infections and life-threatening deep seated infections particularly endocarditis and osteomyelitis. S. aureus is constantly evolving through mutation and uptake of mobile genetic elements that confer increasing resistance and virulence. Since the 1960s, hospitals have had to contend with emergence of methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) strains that spread better in hospitals than methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) and are harder to treat. Since the 1980s, distinct community MRSA strains have also emerged that cause severe skin and respiratory infections. Conventional identification of MSSA and MRSA in the microbiology laboratory involves microscopy, culture and biochemical analysis that for most samples is straightforward but slow, taking at least 48 h. This delay has significant consequences for individual patient care and public health, through inadequate or excessive empiric antibiotic use, and failure to implement appropriate infection control measures for MRSA-colonized patients during those first 48 h. This unmet need has driven development of rapid molecular diagnostics that either complement or replace conventional culture techniques in the laboratory, or can be placed in the clinical environment as point-of-care (POC) devices. These new technologies provide results to clinicians anything from within an hour to 24 h, depending on sample and clinical setting, and should transform management of patients with S. aureus and other bacterial diseases; however, uptake is often slow due to the disruptive effect of new technologies, costs of transition and uncertainty of the optimal solution given successive advances. More evidence of the health economic, clinical and antimicrobial resistance benefit will help support introduction of these new technologies. Finally, preventing MRSA transmission has been a priority for healthcare organizations for many years. There have been significant recent reductions in transmission following local and national campaigns to re-enforce basic and heightened infection control interventions such as universal hand hygiene, barrier nursing, decolonization and isolation of MRSA-colonized patients detected through routine culture or screening policies. Developments in whole genome sequencing are providing greater insight into reservoirs and routes of transmission that should help better target interventions to ensure sustainable control of endemic strains and to identify and prevent emergence of new strains.

Evidence for Community Transmission of Community-Associated but Not Health-Care-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus Strains Linked to Social and Material Deprivation: Spatial Analysis of Cross-sectional Data.

BACKGROUND: Identifying and tackling the social determinants of infectious diseases has become a public health priority following the recognition that individuals with lower socioeconomic status are disproportionately affected by infectious diseases. In many parts of the world, epidemiologically and genotypically defined community-associated (CA) methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strains have emerged to become frequent causes of hospital infection. The aim of this study was to use spatial models with adjustment for area-level hospital attendance to determine the transmission niche of genotypically defined CA- and health-care-associated (HA)-MRSA strains across a diverse region of South East London and to explore a potential link between MRSA carriage and markers of social and material deprivation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study involved spatial analysis of cross-sectional data linked with all MRSA isolates identified by three National Health Service (NHS) microbiology laboratories between 1 November 2011 and 29 February 2012. The cohort of hospital-based NHS microbiology diagnostic services serves 867,254 usual residents in the Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham boroughs in South East London, United Kingdom (UK). Isolates were classified as HA- or CA-MRSA based on whole genome sequencing. All MRSA cases identified over 4 mo within the three-borough catchment area (n = 471) were mapped to small geographies and linked to area-level aggregated socioeconomic and demographic data. Disease mapping and ecological regression models were used to infer the most likely transmission niches for each MRSA genetic classification and to describe the spatial epidemiology of MRSA in relation to social determinants. Specifically, we aimed to identify demographic and socioeconomic population traits that explain cross-area extra variation in HA- and CA-MRSA relative risks following adjustment for hospital attendance data. We explored the potential for associations with the English Indices of Deprivation 2010 (including the Index of Multiple Deprivation and several deprivation domains and subdomains) and the 2011 England and Wales census demographic and socioeconomic indicators (including numbers of households by deprivation dimension) and indicators of population health. Both CA-and HA-MRSA were associated with household deprivation (CA-MRSA relative risk [RR]: 1.72 [1.03-2.94]; HA-MRSA RR: 1.57 [1.06-2.33]), which was correlated with hospital attendance (Pearson correlation coefficient [PCC] = 0.76). HA-MRSA was also associated with poor health (RR: 1.10 [1.01-1.19]) and residence in communal care homes (RR: 1.24 [1.12-1.37]), whereas CA-MRSA was linked with household overcrowding (RR: 1.58 [1.04-2.41]) and wider barriers, which represent a combined score for household overcrowding, low income, and homelessness (RR: 1.76 [1.16-2.70]). CA-MRSA was also associated with recent immigration to the UK (RR: 1.77 [1.19-2.66]). For the area-level variation in RR for CA-MRSA, 28.67% was attributable to the spatial arrangement of target geographies, compared with only 0.09% for HA-MRSA. An advantage to our study is that it provided a representative sample of usual residents receiving care in the catchment areas. A limitation is that relationships apparent in aggregated data analyses cannot be assumed to operate at the individual level. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of community transmission of HA-MRSA strains, implying that HA-MRSA cases identified in the community originate from the hospital reservoir and are maintained by frequent attendance at health care facilities. In contrast, there was a high risk of CA-MRSA in deprived areas linked with overcrowding, homelessness, low income, and recent immigration to the UK, which was not explainable by health care exposure. Furthermore, areas adjacent to these deprived areas were themselves at greater risk of CA-MRSA, indicating community transmission of CA-MRSA. This ongoing community transmission could lead to CA-MRSA becoming the dominant strain types carried by patients admitted to hospital, particularly if successful hospital-based MRSA infection control programmes are maintained. These results suggest that community infection control programmes targeting transmission of CA-MRSA will be required to control MRSA in both the community and hospital. These epidemiological changes will also have implications for effectiveness of risk-factor-based hospital admission MRSA screening programmes.

Clonal variation in high- and low-level phenotypic and genotypic mupirocin resistance of MRSA isolates in south-east London.

OBJECTIVES: Both low-level mupirocin resistance (LMR) and high-level mupirocin resistance (HMR) have been identified. The aim of this study was to determine the epidemiology of LMR and HMR in MRSA isolates at five hospitals that have used mupirocin for targeted decolonization as part of successful institutional control programmes. METHODS: All MRSA identified in three microbiology laboratories serving five central and south-east London hospitals and surrounding communities between November 2011 and February 2012 were included. HMR and LMR were determined by disc diffusion testing. WGS was used to derive multilocus sequence types (MLSTs) and the presence of HMR and LMR resistance determinants. RESULTS: Prevalence of either HMR or LMR amongst first healthcare episode isolates from 795 identified patients was 9.69% (95% CI 7.72-11.96); LMR was 6.29% (95% CI 4.70-8.21) and HMR was 3.40% (95% CI 2.25-4.90). Mupirocin resistance was not significantly different in isolates identified from inpatients at each microbiology laboratory, but was more common in genotypically defined 'hospital' rather than 'community' isolates (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.36-9.30, P = 0.002). LMR was associated with inpatient stay, previous history of MRSA and age ≥65 years; HMR was associated with age ≥65 years and residential postcode outside London. LMR and HMR varied by clone, with both being low in the dominant UK MRSA clone ST22 compared with ST8, ST36 and ST239/241 for LMR and with ST8 and ST36 for HMR. V588F mutation and mupA carriage had high specificity (>97%) and area under the curve (>83%) to discriminate phenotypic mupirocin resistance, but uncertainty around the sensitivity point estimate was large (95% CI 52.50%-94.44%). Mutations in or near the mupA gene were found in eight isolates that carried mupA but were not HMR. CONCLUSIONS: Mupirocin resistance was identified in <10% of patients and varied significantly by clone, implying that changes in clonal epidemiology may have an important role in determining the prevalence of resistance in conjunction with selection due to mupirocin use.

Antimicrobial stewardship - can we afford to do without it?

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a rapidly developing and alarming global threat which has been highlighted by national governments and public health bodies including the World Health Organization. The spectre of a 'post-antibiotic era' is a real possibility unless curtailing the development and spread of these organisms is given high priority. Numerous studies have shown that AMR is associated with worse outcomes for patients and higher healthcare costs. While clinical data from low and middle income countries is lacking, there is increasing evidence that the problem in these areas is as great, or even greater, than in high income nations. Of the many drivers behind the development of AMR, the most significant is selection pressure caused by antibiotic use. Antimicrobial stewardship programmes are a set of interventions that aim to ensure the judicious use of antimicrobials by preventing their unnecessary use, and by providing targeted and limited therapy in situations where they are warranted. The ultimate goal of these programmes is to provide effective antimicrobial therapy whilst safeguarding their effectiveness for future generations. Whilst they do require an initial investment, they have been shown to be an effective way of controlling antimicrobial use, and have been associated with improved patient outcomes and reduced healthcare costs.

Eyeglasses and risk of COVID-19 transmission-analysis of the Virus Watch Community Cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The importance of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via the eyes is unknown, with previous studies mainly focusing on protective eyewear in healthcare settings. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that wearing eyeglasses is associated with a lower risk of COVID-19. METHODS: Participants from the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study responded to a questionnaire on the use of eyeglasses and contact lenses. Infection was confirmed through data linkage, self-reported positive results, and, for a subgroup, monthly capillary antibody testing. Multivariable logistic regression models, controlling for age, sex, income, and occupation, were used to identify the odds of infection depending on frequency and purpose of eyeglasses or contact lenses use. RESULTS: A total of 19,166 participants responded to the questionnaire, with 13,681 (71.3%, CI 70.7-72.0) reporting they wore eyeglasses. Multivariable logistic regression model showed a 15% lower odds of infection for those who reported using eyeglasses always for general use (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% 0.77-0.95, P = 0.002) compared to those who never wore eyeglasses. The protective effect was reduced for those who said wearing eyeglasses interfered with mask-wearing and was absent for contact lens wearers. CONCLUSIONS: People who wear eyeglasses have a moderate reduction in risk of COVID-19 infection, highlighting that eye protection may make a valuable contribution to the reduction of transmission in community and healthcare settings.

Hospital admission after primary care consultation for community-onset lower urinary tract infection: a cohort study of risks and predictors using linked data.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common indication for antibiotic prescriptions, reductions in which would reduce antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Risk stratification of patients allows reductions to be made safely. AIM: To identify risk factors for hospital admission following UTI, to inform targeted antibiotic stewardship. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study of East London primary care patients. METHOD: Hospital admission outcomes following primary care consultation for UTI were analysed using linked data from primary care, secondary care, and microbiology, from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017. The outcomes analysed were urinary infection-related hospital admission (UHA) and all-cause hospital admission (AHA) within 30 days of UTI in primary care. Odds ratios between specific variables (demographic characteristics, prior antibiotic exposure, and comorbidities) and the outcomes were predicted using generalised estimating equations, and fitted to a final multivariable model including all variables with a P-value <0.1 on univariable analysis. RESULTS: Of the 169 524 episodes of UTI, UHA occurred in 1336 cases (0.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.7 to 0.8) and AHA in 6516 cases (3.8%, 95% CI = 3.8 to 3.9). On multivariable analysis, increased odds of UHA were seen in patients aged 55-74 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.49) and ≥75 years (AOR 3.24), relative to adults aged 16-34 years. Increased odds of UHA were also associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD; AOR 1.55), urinary catheters (AOR 2.01), prior antibiotics (AOR 1.38 for ≥3 courses), recurrent UTI (AOR 1.33), faecal incontinence (FI; AOR 1.47), and diabetes mellitus (DM; AOR 1.37). CONCLUSION: Urinary infection-related hospital admission after primary care consultation for community-onset lower UTI was rare; however, increased odds for UHA were observed for some patient groups. Efforts to reduce antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTI should focus on patients aged <55 years without risk factors for complicated UTI, recurrent UTI, DM, or FI.

Tracking Changes in Mobility Before and After the First SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination Using Global Positioning System Data in England and Wales (Virus Watch): Prospective Observational Community Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that individuals may change adherence to public health policies aimed at reducing the contact, transmission, and spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus after they receive their first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination when they are not fully vaccinated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate changes in median daily travel distance of our cohort from their registered addresses before and after receiving a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. METHODS: Participants were recruited into Virus Watch starting in June 2020. Weekly surveys were sent out to participants, and vaccination status was collected from January 2021 onward. Between September 2020 and February 2021, we invited 13,120 adult Virus Watch participants to contribute toward our tracker subcohort, which uses the GPS via a smartphone app to collect data on movement. We used segmented linear regression to estimate the median daily travel distance before and after the first self-reported SARS-CoV-2 vaccine dose. RESULTS: We analyzed the daily travel distance of 249 vaccinated adults. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the day before vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 9.05 (IQR 8.06-10.09) km. From the day of vaccination to 105 days after vaccination, the median daily travel distance was 10.08 (IQR 8.60-12.42) km. From 157 days prior to vaccination until the vaccination date, there was a daily median decrease in mobility of 40.09 m (95% CI -50.08 to -31.10; P<.001). After vaccination, there was a median daily increase in movement of 60.60 m (95% CI 20.90-100; P<.001). Restricting the analysis to the third national lockdown (January 4, 2021, to April 5, 2021), we found a median daily movement increase of 18.30 m (95% CI -19.20 to 55.80; P=.57) in the 30 days prior to vaccination and a median daily movement increase of 9.36 m (95% CI 38.6-149.00; P=.69) in the 30 days after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the feasibility of collecting high-volume geolocation data as part of research projects and the utility of these data for understanding public health issues. Our various analyses produced results that ranged from no change in movement after vaccination (during the third national lock down) to an increase in movement after vaccination (considering all periods, up to 105 days after vaccination), suggesting that, among Virus Watch participants, any changes in movement distances after vaccination are small. Our findings may be attributable to public health measures in place at the time such as movement restrictions and home working that applied to the Virus Watch cohort participants during the study period.

Deprivation and exposure to public activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: Differential exposure to public activities may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch-a large community cohort study based in England and Wales-reported differential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the autumn-winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation. METHODS: Participants (n=20 120-25 228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during 3 weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020 and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants' residential postcode using English or Welsh Index of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed-effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period. RESULTS: Relative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (adjusted risk ratio (aRR) range across time points: 1.73-8.52), public transport (aRR: 3.13-5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR: 1.09-1.21), essential shops (aRR: 1.09-1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR: 1.15-1.19) across multiple survey periods. CONCLUSION: Differential exposure to essential public activities-such as attending workplaces and visiting essential shops-is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities.

Spike-antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination by demographic and clinical factors in a prospective community cohort study.

Vaccination constitutes the best long-term solution against Coronavirus Disease-2019; however, vaccine-derived immunity may not protect all groups equally, and the durability of protective antibodies may be short. We evaluate Spike-antibody responses following BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1-S vaccination amongst SARS-CoV2-naive adults across England and Wales enrolled in a prospective cohort study (Virus Watch). Here we show BNT162b2 recipients achieved higher peak antibody levels after two doses; however, both groups experience substantial antibody waning over time. In 8356 individuals submitting a sample ≥28 days after Dose 2, we observe significantly reduced Spike-antibody levels following two doses amongst individuals reporting conditions and therapies that cause immunosuppression. After adjusting for these, several common chronic conditions also appear to attenuate the antibody response. These findings suggest the need to continue prioritising vulnerable groups, who have been vaccinated earliest and have the most attenuated antibody responses, for future boosters.

Nucleocapsid and spike antibody responses following virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection: an observational analysis in the Virus Watch community cohort.

OBJECTIVES: Seroprevalence studies can provide a measure of SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but a better understanding of spike and nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibody dynamics following infection is needed to assess the longevity of detectability. METHODS: Adults aged ≥18 years, from households enrolled in the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales, provided monthly capillary blood samples, which were tested for spike antibody and anti-N. Participants self-reported vaccination dates and past medical history. Previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) swabs were obtained through Second Generation Surveillance System linkage data. The primary outcome variables were seropositivity and total anti-N and spike antibody levels after PCR-confirmed infection. RESULTS: A total of 13,802 eligible individuals provided 58,770 capillary blood samples. A total of 537 of these had a previous positive PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 0-269 days of antibody sample date, among them 432 (80.45%) having a positive anti-N result. Median anti-N levels peaked between days 90 and 119 after PCR results and then began to decline. There is evidence of anti-N waning from 120 days onwards, with earlier waning for females and younger age categories. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that anti-N has around 80% sensitivity for identifying previous COVID-19 infection, and the duration of detectability is affected by sex and age.

Symptom profiles and accuracy of clinical case definitions for COVID-19 in a community cohort: results from the Virus Watch study.

Background: Understanding symptomatology and accuracy of clinical case definitions for community COVID-19 cases is important for Test, Trace and Isolate (TTI) and future targeting of early antiviral treatment.   Methods: Community cohort participants prospectively recorded daily symptoms and swab results (mainly undertaken through the UK TTI system).  We compared symptom frequency, severity, timing, and duration in test positive and negative illnesses.  We compared the test performance of the current UK TTI case definition (cough, high temperature, or loss of or altered sense of smell or taste) with a wider definition adding muscle aches, chills, headache, or loss of appetite.     Results: Among 9706 swabbed illnesses, including 973 SARS-CoV-2 positives, symptoms were more common, severe and longer lasting in swab positive than negative illnesses.  Cough, headache, fatigue, and muscle aches were the most common symptoms in positive illnesses but also common in negative illnesses. Conversely, high temperature, loss or altered sense of smell or taste and loss of appetite were less frequent in positive illnesses, but comparatively even less frequent in negative illnesses.  The current UK definition had 81% sensitivity and 47% specificity versus 93% and 27% respectively for the broader definition. 1.7-fold more illnesses met the broader case definition than the current definition.  Conclusions: Symptoms alone cannot reliably distinguish COVID-19 from other respiratory illnesses. Adding additional symptoms to case definitions could identify more infections, but with a large increase in the number needing testing and the number of unwell individuals and contacts self-isolating whilst awaiting results.

Trends, patterns and psychological influences on COVID-19 vaccination intention: Findings from a large prospective community cohort study in England and Wales (Virus Watch).

BACKGROUND: Vaccination intention is key to the success of any vaccination programme, alongside vaccine availability and access. Public intention to take a COVID-19 vaccine is high in England and Wales compared to other countries, but vaccination rate disparities between ethnic, social and age groups has led to concern. METHODS: Online survey of prospective household community cohort study participants across England and Wales (Virus Watch). Vaccination intention was measured by individual participant responses to 'Would you accept a COVID-19 vaccine if offered?', collected in December 2020 and February 2021. Responses to a 13-item questionnaire collected in January 2021 were analysed using factor analysis to investigate psychological influences on vaccination intention. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 56% (20,785/36,998) in December 2020 and 53% (20,590/38,727) in February 2021, with 14,880 adults reporting across both time points. In December 2020, 1,469 (10%) participants responded 'No' or 'Unsure'. Of these people, 1,266 (86%) changed their mind and responded 'Yes' or 'Already had a COVID-19 vaccine' by February 2021. Vaccination intention increased across all ethnic groups and levels of social deprivation. Age was most strongly associated with vaccination intention, with 16-24-year-olds more likely to respond "Unsure" or "No" versus "Yes" than 65-74-year-olds in December 2020 (OR: 4.63, 95 %CI: 3.42, 6.27 & OR 7.17 95 %CI: 4.26, 12.07 respectively) and February 2021 (OR: 27.92 95 %CI: 13.79, 56.51 & OR 17.16 95 %CI: 4.12, 71.55). The association between ethnicity and vaccination intention weakened, but did not disappear, over time. Both vaccine- and illness-related psychological factors were shown to influence vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: Four in five adults (86%) who were reluctant or intending to refuse a COVID-19 vaccine in December 2020 had changed their mind in February 2021 and planned to accept, or had already accepted, a vaccine.

Household overcrowding and risk of SARS-CoV-2: analysis of the Virus Watch prospective community cohort study in England and Wales.

Background: Household overcrowding is associated with increased risk of infectious diseases across contexts and countries. Limited data exist linking household overcrowding and risk of COVID-19. We used data collected from the Virus Watch cohort to examine the association between overcrowded households and SARS-CoV-2. Methods: The Virus Watch study is a household community cohort of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales. We calculated overcrowding using the measure of persons per room for each household. We considered two primary outcomes: PCR-confirmed positive SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models that accounted for household structure to estimate the association between household overcrowding and SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results:26,367 participants were included in our analyses. The proportion of participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result was highest in the overcrowded group (9.0%; 99/1,100) and lowest in the under-occupied group (4.2%; 980/23,196). In a mixed-effects logistic regression model, we found strong evidence of an increased odds of a positive PCR SARS-CoV-2 antigen result (odds ratio 2.45; 95% CI:1.43-4.19; p-value=0.001) and increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody result in individuals living in overcrowded houses (3.32; 95% CI:1.54-7.15; p-value<0.001) compared with people living in under-occupied houses. Conclusion:Public health interventions to prevent and stop the spread of SARS-CoV-2 should consider the risk of infection for people living in overcrowded households and pay greater attention to reducing household transmission.

Risk factors, symptom reporting, healthcare-seeking behaviour and adherence to public health guidance: protocol for Virus Watch, a prospective community cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant global mortality and impacted lives around the world. Virus Watch aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most likely to be effective in reducing transmission and impact of the virus, and will investigate community incidence, symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Virus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales and will run from June 2020 to August 2021. The study aims to recruit 50 000 people, including 12 500 from minority ethnic backgrounds, for an online survey cohort and monthly antibody testing using home fingerprick test kits. Nested within this larger study will be a subcohort of 10 000 individuals, including 3000 people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This cohort of 10 000 people will have full blood serology taken between October 2020 and January 2021 and repeat serology between May 2021 and August 2021. Participants will also post self-administered nasal swabs for PCR assays of SARS-CoV-2 and will follow one of three different PCR testing schedules based on symptoms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Hampstead National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (ethics approval number 20/HRA/2320). We are monitoring participant queries and using these to refine methodology where necessary, and are providing summaries and policy briefings of our preliminary findings to inform public health action by working through our partnerships with our study advisory group, Public Health England, NHS and government scientific advisory panels.

Risk factors for community-acquired Escherichia coli bacteraemia: a systematic review protocol.

Introduction: Rates of community-acquired Escherichia coli bacteraemia (ECB) have been consistently rising. As rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), particularly in Gram-negative bacteria, are also increasing, this is of concern both for management of individual patients and healthcare systems. There is currently little data on the risk factors for development of community-acquired ECB: this review aims to identify these risk factors in order to inform community interventions to reduce ECB as well as antibiotic prescribing policy. Methods and analysis: We will search Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Web of Science/Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published reports on observational and experimental primary research studies involving patients admitted to hospital with community-acquired ECB. Two reviewers will independently screen the studies for eligibility, perform data collection and assess study quality and risk of bias. Random effects meta-analyses will be performed if appropriate. Ethics and dissemination: No primary data will be collected for this study and so formal ethical approval is not required. We will publish the results of our review in relevant peer-reviewed medical journals, and will also seek to present them at relevant medical conferences. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018104402.