Seroprevalence of immunity to hepatitis A and hepatitis B among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) attending sexual health clinics in London and Leeds, England, 2017-2018.

OBJECTIVES: Although hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunisation is recommended in the UK for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM), data on immunisation coverage are limited. We aimed to determine the seroprevalence of HAV and HBV immunity among a sample of GBMSM attending sexual health services (SHS) in England. METHODS: Residual serum samples from HIV/syphilis testing for adult GBMSM attending eight SHS in London and one in Leeds were tested for markers of HAV immunity (HAV IgG) and HBV immunity (anti-HBs) using an unlinked anonymous approach. We estimated seroprevalence of HAV and HBV immunity overall and stratified by individuals' characteristics, which we obtained from the Genitourinary Medicine Clinic Activity Dataset Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) Surveillance System. We used logistic regression to calculate crude and adjusted ORs between seropositivity and demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Seroprevalence of immunity to HAV (74.5% of 2577) and HBV (77.1% of 2551) was high. In adjusted analysis, HAV IgG seroprevalence varied by clinic and WHO region of birth (global p<0.001 for each), increased with older age (ORs of 1.50 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.86), 2.91 (2.17 to 3.90) and 3.40 (2.44 to 4.75) for ages 26-35, 36-45 and >46 vs 18-25 years (global p<0.001), was higher in those with an STI in the past year (1.58 (1.25 to 2.00); p<0.001) and those who were living with HIV (1.82 (1.25 to 2.64); p<0.001). Anti-HBs seroprevalence varied by clinic (global p<0.001), increased with older age (global p<0.001) and was higher in those with an STI in the past year (1.61 (1.27 to 2.05); p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a baseline seroprevalence from which to monitor serial levels of immunity to HBV and HAV in GBMSM accessing SHS. Levels of immunity for both viruses are high, noting samples were taken after recent widespread outbreaks and vaccination campaigns. High vaccine coverage in all GBMSM should be maintained to prevent further outbreaks.

Initial symptoms and three months follow-up after acute COVID-19 in outpatients: An international prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most studies on long-term follow-up of patients with COVID-19 focused on hospitalised patients. No prospective study with structured follow-up has been performed in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess long-COVID and post-COVID (WHO definition: symptomatic at least 12 weeks), describe lingering symptoms, their impact on daily activities, and general practice visits and explore risk factors for symptom duration in outpatients. METHODS: A prospective study of adult outpatients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in 11 European countries, recruited during 2020 and 2021 from primary care and the community. Structured follow-up by phone interviews (symptom rating, symptom impact on daily activities and general practice visits) was performed at weeks 2, 4, 8, and 12 by study personnel. Data was analysed descriptively by using correlation matrixes and Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 270 enrolled patients, 52% developed long-COVID and 32% post-COVID-syndrome. When only considering the presence of moderate or (very) severe symptoms at weeks 8 and 12, these percentages were 28% and 18%, respectively. Fatigue was the most often reported symptom during follow-up. The impact of lingering symptoms was most evident in sports and household activities. About half (53%) had at least one general practice contact during follow-up. Obese patients took twice as long to return to usual health (HR: 0.5, 95%CI: 0.3-0.8); no other risk profile could predict lingering symptoms. CONCLUSION: Long-COVID and post-COVID are also common in outpatients. In 32%, it takes more than 12 weeks to return to usual health.

Disease-Specific Quality Indicators for Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Infections (ESAC Quality Indicators) Applied to Point Prevalence Audit Surveys in General Practices in 13 European Countries.

Up to 80% of antibiotics are prescribed in the community. An assessment of prescribing by indication will help to identify areas where improvement can be made. A point prevalence audit study (PPAS) of consecutive respiratory tract infection (RTI) consultations in general practices in 13 European countries was conducted in January-February 2020 (PPAS-1) and again in 2022 (PPAS-4). The European Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption quality indicators (ESAC-QI) were calculated to identify where improvements can be made. A total of 3618 consultations were recorded for PPAS-1 and 2655 in PPAS-4. Bacterial aetiology was suspected in 26% (PPAS-1) and 12% (PPAS-4), and an antibiotic was prescribed in 30% (PPAS-1) and 16% (PPAS-4) of consultations. The percentage of adult patients with bronchitis who receive an antibiotic should, according to the ESAC-QI, not exceed 30%, which was not met by participating practices in any country except Denmark and Spain. For patients (≥1) with acute upper RTI, less than 20% should be prescribed an antibiotic, which was achieved by general practices in most countries, except Ireland (both PPAS), Croatia (PPAS-1), and Greece (PPAS-4) where prescribing for acute or chronic sinusitis (0-20%) was also exceeded. For pneumonia in adults, prescribing is acceptable for 90-100%, and this is lower in most countries. Prescribing for tonsillitis (≥1) exceeded the ESAC-QI (0-20%) in all countries and was 69% (PPAS-1) and 75% (PPAS-4). In conclusion, ESAC-QI applied to PPAS outcomes allows us to evaluate appropriate antibiotic prescribing by indication and benchmark general practices and countries.

Point-of-care testing, antibiotic prescribing, and prescribing confidence for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a prospective audit in 18 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Between-country differences have been described in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infection (RTI) in primary care, but not yet for diagnostic testing procedures and prescribing confidence. AIM: To describe between-country differences in RTI management, particularly diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, and investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs' prescribing confidence. DESIGN & SETTING: Prospective audit in 18 European countries. METHOD: An audit of GP-registered patient, clinical, and management characteristics for patients presenting with sore throat and/or lower RTI (n = 4982), and GPs' confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision. Factors related to antibiotic prescribing and confidence were analysed using multi-level logistic regression. RESULTS: Antibiotic prescribing proportions varied considerably: <20% in four countries, and >40% in six countries. There was also considerable variation in point-of-care (POC) testing (0% in Croatia, Moldova, and Romania, and >65% in Denmark and Norway, mainly for C-reactive protein [CRP] and group A streptococcal [strep A] infection), and in laboratory or hospital-based testing (<3% in Hungary, the Netherlands, and Spain, and >30% in Croatia, Georgia, Greece, and Moldova, mainly chest X-ray and white blood cell counting). Antibiotic prescribing was related to illness severity, comorbidity, age, fever, and country, but not to having performed a POC test. In nearly 90% of consultations, GPs were confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision. CONCLUSION: Despite high confidence in decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in the primary care of RTI in European countries, with GPs prescribing antibiotics overall more often than is considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone to prescribe antibiotics.

Primary care for patients with respiratory tract infection before and early on in the COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study in 16 European countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings. SETTING: Primary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Before (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study. OUTCOME MEASURES: Consultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described. RESULTS: Care for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.