Chronogram: an R package for data curation and analysis of infection and vaccination cohort studies.

Motivation: Observational cohort studies that track vaccine and infection responses offer real-world data to inform pandemic policy. Translating biological hypotheses, such as whether different patterns of accumulated antigenic exposures confer differing antibody responses, into analysis code can be onerous, particularly when source data is dis-aggregated. Results: The R package chronogram introduces the class chronogram, where metadata is seamlessly aggregated with sparse infection episode, clinical and laboratory data. Each experimental modality is added sequentially, allowing the incorporation of new data, such as specialized time-consuming research assays, or their downstream analyses. Source data can be any rectangular data format, including database tables (such as structured query language databases). This supports annotations that aggregate data types/sources, for example, combining symptoms, molecular testing, and sequencing of one or more infectious episodes in a pathogen-agnostic manner. Chronogram arranges observational data to allow the translation of biological hypotheses into their corresponding code via a shared vocabulary. Availability and implementation: Chronogram is implemented R and available under an MIT licence at: https://www.github.com/FrancisCrickInstitute/chronogram; a user manual is available at: https://franciscrickinstitute.github.io/chronogram/.

COVID-19 in non-hospitalised adults caused by either SARS-CoV-2 sub-variants Omicron BA.1, BA.2, BA.4/5 or Delta associates with similar illness duration, symptom severity and viral kinetics, irrespective of vaccination history.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 variant Omicron rapidly evolved over 2022, causing three waves of infection due to sub-variants BA.1, BA.2 and BA.4/5. We sought to characterise symptoms and viral loads over the course of COVID-19 infection with these sub-variants in otherwise-healthy, vaccinated, non-hospitalised adults, and compared data to infections with the preceding Delta variant of concern (VOC). METHODS: In a prospective, observational cohort study, healthy vaccinated UK adults who reported a positive polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or lateral flow test, self-swabbed on alternate weekdays until day 10. We compared participant-reported symptoms and viral load trajectories between infections caused by VOCs Delta and Omicron (sub-variants BA.1, BA.2 or BA.4/5), and tested for relationships between vaccine dose, symptoms and PCR cycle threshold (Ct) as a proxy for viral load using Chi-squared (χ2) and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: 563 infection episodes were reported among 491 participants. Across infection episodes, there was little variation in symptom burden (4 [IQR 3-5] symptoms) and duration (8 [IQR 6-11] days). Whilst symptom profiles differed among infections caused by Delta compared to Omicron sub-variants, symptom profiles were similar between Omicron sub-variants. Anosmia was reported more frequently in Delta infections after 2 doses compared with Omicron sub-variant infections after 3 doses, for example: 42% (25/60) of participants with Delta infection compared to 9% (6/67) with Omicron BA.4/5 (χ2 P < 0.001; OR 7.3 [95% CI 2.7-19.4]). Fever was less common with Delta (20/60 participants; 33%) than Omicron BA.4/5 (39/67; 58%; χ2 P = 0.008; OR 0.4 [CI 0.2-0.7]). Amongst infections with an Omicron sub-variants, symptoms of coryza, fatigue, cough and myalgia predominated. Viral load trajectories and peaks did not differ between Delta, and Omicron, irrespective of symptom severity (including asymptomatic participants), VOC or vaccination status. PCR Ct values were negatively associated with time since vaccination in participants infected with BA.1 (ß = -0.05 (CI -0.10-0.01); P = 0.031); however, this trend was not observed in BA.2 or BA.4/5 infections. CONCLUSION: Our study emphasises both the changing symptom profile of COVID-19 infections in the Omicron era, and ongoing transmission risk of Omicron sub-variants in vaccinated adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04750356.

Climate change, malaria and neglected tropical diseases: a scoping review.

To explore the effects of climate change on malaria and 20 neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and potential effect amelioration through mitigation and adaptation, we searched for papers published from January 2010 to October 2023. We descriptively synthesised extracted data. We analysed numbers of papers meeting our inclusion criteria by country and national disease burden, healthcare access and quality index (HAQI), as well as by climate vulnerability score. From 42 693 retrieved records, 1543 full-text papers were assessed. Of 511 papers meeting the inclusion criteria, 185 studied malaria, 181 dengue and chikungunya and 53 leishmaniasis; other NTDs were relatively understudied. Mitigation was considered in 174 papers (34%) and adaption strategies in 24 (5%). Amplitude and direction of effects of climate change on malaria and NTDs are likely to vary by disease and location, be non-linear and evolve over time. Available analyses do not allow confident prediction of the overall global impact of climate change on these diseases. For dengue and chikungunya and the group of non-vector-borne NTDs, the literature privileged consideration of current low-burden countries with a high HAQI. No leishmaniasis papers considered outcomes in East Africa. Comprehensive, collaborative and standardised modelling efforts are needed to better understand how climate change will directly and indirectly affect malaria and NTDs.

Real-time estimation of immunological responses against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants in the UK: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants and COVID-19 vaccination have resulted in complex exposure histories. Rapid assessment of the effects of these exposures on neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for informing vaccine strategy and epidemic management. We aimed to investigate heterogeneity in individual-level and population-level antibody kinetics to emerging variants by previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure history, to examine implications for real-time estimation, and to examine the effects of vaccine-campaign timing. METHODS: Our Bayesian hierarchical model of antibody kinetics estimated neutralising-antibody trajectories against a panel of SARS-CoV-2 variants quantified with a live virus microneutralisation assay and informed by individual-level COVID-19 vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 infection histories. Antibody titre trajectories were modelled with a piecewise linear function that depended on the key biological quantities of an initial titre value, time the peak titre is reached, set-point time, and corresponding rates of increase and decrease for gradients between two timing parameters. All process parameters were estimated at both the individual level and the population level. We analysed data from participants in the University College London Hospitals-Francis Crick Institute Legacy study cohort (NCT04750356) who underwent surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 either through asymptomatic mandatory occupational health screening once per week between April 1, 2020, and May 31, 2022, or symptom-based testing between April 1, 2020, and Feb 1, 2023. People included in the Legacy study were either Crick employees or health-care workers at three London hospitals, older than 18 years, and gave written informed consent. Legacy excluded people who were unable or unwilling to give informed consent and those not employed by a qualifying institution. We segmented data to include vaccination events occurring up to 150 days before the emergence of three variants of concern: delta, BA.2, and XBB 1.5. We split the data for each wave into two categories: real-time and retrospective. The real-time dataset contained neutralising-antibody titres collected up to the date of emergence in each wave; the retrospective dataset contained all samples until the next SARS-CoV-2 exposure of each individual, whether vaccination or infection. FINDINGS: We included data from 335 participants in the delta wave analysis, 223 (67%) of whom were female and 112 (33%) of whom were male (median age 40 years, IQR 22-58); data from 385 participants in the BA.2 wave analysis, 271 (70%) of whom were female and 114 (30%) of whom were male (41 years, 22-60); and data from 248 participants in the XBB 1.5 wave analysis, 191 (77%) of whom were female, 56 (23%) of whom were male, and one (<1%) of whom preferred not to say (40 years, 21-59). Overall, we included 968 exposures (vaccinations) across 1895 serum samples in the model. For the delta wave, we estimated peak titre values as 490·0 IC50 (95% credible interval 224·3-1515·9) for people with no previous infection and as 702·4 IC50 (300·8-2322·7) for people with a previous infection before omicron; the delta wave did not include people with a previous omicron infection. For the BA.2 wave, we estimated peak titre values as 858·1 IC50 (689·8-1363·2) for people with no previous infection, 1020·7 IC50 (725·9-1722·6) for people with a previous infection before omicron, and 1422·0 IC50 (679·2-3027·3) for people with a previous omicron infection. For the XBB 1.5 wave, we estimated peak titre values as 703·2 IC50 (415·0-3197·8) for people with no previous infection, 1215·9 IC50 (511·6-7338·7) for people with a previous infection before omicron, and 1556·3 IC50 (757·2-7907·9) for people with a previous omicron infection. INTERPRETATION: Our study shows the feasibility of real-time estimation of antibody kinetics before SARS-CoV-2 variant emergence. This estimation is valuable for understanding how specific combinations of SARS-CoV-2 exposures influence antibody kinetics and for examining how COVID-19 vaccination-campaign timing could affect population-level immunity to emerging variants. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, UK Research and Innovation, UK Medical Research Council, Francis Crick Institute, and Genotype-to-Phenotype National Virology Consortium.

Demographics and Outcomes of Initial Phase of COVID-19 Medicines Delivery Units Across 4 UK Centers During Peak B1.1.529 Omicron Epidemic: A Service Evaluation.

Background: COVID-19 medicines delivery units (CMDU) were established in late December 2021 to deliver early antiviral therapy to patients classified as at risk with the aim of preventing hospitalization. Methods: We performed a service evaluation at 4 CMDUs in England. We assessed demographics and triage outcomes of CMDU referral, uptake of antiviral therapy, and the rate of subsequent hospitalizations within 2 weeks of CMDU referral. Results: Over a 3-week period, 4788 patients were referred and 3989 were ultimately assessed by a CMDU. Overall, 832 of the patients referred (17%) were judged eligible for treatment and 628 (13%) were ultimately prescribed an antiviral agent. The overall rate of admission within 14 days was 1%. Patients who were admitted were significantly older than those who did not require hospitalization. Of patients prescribed molnupiravir and sotrovimab, 1.8% and 3.2%, respectively, were admitted. Conclusions: There was a high volume of referrals to CMDU service during the initial surge of the Omicron wave in the United Kingdom. A minority of patients were judged to be eligible for therapy. In a highly vaccinated population, the overall hospitalization rate was low.

Risk to patients, risk to clinicians: a three-site audit of the documentation of counselling in first episode genital herpes.

National guidelines give advice on topics which should be covered when counselling patients with a new diagnosis of genital herpes (HSV) with the aim of reducing transmissions. This three-site UK audit of documentation of counselling for patients with a new diagnosis of genital herpes reviewed the records of 284 patients. Documentation in all areas of counselling was limited and this may result in adverse medico-legal consequences for patients and clinicians.

Delayed healthcare seeking and prolonged illness in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single-centre observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe a cohort of self-isolating healthcare workers (HCWs) with presumed COVID-19. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, single-centre study. SETTING: A large, teaching hospital based in Central London with tertiary infection services. PARTICIPANTS: 236 HCWs completed a survey distributed by internal staff email bulletin. 167 were women and 65 men. MEASURES: Information on symptomatology, exposures and health-seeking behaviour were collected from participants by self-report. RESULTS: The 236 respondents reported illness compatible with COVID-19 and there was an increase in illness reporting during March 2020 Diagnostic swabs were not routinely performed. Cough (n=179, 75.8%), fever (n=138, 58.5%), breathlessness (n=84, 35.6%) were reported. Anosmia was reported in 42.2%. Fever generally settled within 1 week (n=110/138, 88%). Several respondents remained at home and did not seek formal medical attention despite reporting severe breathlessness and measuring hypoxia (n=5/9, 55.6%). 2 patients required hospital admission but recovered following oxygen therapy. 84 respondents (41.2%) required greater than the obligated 7 days off work and 9 required greater than 3 weeks off. CONCLUSION: There was a significant increase in staff reporting illness compatible with possible COVID-19 during March 2020. Subsequent serology studies at the same hospital study site have confirmed sero-positivity for COVID-19 up to 45% by the end of April 2020 in frontline HCWs. The study revealed a concerning lack of healthcare seeking in respondents with significant red flag symptoms (severe breathlessness, hypoxia). This study also highlighted anosmia as a key symptom of COVID-19 early in the pandemic, prior to this symptom being more widely recognised as a feature of COVID-19.