Local variation in low carbon footprint inhalers in pre-COVID pandemic primary care prescribing guidelines for adult asthma in England and its potential impact.

AIMS: Pressurised metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) have a much higher carbon footprint than dry powder inhalers (DPIs). We aimed to describe variations of inhaler options in local adult asthma prescribing guidance. METHODS: We reviewed local clinical commissioning group (CCG) adult asthma prescribing guidance for primary care in England in 2019 and recorded DPI and MDI inclusion. The relationship to prescribing data from OpenPrescribing.net was examined. RESULTS: In total, 58 unique guidance documents were analysed covering 144 out of 191 CCGs in England. Only 3% of CCG guidelines expressed an overall preference for DPIs, while 12% explicitly preferred MDIs. The inclusion of DPIs first-line was 77% for short-acting ß-agonists, 78% for low-dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) inhalers and 90-96% for combination long-acting ß-agonist/ICS inhalers. MDIs were included first-line in 98-100% of these classes. In 26% of CCGs, there was no first-line DPI option for at least 1 asthma management step. Ten percent of CCGs had no DPI included first-line for any of the 5 classes examined. Many CCGs recommended higher carbon footprint options; Ventolin MDI (25.6%), inhalers containing HFA227ea (57.9%) and ICS regimes recommending 2 puffs of a lower dose over 1 puff of higher dose (94.2%). MDIs were prescribed more in CCGs that recommended them. CONCLUSION: Before the COVID pandemic, there was substantial variation between CCGs in adult asthma prescribing guidance regarding higher and lower carbon footprint options. There may still be scope to amend local guidance to improve clinical and environmental outcomes. This study provides a method and baseline for further investigation of this.

The influence of time on the sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 serological testing.

Sensitive serological testing is essential to estimate the proportion of the population exposed or infected with SARS-CoV-2, to guide booster vaccination and to select patients for treatment with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The performance of serological tests is usually evaluated at 14-21 days post infection. This approach fails to take account of the important effect of time on test performance after infection or exposure has occurred. We performed parallel serological testing using 4 widely used assays (a multiplexed SARS-CoV-2 Nucleoprotein (N), Spike (S) and Receptor Binding Domain assay from Meso Scale Discovery (MSD), the Roche Elecsys-Nucleoprotein (Roche-N) and Spike (Roche-S) assays and the Abbott Nucleoprotein assay (Abbott-N) on serial positive monthly samples collected as part of the Co-STARs study ( www.clinicaltrials.gov , NCT04380896) up to 200 days following infection. Our findings demonstrate the considerable effect of time since symptom onset on the diagnostic sensitivity of different assays. Using a time-to-event analysis, we demonstrated that 50% of the Abbott nucleoprotein assays will give a negative result after 175 days (median survival time 95% CI 168-185 days), compared to the better performance over time of the Roche Elecsys nucleoprotein assay (93% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 88-97%). Assays targeting the spike protein showed a lower decline over the follow-up period, both for the MSD spike assay (97% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 95-99%) and the Roche Elecsys spike assay (95% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 93-97%). The best performing quantitative Roche Elecsys Spike assay showed no evidence of waning Spike antibody titers over the 200-day time course of the study. We have shown that compared to other assays evaluated, the Abbott-N assay fails to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as time passes since infection. In contrast the Roche Elecsys Spike Assay and the MSD assay maintained a high sensitivity for the 200-day duration of the study. These limitations of the Abbott assay should be considered when quantifying the immune correlates of protection or the need for SARS-CoV-2 antibody therapy. The high levels of maintained detectable neutralizing spike antibody titers identified by the quantitative Roche Elecsys assay is encouraging and provides further evidence in support of long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 protection following natural infection.

The Influence of Time on the Sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 Serological Testing.

Background: Serological testing is used to quantify SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, guide booster vaccination and select patients for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies therapy. However, our understanding of how serological tests perform as time passes after infection is limited. Methods: Four assays were compared in parallel: 1) the multiplexed spike, nucleoprotein and receptor binding domain Meso Scale Discovery (MSD) assay 2) the Roche Elecsys-Nucleoprotein assay (Roche-N) 3) the Roche Spike assay (Roche-S) and 4) the Abbott Nucleoprotein assay (Abbott-N) on serial positive monthly samples from hospital staff up to 200 days following infection as part of the Co-Stars study. Results: We demonstrate that 50% of the Abbott-N assays give a negative result after 175 days (median survival time 95% CI 168-185 days) while the Roche-N assay (93% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 88-97%) maintained seropositivity. The MSD spike (97% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 95-99%) and the Roche-S assay (95% survival probability at 200 days, 95% CI 93-97%) also remained seropositive. The best performing quantitative Roche-S assay showed no evidence of waning Spike antibody titres over 200-days. Conclusions: The Abbott-N assay fails to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies as time passes since infection. In contrast the Roche and the MSD assays maintained high sensitivity. The limitations of the Abbott assay must be considered in clinical decision making. The long duration of detectable neutralizing spike antibody titres by the quantitative Roche-S assay provides further evidence in support of long-lasting SARS-CoV-2 protection to pre-existing strains of SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection. Trial registration : Co-STARs study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on May 8th, 2020, with trial number NCT04380896 (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04380896).