Comparing indicators of disease severity among patients presenting to hospital for urinary tract infections before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients may have delayed seeking healthcare for urinary tract infections (UTIs). This could have resulted in more severe presentation to hospital and different antibiotic usage. Objectives: We explored evidence for such changes through existing national indicators of prescribing, and routine clinical data collected in the electronic health record (EHR). Methods: We carried out a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to two UK hospitals for UTIs, comparing two indicators of disease severity on admission before and during the pandemic: intravenous (IV) antibiotic use, and National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2). We developed regression models to estimate the effect of the pandemic on each outcome, adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and index of multiple deprivation. Results: During the pandemic, patients were less likely to present to hospital for UTI with NEWS2 of 0 or 1 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-0.85] compared with before, more likely to present with score 2 (aOR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.18-1.94), whereas the likelihood of presenting with a NEWS2 of >2 remained the same (aOR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.87-1.29). We did not find evidence that this limited increase in disease severity resulted in changes to IV antibiotic use on admission (adjusted risk ratio: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.91-1.15). Conclusions: There may have been a small increase in disease severity at hospital presentation for UTI during the pandemic, which can be detected using routine data and not through national indicators of prescribing. Further research is required to validate these findings and understand whether routine data could support a more nuanced understanding of local antimicrobial prescribing practices.

Built Environment and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Long-Term Care Facilities: Cross-Sectional Survey and Data Linkage.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the built environment in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and its association with introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey with linkage to routine surveillance data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: LTCFs in England caring for adults ≥65 years old, participating in the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421) were eligible. Data were included from residents and staff. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of the LTCF built environment with linkage to routinely collected asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination data between September 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. We used individual and LTCF level Poisson and Negative Binomial regression models to identify risk factors for 4 outcomes: incidence rate of resident infections and outbreaks, outbreak size, and duration. We considered interactions with variant transmissibility (pre vs post Omicron dominance). RESULTS: A total of 134 of 151 (88.7%) LTCFs participated in the survey, contributing data for 13,010 residents and 17,766 staff. After adjustment and stratification, outbreak incidence (measuring infection introduction) was only associated with SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community [incidence rate ratio (IRR) for high vs low incidence, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.85-4.36]. Characteristics of the built environment were associated with transmission outcomes and differed by variant transmissibility. For resident infection incidence, factors included number of storeys (0.64; 0.43-0.97) and bedrooms (1.04; 1.02-1.06), and purpose-built vs converted buildings (1.99; 1.08-3.69). Air quality was associated with outbreak size (dry vs just right 1.46; 1.00-2.13). Funding model (0.99; 0.99-1.00), crowding (0.98; 0.96-0.99), and bedroom temperature (1.15; 1.01-1.32) were associated with outbreak duration. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We describe previously undocumented diversity in LTCF built environments. LTCFs have limited opportunities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 introduction, which was only driven by community incidence. However, adjusting the built environment, for example by isolating infected residents or improving airflow, may reduce transmission, although data quality was limited by subjectivity. Identifying LTCF built environment modifications that prevent infection transmission should be a research priority.

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.

Gamified antimicrobial decision support app (GADSA) changes antibiotics prescription behaviour in surgeons in Nigeria: a hospital-based pilot study.

AIMS: Surgical Antibiotic Prophylaxis (SAP) in Nigeria is often not evidence based. The aim of this study is to test if the GADSA application can change prescription behaviour of surgeons in Nigeria. In addition, the study aims to identify AMS strategies and policies for the future. METHODS: The GADSA gamified decision support app uses WHO and Sanford prescribing guidelines to deliver real-time persuasive technology feedback to surgeons through an interactive mentor. The app can advise on whether clinician's decisions align with SAP recommendations and provides the opportunity for clinicians to make adjustments. Twenty surgeons actively participated in a 6-month pilot study in three hospitals in Nigeria. The surgeons determined the risk of infection of a surgical procedure, and the need, type and duration of SAP. The study used a longitudinal approach to test whether the GADSA app significantly changed prescribing behaviour of participating surgeons by analysing the reported prescription decisions within the app. RESULTS: 321 SAP prescriptions were recorded. Concerning the surgical risk decision, 12% of surgeons changed their decision to be in line with guidelines after app feedback (p < 0.001) and 10% of surgeons changed their decision about the need for SAP (p = 0.0035) to align with guidelines. The change in decision making for SAP use in terms of "type" and "duration" to align with guidelines was similar with 6% and 5% respectively (both p-values < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the GADSA app, with its game based and feedback feature, could significantly change prescribing behaviour at the point of care in an African setting, which could help tackle the global challenge of antibiotic resistance.

Shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared with standard care in care home staff (VIVALDI-CT).

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13296529.

Factors influencing staff attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination in care homes in England: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately affected people living and working in UK care homes causing high mortality rates. Vaccinating staff members and residents is considered the most effective intervention to reduce infection and its transmission rates. However, uptake of the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in care homes was variable. We sought to investigate factors influencing uptake of COVID-19 vaccination in care home staff to inform strategies to increase vaccination uptake and inform future preparedness. METHODS: Twenty care home staff including managerial and administrative staff, nurses, healthcare practitioners and support staff from nine care homes across England participated in semi-structured telephone interviews (March-June 2021) exploring attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccine and factors influencing uptake. We used thematic analysis to generate themes which were subsequently deductively mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model. The Behavioural Change Wheel (BCW) was used to identify potential intervention strategies to address identified influences. RESULTS: Enablers to vaccine uptake included the willingness to protect care home residents, staff and family/friends from infection and the belief that vaccination provided a way back to normality (reflective motivation); convenience of vaccination and access to accurate information (physical opportunity); and a supporting social environment around them favouring vaccination (social opportunity). Barriers included fears about side-effects (automatic motivation); a lack of trust due to the quick release of the vaccine (reflective motivation); and feeling pressurised to accept vaccination if mandatory (automatic motivation). CONCLUSIONS: We identified influences on COVID-19 vaccine uptake by care home staff that can inform the implementation of future vaccination programmes. Strategies likely to support uptake include information campaigns and facilitating communication between staff and managers to openly discuss concerns regarding possible vaccination side effects. Freedom of choice played an important role in the decision to be vaccinated suggesting that the decision to mandate vaccination may have unintended behavioural consequences.

Effectiveness of successive booster vaccine doses against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality in residents of long-term care facilities in the VIVALDI study.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused severe disease in unvaccinated long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Initial booster vaccination following primary vaccination is known to provide strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection and the protective effect of further booster vaccinations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of third, fourth and fifth dose booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality amongst older residents of LTCFs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: LTCFs for older people in England participating in the VIVALDI study. METHODS: Residents aged >65 years at participating LTCFs were eligible for inclusion if they had at least one polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow device result within the analysis period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. We excluded individuals who had not received at least two vaccine doses before the analysis period. Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 related mortality following 1-3 booster vaccinations compared with primary vaccination, stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex and LTCF size (total beds). RESULTS: A total of 13,407 residents were included. Our results indicate that third, fourth and fifth dose booster vaccination provide additional short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality relative to primary vaccination, with consistent stabilisation beyond 112 days to 45-75% reduction in risk relative to primary vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Successive booster vaccination doses provide additional short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality amongst older LTCF residents. However, we did not find evidence of a longer-term reduction in risk beyond that provided by initial booster vaccination.

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.

A qualitative interview study applying the COM-B model to explore how hospital-based trainers implement antimicrobial stewardship education and training in UK hospital-based care.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major global health threat caused by the inappropriate use of antimicrobials in healthcare and other settings. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a broad multi-component health services intervention that promotes and monitors the judicious use of antimicrobials to preserve their future effectiveness. A main component of AMS is education and training (E&T). However, there are often discrepancies in how such interventions are implemented and delivered in hospital-based care. The aim of this study was to explore the factors influencing the implementation of AMS E&T in UK hospitals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with AMS E&T trainers in UK hospitals. The interview schedule was developed using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation = Behaviour (COM-B) model. Participants were identified via professional networks and social media. Interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis, followed by deductive analysis using the COM-B model as a framework. RESULTS: A total of 34 participants (26 antimicrobial pharmacists, 3 nurses, 1 advanced clinical practitioner, 2 infectious disease consultants, 1 microbiologist and 1 clinical scientist). responsible for designing, implementing and evaluating AMS E&T in UK hospitals (five from Northern Ireland, four from Wales, two from Scotland and 23 from England) took part in virtual interviews. Key themes were: (1) The organisational context, including system-level barriers to AMS included competing organisational targets (Reflective motivation and physical opportunity) and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on activity (Physical opportunity); (2) Healthcare professionals' roles and the wider multi-disciplinary team, such that AMS roles were defined and addressed poorly in E&T (Social opportunity); and (3) The individual perception of the need for AMS E&T in hospital-based care, manifest in a perceived lack of conviction of the wider threat of AMR and the resulting need for AMS E&T (Reflective motivation). CONCLUSION: This study has identified factors influencing implementation of AMS E&T in UK hospitals and further identified where implemented, AMS E&T did not address real-world challenges. Current AMS E&T needs to be optimised to elicit practice change, with recommendations including training and engaging the wider work-force and drawing upon theoretically-informed intervention development frameworks to inform AMS E&T to better target AMS behaviour change.

Can the application of machine learning to electronic health records guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for suspected urinary tract infection in the Emergency Department?

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a major cause of emergency hospital admissions, but it remains challenging to diagnose them reliably. Application of machine learning (ML) to routine patient data could support clinical decision-making. We developed a ML model predicting bacteriuria in the ED and evaluated its performance in key patient groups to determine scope for its future use to improve UTI diagnosis and thus guide antibiotic prescribing decisions in clinical practice. We used retrospective electronic health records from a large UK hospital (2011-2019). Non-pregnant adults who attended the ED and had a urine sample cultured were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was predominant bacterial growth ≥104 cfu/mL in urine. Predictors included demography, medical history, ED diagnoses, blood tests, and urine flow cytometry. Linear and tree-based models were trained via repeated cross-validation, re-calibrated, and validated on data from 2018/19. Changes in performance were investigated by age, sex, ethnicity, and suspected ED diagnosis, and compared to clinical judgement. Among 12,680 included samples, 4,677 (36.9%) showed bacterial growth. Relying primarily on flow cytometry parameters, our best model achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.813 (95% CI 0.792-0.834) in the test data, and achieved both higher sensitivity and specificity compared to proxies of clinician's judgement. Performance remained stable for white and non-white patients but was lower during a period of laboratory procedure change in 2015, in patients ≥65 years (AUC 0.783, 95% CI 0.752-0.815), and in men (AUC 0.758, 95% CI 0.717-0.798). Performance was also slightly reduced in patients with recorded suspicion of UTI (AUC 0.797, 95% CI 0.765-0.828). Our results suggest scope for use of ML to inform antibiotic prescribing decisions by improving diagnosis of suspected UTI in the ED, but performance varied with patient characteristics. Clinical utility of predictive models for UTI is therefore likely to differ for important patient subgroups including women <65 years, women ≥65 years, and men. Tailored models and decision thresholds may be required that account for differences in achievable performance, background incidence, and risks of infectious complications in these groups.

Strong peak immunogenicity but rapid antibody waning following third vaccine dose in older residents of care homes.

Third-dose coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines are being deployed widely but their efficacy has not been assessed adequately in vulnerable older people who exhibit suboptimal responses after primary vaccination series. This observational study, which was carried out by the VIVALDI study based in England, looked at spike-specific immune responses in 341 staff and residents in long-term care facilities who received an mRNA vaccine following dual primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Third-dose vaccination strongly increased antibody responses with preferential relative enhancement in older people and was required to elicit neutralization of Omicron. Cellular immune responses were also enhanced with strong cross-reactive recognition of Omicron. However, antibody titers fell 21-78% within 100 d after vaccine and 27% of participants developed a breakthrough Omicron infection. These findings reveal strong immunogenicity of a third vaccine in one of the most vulnerable population groups and endorse an approach for widespread delivery across this population. Ongoing assessment will be required to determine the stability of immune protection.

Long-term oral antibiotic use in people with acne vulgaris in UK primary care: a drug utilization study.

BACKGROUND: The inappropriate use of antibiotics is understood to contribute to antimicrobial resistance. Oral antibiotics are regularly used to treat moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris. In practice, we do not know the typical length of oral antibiotic treatment courses for acne in routine primary care and what proportion of people receive more than one course of treatment following a new acne diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To describe how oral antibiotics are prescribed for acne over time in UK primary care. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive longitudinal drug utilization study using routinely collected primary care data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD (2004-2019). We included individuals (8-50 years) with a new acne diagnosis recorded between 1 January 2004 and 31 July 2019. RESULTS: We identified 217 410 people with a new acne diagnosis. The median age was 17 years [interquartile range (IQR) 15-25] and median follow-up was 4.3 years (IQR 1.9-7.6). Among people with a new acne diagnosis, 96 703 (44.5%) received 248 560 prescriptions for long-term oral antibiotics during a median follow-up of 5.3 years (IQR 2.8-8.5). The median number of continuous courses of antibiotic therapy (≥ 28 days) per person was four (IQR 2-6). The majority (n = 59 010, 61.0%) of first oral antibiotic prescriptions in those with a recorded acne diagnosis were between the ages of 12 and 18. Most (n = 71 544, 74.0%) first courses for oral antibiotics were for between 28 and 90 days. The median duration of the first course of treatment was 56 days (IQR 50-93 days) and 18 127 (18.7%) of prescriptions of ≥ 28 days were for < 6 weeks. Among people who received a first course of oral antibiotic for ≥ 28 days, 56 261 (58.2%) received a second course after a treatment gap of ≥ 28 days. The median time between first and second courses was 135 days (IQR 67-302). The cumulative duration of exposure to oral antibiotics during follow-up was 255 days (8.5 months). CONCLUSIONS: Further work is needed to understand the consequences of using antibiotics for shorter periods than recommended. Suboptimal treatment duration may result in reduced clinical effectiveness or repeated exposures, potentially contributing to antimicrobial resistance.

Clinical Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 Booster Vaccine Against Omicron Infection in Residents and Staff of Long-term Care Facilities: A Prospective Cohort Study (VIVALDI).

Background: Successive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have caused severe disease in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Primary vaccination provides strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection following booster vaccines, particularly against the Omicron variant. We investigated the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among LTCF residents and staff in England. Methods: We included residents and staff of LTCFs within the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN 14447421) who underwent routine, asymptomatic testing (December 12, 2021-March 31, 2022). Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associated hospitalization and death at 0-13, 14-48, 49-83, 84-111, 112-139, and 140+ days after dose 3 of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with 2 doses (after 84+ days), stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex, LTCF capacity, and local SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Results: A total of 14 175 residents and 19 793 staff were included. In residents without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection risk was reduced 0-111 days after the first booster, but no protection was apparent after 112 days. Additional protection following booster vaccination waned but was still present at 140+ days for COVID-associated hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63) and death (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.27). Most residents (64.4%) had received primary course vaccine of AstraZeneca, but this did not impact pre- or postbooster risk. Staff showed a similar pattern of waning booster effectiveness against infection, with few hospitalizations and no deaths. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that booster vaccination provided sustained protection against severe outcomes following infection with the Omicron variant, but no protection against infection from 4 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs is crucial.

Enhancing antimicrobial surveillance in hospitals in England: a RAND-modified Delphi.

Background: Optimizing antimicrobial use (AMU) is key to reducing antimicrobial-resistant infections, but current AMU monitoring in hospital provides limited insights for quality improvement. Objectives: To understand stakeholders' priorities for developing national AMU surveillance in English hospitals to serve the needs of national policy makers and front-line practitioners. Methods: Characteristics of existing AMU surveillance systems were identified from a previous systematic review and categorized by the Acceptability, Practicability, Effectiveness, Affordability, Side-effects and Equity (APEASE) criteria. Stakeholders prioritized characteristics using a two-round RAND-modified Delphi (rating round 1, telephone panel discussion, rating round 2). Findings informed the design of a framework used to assess the extent to which existing surveillance approaches meet stakeholders' needs. Results: Between 17/09/19 and 01/11/19, 24 stakeholders with national and local roles related to AMU prioritized 23 characteristics of AMU surveillance describing: resource for surveillance, data collection, data availability and pathways to translate information from surveillance into practice. No existing surveillance approaches demonstrated all prioritized characteristics. The most common limitation was failure to facilitate clinician engagement with AMU through delays in data access and/or limited availability of disaggregated metrics of prescribing. Conclusions: Current surveillance delivers national public health priorities but improving stewardship demands patient-level data linked to clinical outcomes. This study offers a framework to develop current surveillance to meet the needs of local stakeholders in England. Increased investment in data infrastructure and training is essential to make information held within electronic systems available to front-line clinicians to facilitate quality improvement.

Factors predicting amoxicillin prescribing in primary care among children: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic prescribing during childhood, most commonly for respiratory tract infections (RTIs), contributes to antimicrobial resistance, which is a major public health concern. AIM: To identify factors associated with amoxicillin prescribing and RTI consultation attendance in young children in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study in Bradford spanning pregnancy to age 24 months, collected 2007-2013, linked to electronic primary care and air pollution data. METHOD: Amoxicillin prescribing and RTI consultation rates/1000 child-years were calculated. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were fitted with general practice (GP) surgery as the random effect. RESULTS: The amoxicillin prescribing rate among 2493 children was 710/1000 child-years during year 1 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 677 to 744) and 780/1000 (95% CI = 745 to 816) during year 2. During year 1, odds of amoxicillin prescribing were higher for boys (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.36, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.61), infants from socioeconomically deprived households (aOR 1.36, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.86), and infants with a Pakistani ethnic background (with mothers born in the UK [aOR 1.44, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.94] and outside [aOR 1.42, 95% CI = 1.07 to 1.90]). During year 2, odds of amoxicillin prescribing were higher for infants with a Pakistani ethnic background (with mothers born in the UK [aOR 1.46, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.94] and outside [aOR 1.56, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.04]) and those born <39 weeks gestation (aOR 1.20, 95% CI = 1.00 to 1.45). Additional risk factors included caesarean delivery, congenital anomalies, overcrowding, birth season, and childcare attendance, with GP surgery explaining 7%-9% of variation. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic status and ethnic background were associated with amoxicillin prescribing during childhood. Efforts to reduce RTI spread in household and childcare settings may reduce antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Duration of vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation, and death in residents and staff of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study.

Background: Residents and staff in long-term care facilities have been prioritised for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, but data on potential waning of vaccine effectiveness and the effect of booster doses in this vulnerable population are scarce. We aimed to evaluate effectiveness of one, two, and three vaccine doses against infection and severe clinical outcomes in staff and residents of long-term care facilities in England over the first year following vaccine roll-out. Methods: The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study done in 331 long-term care facilities in England. Residents aged 65 years or older and staff aged 18 years or older were eligible for participation. Participants had routine PCR testing throughout the study period between Dec 8, 2020, and Dec 11, 2021. We retrieved all PCR results and cycle threshold values for PCR-positive samples from routine testing in long-term care facilities, and positive PCR results from clinical testing in hospitals through the UK's COVID-19 Datastore. PCR results were linked to participants using pseudo-identifiers based on individuals' unique UK National Health Service (NHS) numbers, which were also used to retrieve vaccination records from the National Immunisation Management Service, hospitalisation records from NHS England, and deaths data from the Office for National Statistics through the COVID-19 Datastore. In a Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19-related hospitalisation, and COVID-19-related death after one, two, and three vaccine doses, separately by previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN 14447421. Findings: 80 186 residents and staff of long-term care facilities had records available for the study period, of whom 15 518 eligible residents and 19 515 eligible staff were included in the analysis. For residents without evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 exposure, vaccine effectiveness decreased from 61·7% (95% CI 35·1 to 77·4) to 22·0% (-14·9 to 47·0) against infection; from 89·0% (70·6 to 95·9) to 56·3% (30·1 to 72·6) against hospitalisation; and from 96·4% (84·3 to 99·2) to 64·4% (36·1 to 80·1) against death, when comparing 14-83 days after dose two and 84 days or more after dose two. For staff without evidence of previous exposure, vaccine effectiveness against infection decreased slightly from 57·9% (43·1 to 68·9) at 14-83 days after dose two to 42·1% (29·9 to 52·2) at 84 days or more after dose two. There were no hospitalisations or deaths among unexposed staff at 14-83 days, but seven hospitalisations (vaccine effectiveness 91·0% [95% CI 74·3 to 96·8]) and one death were observed at 84 days or more after dose two. High vaccine effectiveness was restored following a third vaccine dose, with vaccine effectiveness in unexposed residents of 72·7% (55·8 to 83·1) against infection, 90·1% (80·6 to 95·0) against hospitalisation, and 97·5% (88·1 to 99·5) against death; and vaccine effectiveness in unexposed staff of 78·2% (70·0 to 84·1) against infection and 95·8% (49·9 to 99·6) against hospitalisation. There were no COVID-19-related deaths among unexposed staff after the third vaccine dose. Interpretation: Our findings showed substantial waning of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against all outcomes in residents of long-term care facilities from 12 weeks after a primary course of ChAdOx1-S or mRNA vaccines. Boosters restored protection, and maximised immunity across all outcomes. These findings show the importance of boosting and the need for ongoing surveillance in this vulnerable cohort. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Antibody and cellular immune responses following dual COVID-19 vaccination within infection-naive residents of long-term care facilities: an observational cohort study.

Background: Older age and frailty are risk factors for poor clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, COVID-19 vaccination has been prioritised for individuals with these factors, but there is concern that immune responses might be impaired due to age-related immune dysregulation and comorbidity. We aimed to study humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccines in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Methods: In this observational cohort study, we assessed antibody and cellular immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in members of staff and residents at 74 LTCFs across the UK. Staff and residents were eligible for inclusion if it was possible to link them to a pseudo-identifier in the COVID-19 datastore, if they had received two vaccine doses, and if they had given a blood sample 6 days after vaccination at the earliest. There were no comorbidity exclusion criteria. Participants were stratified by age (<65 years or ≥65 years) and infection status (previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [infection-primed group] or SARS-CoV-2 naive [infection-naive group]). Anticoagulated edetic acid (EDTA) blood samples were assessed and humoral and cellular responses were quantified. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and June 27, 2021, blood samples were taken from 220 people younger than 65 years (median age 51 years [IQR 39-61]; 103 [47%] had previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection) and 268 people aged 65 years or older of LTCFs (median age 87 years [80-92]; 144 [43%] had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Samples were taken a median of 82 days (IQR 72-100) after the second vaccination. Antibody responses following dual vaccination were strong and equivalent between participants younger then 65 years and those aged 65 years and older in the infection-primed group (median 125 285 Au/mL [1128 BAU/mL] for <65 year olds vs 157 979 Au/mL [1423 BAU/mL] for ≥65 year olds; p=0·47). The antibody response was reduced by 2·4-times (467 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and 8·1-times (174 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive residents compared with their infection-primed counterparts. Antibody response was 2·6-times lower in infection-naive residents than in infection-naive people younger than 65 years (p=0·0006). Impaired neutralisation of delta (1.617.2) variant spike binding was also apparent in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and in those aged 65 years and older. Spike-specific T-cell responses were also significantly enhanced in the infection-primed group. Infection-naive people aged 65 years and older (203 SFU per million [IQR 89-374]) had a 52% lower T-cell response compared with infection-naive people younger than 65 years (85 SFU per million [30-206]; p≤0·0001). Post-vaccine spike-specific CD4 T-cell responses displayed single or dual production of IFN-γ and IL-2 were similar across infection status groups, whereas the infection-primed group had an extended functional profile with TNFα and CXCL10 production. Interpretation: These data reveal suboptimal post-vaccine immune responses within infection-naive residents of LTCFs, and they suggest the need for optimisation of immune protection through the use of booster vaccination. Funding: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective, cohort study.

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is highly transmissible, but disease severity appears to be reduced compared with previous variants such as alpha and delta. We investigated the risk of severe outcomes following infection in residents of long-term care facilities. Methods: We did a prospective cohort study in residents of long-term care facilities in England who were tested regularly for SARS-CoV-2 between Sept 1, 2021, and Feb 1, 2022, and who were participants of the VIVALDI study. Residents were eligible for inclusion if they had a positive PCR or lateral flow device test during the study period, which could be linked to a National Health Service (NHS) number, enabling linkage to hospital admissions and mortality datasets. PCR or lateral flow device test results were linked to national hospital admission and mortality records using the NHS-number-based pseudo-identifier. We compared the risk of hospital admission (within 14 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test) or death (within 28 days) in residents who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the period shortly before omicron emerged (delta-dominant) and in the omicron-dominant period, adjusting for age, sex, primary vaccine course, past infection, and booster vaccination. Variants were confirmed by sequencing or spike-gene status in a subset of samples. Results: 795 233 tests were done in 333 long-term care facilities, of which 159 084 (20·0%) could not be linked to a pseudo-identifier and 138 012 (17·4%) were done in residents. Eight residents had two episodes of infection (>28 days apart) and in these cases the second episode was excluded from the analysis. 2264 residents in 259 long-term care facilities (median age 84·5 years, IQR 77·9-90·0) were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, of whom 253 (11·2%) had a previous infection and 1468 (64·8%) had received a booster vaccination. About a third of participants were male. Risk of hospital admissions was markedly lower in the 1864 residents infected in the omicron-period (4·51%, 95% CI 3·65-5·55) than in the 400 residents infected in the pre-omicron period (10·50%, 7·87-13·94), as was risk of death (5·48% [4·52-6·64] vs 10·75% [8·09-14·22]). Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) also indicated a reduction in hospital admissions (0·64, 95% CI 0·41-1·00; p=0·051) and mortality (aHR 0·68, 0·44-1·04; p=0·076) in the omicron versus the pre-omicron period. Findings were similar in residents with a confirmed variant. Interpretation: Observed reduced severity of the omicron variant compared with previous variants suggests that the wave of omicron infections is unlikely to lead to a major surge in severe disease in long-term care facility populations with high levels of vaccine coverage or natural immunity. Continued surveillance in this vulnerable population is important to protect residents from infection and monitor the public health effect of emerging variants. Funding: UK Department of Health and Social Care.

COVID-19 prevalence and mortality in longer-term care facilities.

This essay considers the factors that have contributed to very high COVID-19 mortality in longer-term care facilities (LTCFs). We compare the demographic characteristics of LTCF residents with those of community-dwelling older adults, and then we review the evidence regarding prevalence and infection fatality rates (IFRs), including links to frailty and some comorbidities. Finally, we discuss policy measures that could foster the physical and mental health and well-being of LTCF residents in the present context and in potential future pandemics.

Exploring barriers to guideline implementation for prescription of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis in Nigeria.

Background: In Nigeria, the prescription of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis for prevention of surgical site infection tends to be driven by local policy rather than by published guidelines (e.g. WHO and Sanford). Objectives: To triangulate three datasets and understand key barriers to implementation using a behavioural science framework. Methods: Surgeons (N = 94) from three teaching hospitals in Nigeria participated in an online survey and in focus group discussions about barriers to implementation. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) was used to structure question items and interview schedules. A subgroup (N = 20) piloted a gamified decision support app over the course of 6 months and reported barriers at the point of care. Results: Knowledge of guidelines and intention to implement them in practice was high. Key barriers to implementation were related to environmental context and resources and concern over potential consequences of implementing recommendations within the Nigerian context applicable for similar settings in low-to-middle-income countries. Conclusions: The environmental context and limited resource setting of Nigerian hospitals currently presents a significant barrier to implementation of WHO and Sanford guidelines. Research and data collected from the local context must directly inform the writing of future international guidelines to increase rates of implementation.