Chlamydia retesting remains low among young women in Australia: an observational study using sentinel surveillance data, 2018-2022.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia remains the most notified bacterial sexually transmissible infection in Australia with guidelines recommending testing for re-infection at 3months post treatment. This paper aimed to determine chlamydia retesting and repeat positivity rates within 2-4months among young women in Australia, and to evaluate what factors increase or decrease the likelihood of retesting. METHODS: Chlamydia retesting rates among 16-29-year-old women were analysed from Australian Collaboration for Coordinated Enhanced Sentinel Surveillance of sexually transmissible infection and bloodborne virus (ACCESS) sentinel surveillance data (n =62 sites). Among women with at least one positive test between 1 January 2018 and 31 August 2022, retesting counts and proportions within 2-4months were calculated. Logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with retesting within 2-4months. RESULTS: Among 8758 women who were positive before 31 August 2022 to allow time for follow up, 1423 (16.2%) were retested within 2-4months, of whom 179 (12.6%) tested positive. The odds of retesting within 2-4months were 25% lower if tested in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-9) pandemic year (2020-2022) (aOR=0.75; 95% CI 0.59-0.95). Among 9140 women with a positive test before 30 November 2022, 397 (4.3%) were retested too early (within 7days to 1month) and 81 (20.4%) of those were positive. CONCLUSIONS: Chlamydia retesting rates remain low with around a sixth of women retested within 2-4months in line with guidelines. Re-infection is common with around one in eight retesting positive. An increase in retesting is required to reduce the risk of reproductive complications and onward transmission.

Priority populations' experiences of isolation, quarantine and distancing for COVID-19: protocol for a longitudinal cohort study (Optimise Study).

INTRODUCTION: Longitudinal studies can provide timely and accurate information to evaluate and inform COVID-19 control and mitigation strategies and future pandemic preparedness. The Optimise Study is a multidisciplinary research platform established in the Australian state of Victoria in September 2020 to collect epidemiological, social, psychological and behavioural data from priority populations. It aims to understand changing public attitudes, behaviours and experiences of COVID-19 and inform epidemic modelling and support responsive government policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol paper describes the data collection procedures for the Optimise Study, an ongoing longitudinal cohort of ~1000 Victorian adults and their social networks. Participants are recruited using snowball sampling with a set of seeds and two waves of snowball recruitment. Seeds are purposively selected from priority groups, including recent COVID-19 cases and close contacts and people at heightened risk of infection and/or adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection and/or public health measures. Participants complete a schedule of monthly quantitative surveys and daily diaries for up to 24 months, plus additional surveys annually for up to 48 months. Cohort participants are recruited for qualitative interviews at key time points to enable in-depth exploration of people's lived experiences. Separately, community representatives are invited to participate in community engagement groups, which review and interpret research findings to inform policy and practice recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Optimise longitudinal cohort and qualitative interviews are approved by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (# 333/20). The Optimise Study CEG is approved by the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (# HEC20532). All participants provide informed verbal consent to enter the cohort, with additional consent provided prior to any of the sub studies. Study findings will be disseminated through public website (https://optimisecovid.com.au/study-findings/) and through peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05323799.

COVID-19 disaster recovery capitals: A conceptual framework to guide holistic and strengths-based support strategies.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: The COVID-19 pandemic bears many similarities to other disasters such as bushfires, earthquakes and floods. It also has distinctive features including its prolonged and recurrent nature and the social isolation induced by pandemic responses. Existing conceptual frameworks previously applied to the study of disaster, such as the Recovery Capitals Framework (RCF), may be useful in understanding experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic and in guiding agencies and governments tasked with supporting communities. METHODS: This paper presents an analysis of interviews conducted with residents of the Australian state of Victoria in 2020-2021. The RCF was used to analyse how participant experiences and well-being were influenced by seven forms of capital-social, human, natural, financial, built, cultural and political-with particular focus on the interactions between these capitals. RESULTS: Social capital featured most prominently in participants' accounts, yet the analysis revealed important interactions between social and other capitals that shaped their pandemic experiences. The RCF supported a strengths-based and holistic analysis while also revealing how inequities and challenges were compounded in some cases. CONCLUSIONS: Findings can be leveraged to develop effective and innovative strategies to support well-being and disrupt patterns of compounding inequity. Applying the RCF in the context of COVID-19 can help to link pandemic research with research from a wide range of disasters. SO WHAT?: In an increasingly complex global landscape of cascading and intersecting disasters including pandemics, flexible and nuanced conceptual approaches such as the RCF can generate valuable insights with practical implications for health promotion efforts.

Determining reinfection rates by hepatitis C testing interval among key populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Detecting hepatitis C virus (HCV) reinfection among key populations helps prevent ongoing transmission. This systematic review aims to determine the association between different testing intervals during post-SVR follow-up on the detection of HCV reinfection among highest risk populations. METHODS: We searched electronic databases between January 2014 and February 2023 for studies that tested individuals at risk for HCV reinfection at discrete testing intervals and reported HCV reinfection incidence among key populations. Pooled estimates of reinfection incidence were calculated by population and testing frequency using random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Forty-one single-armed observational studies (9453 individuals) were included. Thirty-eight studies (8931 individuals) reported HCV reinfection incidence rate and were included in meta-analyses. The overall pooled estimate of HCV reinfection incidence rate was 4.13 per 100 per person-years (py) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.45-4.81). The pooled incidence estimate among people who inject drugs (PWID) was 2.84 per 100 py (95% CI: 2.19-3.50), among men who have sex with men (MSM) 7.37 per 100 py (95% CI: 5.09-9.65) and among people in custodial settings 7.23 per 100 py (95% CI: 2.13-16.59). The pooled incidence estimate for studies reporting a testing interval of ≤6 months (4.26 per 100 py; 95% CI: 2.86-5.65) was higher than studies reporting testing intervals >6 months (5.19 per 100 py; 95% CI: 3.92-6.46). CONCLUSIONS: HCV reinfection incidence was highest in studies of MSM and did not appear to change with retesting interval. Shorter testing intervals are likely to identify more reinfections, help prevent onward transmission where treatment is available and enable progress towards global HCV elimination, but additional comparative studies are required.

Immediate treatment for recent hepatitis C infection in people with high-risk behaviors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are almost exclusively approved for the treatment of chronic HCV. This poses a significant barrier to the treatment of recently acquired HCV because of the limited access to DAAs. This review seeks to address this issue by synthesizing evidence of the benefits and harms of immediate treatment after the detection of recently acquired HCV in people at higher risk of infection. APPROACH AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted reporting on populations with recently acquired HCV at higher risk of infection. Studies were included if they assessed standard duration DAA treatment regimens and reported on the benefits and harms of immediate treatment (within one year of diagnosis). Outcomes included sustained virological response at 12 weeks post-treatment (SVR12), incidence, treatment initiation and adherence, overtreatment, engagement in care, and adverse events. Eight cohort studies, 3 open-label trials, and 1 case series study were included, reporting on 2085 participants with recently acquired HCV infection. No studies included a comparison group. Eight studies assessed DAA treatment in either men who have sex with men or men who have sex with men with HIV, 2 studies assessed treatment in people who inject drugs, and 2 among people living with HIV. Immediate treatment of HCV was associated with a pooled SVR12 of 95.9% (95% CI, 92.6%-99.3%). Three studies reported on hepatitis C incidence, where most participants were treated in the chronic phase of infection. A treatment completion rate of 100% was reported in 2 studies, and only 1 serious adverse event was described. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of cure were achieved with the treatment of recently acquired hepatitis C in people at higher risk of infection. Serious adverse events were rare, highlighting individual benefits consistent with the treatment of chronic hepatitis C. The impact of immediate treatment on HCV incidence requires further evaluation.

Quarantine preparedness - the missing factor in COVID-19 behaviour change? Qualitative insights from Australia.

BACKGROUND: A key feature of the global public health response to contain and slow the spread of COVID-19 has been community-based quarantine and self-isolation. As part of The Optimise Study, this research sought to understand the factors that influence people's ability to undertake home-based quarantine and isolation to contain the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative phone interviews (n = 25) were conducted by telephone with people who participated in community-based quarantine in Australia before 31 March 2020. The Capability Opportunity Motivation Behaviour model was used to conduct a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants required clear, accessible and trusted information to guide them in home-based quarantine and isolation. A sense of social responsibility and belief in the efficacy of the restrictions to reduce viral transmission aided their motivation. Access to essential needs, supportive living environments, and emotional support were required to adhere to restrictions, but few were prepared. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate that in addition to having the capability and motivation to adhere to restrictions, it is vital that people are also encouraged to prepare for the challenge to ensure access to physical, social and emotional support. Findings also illustrate the importance of engaging communities in planning and preparedness for quarantine and self-isolation public health responses.

Thiopurines and their optimization during infliximab induction and maintenance: A retrospective study in Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Combining therapy with a thiopurine is favored when commencing infliximab in Crohn's disease; however, the optimal 6-thioguanine nucleotide (TGN) level and how long to continue thiopurines after induction are uncertain. We aimed to compare outcomes after induction and during maintenance in combination therapy versus infliximab monotherapy in Crohn's and to examine whether TGN levels were associated with outcomes. METHODS: Crohn's patients induced with infliximab with or without concomitant thiopurines were retrospectively identified. Response to induction and clinical outcomes in subsequent 6-month maintenance semesters were analyzed. A TGN level ≥235 pmol/8 × 108 red blood cells was considered therapeutic. RESULTS: In 89 patients, response to induction was higher in combination therapy than monotherapy (74 vs 47%, P = 0.04). This benefit was only seen in patients with a therapeutic TGN (odds ratio 3.72, confidence interval 1.07-13.0, P = 0.04). Combination therapy during induction yielded a three times longer time to subsequent need for treatment escalation or treatment failure compared with monotherapy (29 vs 9 months, P = 0.01), with both therapeutic and subtherapeutic TGNs independent predictors on multivariate analysis. Among 370 semesters, there was no difference in outcomes between combination therapy and monotherapy (P = 0.42), nor when combination semesters were stratified by therapeutic versus subtherapeutic TGN (P = 0.56). In semester 1 only, a significantly higher remission rate was observed with therapeutic compared with subtherapeutic TGN (76% vs 33%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Combination therapy dosed with an optimized thiopurine was superior to infliximab monotherapy for induction of response, durability of response, and clinical outcomes in the first 6 months following induction. Thereafter, combination therapy yielded no clinical advantage, supporting consideration of thiopurine withdrawal on a case-by-case basis.