Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 42
Filter
1.
J Am Med Dir Assoc ; 25(2): 304-313.e11, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38065220

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Humans , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Long-Term Care , COVID-19 Testing , Information Storage and Retrieval
2.
BMJ Open ; 13(11): e076210, 2023 11 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37963697

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Hospitalization , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic
3.
Age Ageing ; 52(8)2023 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37595069

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Humans , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/prevention & control , Long-Term Care , Prospective Studies , Skilled Nursing Facilities , COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , Vaccine Efficacy , England/epidemiology
4.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 23(1): 149, 2023 06 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37365584

ABSTRACT

Active-control trials, where an experimental treatment is compared with an established treatment, are performed when the inclusion of a placebo control group is deemed to be unethical. For time-to-event outcomes, the primary estimand is usually the rate ratio, or the closely-related hazard ratio, comparing the experimental group with the control group. In this article we describe major problems in the interpretation of this estimand, using examples from COVID-19 vaccine and HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis trials. In particular, when the control treatment is highly effective, the rate ratio may indicate that the experimental treatment is clearly statistically inferior even when it is worthwhile from a public health perspective. We argue that it is crucially important to consider averted events as well as observed events in the interpretation of active-control trials. An alternative metric that incorporates this information, the averted events ratio, is proposed and exemplified. Its interpretation is simple and conceptually appealing, namely the proportion of events that would be averted by using the experimental treatment rather than the control treatment. The averted events ratio cannot be directly estimated from the active-control trial, and requires an additional assumption about either: (a) the incidence that would have been observed in a hypothetical placebo arm (the counterfactual incidence) or (b) the efficacy of the control treatment (relative to no treatment) that pertained in the active-control trial. Although estimation of these parameters is not straightforward, this must be attempted in order to draw rational inferences. To date, this method has been applied only within HIV prevention research, but has wider applicability to treatment trials and other disease areas.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , HIV Infections , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Treatment Outcome , Proportional Hazards Models , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
5.
Br J Health Psychol ; 28(4): 1011-1035, 2023 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37128667

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of a whole-genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours within the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a three-staged design. Firstly, we described and theorized the purported content of the SRF using the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Secondly, we used inductive thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews (n = 39) to explore contextual accounts of using the SRF. Thirdly, further deductive analysis gauged support for the intervention working as earlier anticipated. RESULTS: It was possible to theorize the SRF using the BCW approach and visualize it within a simple logic model. Inductive thematic analyses identified the SRF's acceptability, ease of use and perceived effectiveness. However, major challenges to embedding it in routine practice during the unfolding COVID-19 crisis were reported. Notwithstanding this insight, deductive analysis showed support for the putative intervention functions 'Education', 'Persuasion' and 'Enablement'; behaviour change techniques '1.2 Problem solving', '2.6 Biofeedback', '2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour' and '7.1 Prompts and cues'; and theoretical domains framework domains 'Knowledge' and 'Behavioural regulation'. CONCLUSIONS: Our process evaluation of the SRF, using the BCW approach to describe and theorize its content, provided granular support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours as anticipated. However, our complementary inductive thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the local context in constraining its routine use. For SRFs to reach their full potential in reducing nosocomial infections, further implementation research is needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , United Kingdom
6.
Nat Aging ; 3(1): 93-104, 2023 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37118525

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Aged , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies , COVID-19 Vaccines , Breakthrough Infections
7.
J Crohns Colitis ; 17(8): 1228-1234, 2023 Aug 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36929761

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis [UC] and Crohn's disease [CD] can be associated with severe comorbidities, namely opportunistic infections and malignancies. We present the first systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the burden of anal human papillomavirus disease in patients with UC and CD. METHODS: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched until November 2022. Meta-analyses were performed using random effects models. The protocol was recorded at PROSPERO register with the number CRD42022356728. RESULTS: Six studies, including 78 711 patients with UC with a total follow-up of 518 969 person-years, described the anal cancer incidence rate. For anal cancer incidence rate in CD, six studies were selected, including 56 845 patients with a total follow-up of 671 899 person-years. The incidence of anal cancer was 10.2 [95% CI 4.3 - 23.7] per 100 000 person-years in UC and 7.7 [3.5 - 17.1] per 100 000 person-years in CD. A subgroup analysis of anal cancer in perianal CD, including 7105 patients, was calculated with incidence of 19.6 [12.2 - 31.6] per 100 000 person-years [three studies included]. Few studies described prevalence of anal cytological abnormalities [four studies including 349 patients] or high-risk human papillomavirus [three studies including 210 patients], with high heterogeneity. Prevalence of cytological abnormalities or high-risk human papillomavirus was not associated with pharmacological immunosuppression in the studies included. CONCLUSION: The incidence of anal cancer is higher in UC than in CD, with the exception of perianal CD. There are limited and heterogeneous data on anal high-risk human papillomavirus infection and squamous intraepithelial lesions prevalence in this population.


Subject(s)
Anus Diseases , Anus Neoplasms , Colitis, Ulcerative , Crohn Disease , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Papillomavirus Infections , Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions , Humans , Papillomavirus Infections/complications , Papillomavirus Infections/epidemiology , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/complications , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/epidemiology , Anus Neoplasms/epidemiology , Anus Neoplasms/etiology , Anus Diseases/epidemiology , Anus Diseases/complications , Crohn Disease/complications , Crohn Disease/epidemiology , Colitis, Ulcerative/complications , Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions/complications
8.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 10(1): ofac694, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36713473

ABSTRACT

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.

9.
PLoS One ; 17(11): e0278057, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36417409

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Post-acute COVID-19 sequelae refers to a variety of health complications involving different organ systems that have been described among individuals after acute phase of illness. Data from unselected population groups with long-time follow up is needed to comprehensively describe the full spectrum of post-acute COVID-19 complications. METHODS: In this retrospective nationwide cohort study, we used data obtained from electronic health record database. Our primary cohort were adults hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and matched (age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index) unaffected controls from general population. Individuals included from February 2020 until March 2021 were followed up for 12 months. We estimated risks of all-cause mortality, readmission and incidence of 16 clinical sequelae after acute COVID-19 phase. Using a frailty Cox model, we compared incidences of outcomes in two cohorts. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 3949 patients older than 18 years who were alive 30 days after COVID-19 hospital admission and 15511 controls. Among cases 40.3% developed at least one incident clinical sequelae after the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was two times higher than in general population group. We report substantially higher risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 2.57 (95%CI 2.23-2.96) and hospital readmission aHR = 1.73 (95%CI 1.58-1.90) among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We found that the risks for new clinical sequalae were significantly higher in COVID-19 patients than their controls, especially for dementia aHR = 4.50 (95% CI 2.35-8.64), chronic lower respiratory disease aHR = 4.39 (95% CI 3.09-6.22), liver disease aHR 4.20 (95% CI 2.01-8.77) and other (than ischemic) forms of heart diseases aHR = 3.39 (95%CI 2.58-4.44). CONCLUSION: Our results provide evidence that the post-acute COVID-19 morbidity within the first year after COVID-19 hospitalization is substantial. Risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalisation and majority of clinical sequelae were significantly higher in hospitalized COVID-19 patients than in general population controls and warrant targeted prevention efforts.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Humans , Cohort Studies , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Estonia , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Lancet Public Health ; 7(10): e853-e865, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36182235

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Accelerated partner therapy has shown promise in improving contact tracing. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of accelerated partner therapy in addition to usual contact tracing compared with usual practice alone in heterosexual people with chlamydia, using a biological primary outcome measure. METHODS: We did a crossover cluster-randomised controlled trial in 17 sexual health clinics (clusters) across England and Scotland. Participants were heterosexual people aged 16 years or older with a positive Chlamydia trachomatis test result, or a clinical diagnosis of conditions for which presumptive chlamydia treatment and contact tracing are initially provided, and their sexual partners. We allocated phase order for clinics through random permutation within strata. In the control phase, participants received usual care (health-care professional advised the index patient to tell their sexual partner[s] to attend clinic for sexually transmitted infection screening and treatment). In the intervention phase, participants received usual care plus an offer of accelerated partner therapy (health-care professional assessed sexual partner[s] by telephone, then sent or gave the index patient antibiotics and sexually transmitted infection self-sampling kits for their sexual partner[s]). Each phase lasted 6 months, with a 2-week washout at crossover. The primary outcome was the proportion of index patients with a positive C trachomatis test result at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation. Secondary outcomes included proportions and types of sexual partners treated. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat, fitting random effects logistic regression models. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 15996256. FINDINGS: Between Oct 24, 2018, and Nov 17, 2019, 1536 patients were enrolled in the intervention phase and 1724 were enrolled in the control phase. All clinics completed both phases. In total, 4807 sexual partners were reported, of whom 1636 (34%) were steady established partners. Overall, 293 (19%) of 1536 index patients chose accelerated partner therapy for a total of 305 partners, of whom 248 (81%) accepted. 666 (43%) of 1536 index patients in the intervention phase and 800 (46%) of 1724 in the control phase were tested for C trachomatis at 12-24 weeks after contact tracing consultation; 31 (4·7%) in the intervention phase and 53 (6·6%) in the control phase had a positive C trachomatis test result (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·41 to 1·04]; p=0·071; marginal absolute difference -2·2% [95% CI -4·7 to 0·3]). Among index patients with treatment status recorded, 775 (88·0%) of 881 patients in the intervention phase and 760 (84·6%) of 898 in the control phase had at least one treated sexual partner at 2-4 weeks after contact tracing consultation (adjusted OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·96 to 1·68]; p=0·10; marginal absolute difference 2·7% [95% CI -0·5 to 6·0]). No clinically significant harms were reported. INTERPRETATION: Although the evidence that the intervention reduces repeat infection was not conclusive, the trial results suggest that accelerated partner therapy can be safely offered as a contact tracing option and is also likely to be cost saving. Future research should find ways to increase uptake of accelerated partner therapy and develop alternative interventions for one-off sexual partners. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.


Subject(s)
Chlamydia Infections , Sexually Transmitted Diseases , Anti-Bacterial Agents , Chlamydia Infections/diagnosis , Chlamydia Infections/epidemiology , Chlamydia Infections/prevention & control , Chlamydia trachomatis , Contact Tracing/methods , Humans , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/epidemiology , Sexually Transmitted Diseases/prevention & control
11.
Elife ; 112022 Sep 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36098502

ABSTRACT

Background: Viral sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has been used for outbreak investigation, but there is limited evidence supporting routine use for infection prevention and control (IPC) within hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective non-randomised trial of sequencing at 14 acute UK hospital trusts. Sites each had a 4-week baseline data collection period, followed by intervention periods comprising 8 weeks of 'rapid' (<48 hr) and 4 weeks of 'longer-turnaround' (5-10 days) sequencing using a sequence reporting tool (SRT). Data were collected on all hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs; detected ≥48 hr from admission). The impact of the sequencing intervention on IPC knowledge and actions, and on the incidence of probable/definite hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), was evaluated. Results: A total of 2170 HOCI cases were recorded from October 2020 to April 2021, corresponding to a period of extreme strain on the health service, with sequence reports returned for 650/1320 (49.2%) during intervention phases. We did not detect a statistically significant change in weekly incidence of HAIs in longer-turnaround (incidence rate ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.85-3.01; p=0.14) or rapid (0.85, 0.48-1.50; p=0.54) intervention phases compared to baseline phase. However, IPC practice was changed in 7.8 and 7.4% of all HOCI cases in rapid and longer-turnaround phases, respectively, and 17.2 and 11.6% of cases where the report was returned. In a 'per-protocol' sensitivity analysis, there was an impact on IPC actions in 20.7% of HOCI cases when the SRT report was returned within 5 days. Capacity to respond effectively to insights from sequencing was breached in most sites by the volume of cases and limited resources. Conclusions: While we did not demonstrate a direct impact of sequencing on the incidence of nosocomial transmission, our results suggest that sequencing can inform IPC response to HOCIs, particularly when returned within 5 days. Funding: COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (grant code: MC_PC_19027), and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Clinical trial number: NCT04405934.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , Humans , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Infection Control/methods , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals
12.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e060748, 2022 09 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36123052

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a mixed-methods process evaluation that aimed to provide insight on the Afya conditional cash transfer (CCT) intervention fidelity and acceptability. INTERVENTION, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The Afya CCT intervention aimed to retain women in the continuum of maternal healthcare including antenatal care (ANC), delivery at facility and postnatal care (PNC) in Siaya County, Kenya. The cash transfers were delivered using an electronic card reader system at health facilities. It was evaluated in a trial that randomised 48 health facilities to intervention or control, and which found modest increases in attendance for ANC and immunisation appointments, but little effect on delivery at facility and PNC visits. DESIGN: A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted. We used the Afya electronic portal with recorded visits and payments, and reports on use of the electronic card reader system from each healthcare facility to assess fidelity. Focus group interviews with participants (N=5) and one-on-one interviews with participants (N=10) and healthcare staff (N=15) were conducted to assess the acceptability of the intervention. Data analyses were conducted using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis, as appropriate. RESULTS: Delivery of the Afya CCT intervention was negatively affected by problems with the electronic card reader system and a decrease in adherence to its use over the intervention period by healthcare staff, resulting in low implementation fidelity. Acceptability of cash transfers in the form of mobile transfers was high for participants. Initially, the intervention was acceptable to healthcare staff, especially with respect to improvements in attaining facility targets for ANC visits. However, acceptability was negatively affected by significant delays linked to the card reader system. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight operational challenges in delivering the Afya CCT intervention using the Afya electronic card reader system, and the need for greater technology readiness before further scale-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03021070.


Subject(s)
Health Facilities , Prenatal Care , Continuity of Patient Care , Female , Humans , Kenya , Pregnancy , Prenatal Care/methods
13.
Lancet Healthy Longev ; 3(5): e347-e355, 2022 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35531432

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Long-Term Care , Male , Prospective Studies , State Medicine
14.
BMJ Open ; 12(4): e052514, 2022 04 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35440446

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been a significant cause of mortality in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COG-UK Consortium Hospital-Onset COVID-19 Infections (COG-UK HOCI) study aims to evaluate whether the use of rapid whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, supported by a novel probabilistic reporting methodology, can inform infection prevention and control (IPC) practice within NHS hospital settings. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, interventional, superiority study. SETTING: 14 participating NHS hospitals over winter-spring 2020/2021 in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients must be admitted to hospital with first-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive test result >48 hour from time of admission, where COVID-19 diagnosis not suspected on admission. The projected sample size is 2380 patients. INTERVENTION: The intervention is the return of a sequence report, within 48 hours in one phase (rapid local lab processing) and within 5-10 days in a second phase (mimicking central lab), comparing the viral genome from an eligible study participant with others within and outside the hospital site. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are incidence of Public Health England (PHE)/IPC-defined SARS-CoV-2 hospital-acquired infection during the baseline and two interventional phases, and proportion of hospital-onset cases with genomic evidence of transmission linkage following implementation of the intervention where such linkage was not suspected by initial IPC investigation. Secondary outcomes include incidence of hospital outbreaks, with and without sequencing data; actual and desirable changes to IPC actions; periods of healthcare worker (HCW) absence. Health economic analysis will be conducted to determine cost benefit of the intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews with HCWs will be conducted alongside the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN50212645. Pre-results stage. This manuscript is based on protocol V.6.0. 2 September 2021.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Testing , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Hospitals , Humans , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Pandemics/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , State Medicine , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
15.
J Infect Dis ; 226(11): 1877-1881, 2022 11 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35429382

ABSTRACT

General population studies have shown strong humoral response following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination with subsequent waning of anti-spike antibody levels. Vaccine-induced immune responses are often attenuated in frail and older populations, but published data are scarce. We measured SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody levels in long-term care facility residents and staff following a second vaccination dose with Oxford-AstraZeneca or Pfizer-BioNTech. Vaccination elicited robust antibody responses in older residents, suggesting comparable levels of vaccine-induced immunity to that in the general population. Antibody levels are higher after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination but fall more rapidly compared to Oxford-AstraZeneca recipients and are enhanced by prior infection in both groups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , Humans , Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , Long-Term Care , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies, Viral , England
16.
AIDS ; 36(3): 415-422, 2022 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35084383

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether infection occurred pre or postmigration and the associated diagnosis delay in migrants diagnosed with HIV in the UK. DESIGN: We analyzed a cohort of individuals diagnosed with HIV in the UK in 2014-2016 born in Africa or elsewhere in Europe. Inclusion criteria were arrival within 15 years before diagnosis, availability of HIV pol sequence, and viral subtype shared by at least 10 individuals. METHODS: We examined phylogenies for evidence of infection after entry into the UK and incorporated this information into a Bayesian analysis of timing of infection using biomarkers of CD4+ cell count, avidity assays, proportion of ambiguous nucleotides in viral sequences, and last negative test dates where available. RESULTS: One thousand, two hundred and fifty-six individuals were included. The final model indicated that HIV was acquired postmigration for most MSM born in Europe (posterior expectation 65%, 95% credibility interval 64-67%) or Africa (65%, 62-69%), whereas a minority (20-30%) of men and women with heterosexual transmission acquired HIV postmigration. Estimated diagnosis delays were lower for MSM than for those with heterosexual transmission, and were lower for those with postmigration infection across all subgroups. For MSM acquiring HIV postmigration, the estimated mean time to diagnosis was less than one year, but for those who acquired HIV premigration, the mean time from infection to diagnosis was more than five years for all subgroups. CONCLUSION: Acquisition of HIV postmigration is common, particularly among MSM, calling for prevention efforts aimed at migrant communities. Delays in diagnosis reinforce the need for targeted testing initiatives.


Subject(s)
HIV Infections , Sexual and Gender Minorities , Bayes Theorem , Delayed Diagnosis , Female , HIV Infections/prevention & control , Homosexuality, Male , Humans , Male , United Kingdom/epidemiology
17.
BMJ Open ; 12(1): e055921, 2022 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34992119

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Given high maternal and child mortality rates, we assessed the impact of conditional cash transfers (CCTs) to retain women in the continuum of care (antenatal care (ANC), delivery at facility, postnatal care (PNC) and child immunisation). DESIGN: We conducted an unblinded 1:1 cluster-randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 48 health facilities in Siaya County, Kenya were randomised. The trial ran from May 2017 to December 2019. PARTICIPANTS: 2922 women were recruited to the control and 2522 to the intervention arm. INTERVENTIONS: An electronic system recorded attendance and triggered payments to the participant's mobile for the intervention arm (US$4.5), and phone credit for the control arm (US$0.5). Eligibility criteria were resident in the catchment area and access to a mobile phone. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: Primary outcomes were any ANC, delivery, any PNC between 4 and 12 months after delivery, childhood immunisation and referral attendance to other facilities for ANC or PNC. Given problems with the electronic system, primary outcomes were obtained from maternal clinic books if participants brought them to data extraction meetings (1257 (50%) of intervention and 1053 (36%) control arm participants). Attendance at referrals to other facilities is not reported because of limited data. RESULTS: We found a significantly higher proportion of appointments attended for ANC (67% vs 60%, adjusted OR (aOR) 1.90; 95% CI 1.36 to 2.66) and child immunisation (88% vs 85%; aOR 1.74; 95% CI 1.10 to 2.77) in intervention than control arm. No intervention effect was seen considering delivery at the facility (90% vs 92%; aOR 0.58; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.33) and any PNC attendance (82% vs 81%; aOR 1.25; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.10) separately. The pooled OR across all attendance types was 1.64 (1.28 to 2.10). CONCLUSIONS: Demand-side financing incentives, such as CCTs, can improve attendance for appointments. However, attention needs to be paid to the technology, the barriers that remain for delivery at facility and PNC visits and encouraging women to attend ANC visits within the recommended WHO timeframe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03021070.


Subject(s)
Motivation , Parturition , Ambulatory Care Facilities , Child , Continuity of Patient Care , Female , Humans , Kenya , Pregnancy
18.
HIV Med ; 23(3): 294-300, 2022 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34634168

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are commonplace in modern antiretroviral therapy (ART). Increased weight gain with their use is increasingly scrutinized. We evaluated weight changes in treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 attending a UK centre who started regimens including raltegravir or dolutegravir. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of adults prescribed an INSTI between January 2015 and March 2020 were categorized as having started an ART regimen containing raltegravir, dolutegravir, a protease inhibitor or a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Individuals with one or more weight measurement ≤ 5 years both pre- and post-ART initiation, who started a three-drug regimen with ≥ 6 months duration and achieved virological suppression (< 50 copies/mL) within 6 months were included. A random effects model with linear slope pre- and post-ART was used, adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, ART regimen, backbone and year of initiation. RESULTS: The cohort included 390 adults; 88.7% were male, 66.4% were of white ethnicity, their median age was 40 years, there was a median of six weight measurements, 2.2 years from diagnosis to ART initiation, 2.9 years from ART to the last weight measurement, and weight and body mass index at initiation were 75 kg and 24.1 kg/m2 respectively. Of these, 254 (65%) started an INSTI. The average pre-ART rate of weight gain was 0.44 kg/year [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.19-0.70], increasing to 0.88 kg/year (0.63-1.10, p = 0.04) after ART initiation. Our adjusted model found no evidence of an association between ART regimen and rate of weight gain. CONCLUSIONS: Weight increased in the cohort both pre- and post-ART. We found no evidence of a higher rate of weight gain following ART initiation with an INSTI compared with other regimens.


Subject(s)
HIV Infections , HIV Integrase Inhibitors , Adult , HIV Infections/drug therapy , HIV Integrase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors/adverse effects , Weight Gain
19.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 28(1): 93-100, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34400345

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To analyse nosocomial transmission in the early stages of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic at a large multisite healthcare institution. Nosocomial incidence is linked with infection control interventions. METHODS: Viral genome sequence and epidemiological data were analysed for 574 consecutive patients, including 86 nosocomial cases, with a positive PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during the first 19 days of the pandemic. RESULTS: Forty-four putative transmission clusters were found through epidemiological analysis; these included 234 cases and all 86 nosocomial cases. SARS-CoV-2 genome sequences were obtained from 168/234 (72%) of these cases in epidemiological clusters, including 77/86 nosocomial cases (90%). Only 75/168 (45%) of epidemiologically linked, sequenced cases were not refuted by applying genomic data, creating 14 final clusters accounting for 59/77 sequenced nosocomial cases (77%). Viral haplotypes from these clusters were enriched 1-14x (median 4x) compared to the community. Three factors implicated unidentified cases in transmission: (a) community-onset or indeterminate cases were absent in 7/14 clusters (50%), (b) four clusters (29%) had additional evidence of cryptic transmission, and (c) in three clusters (21%) diagnosis of the earliest case was delayed, which may have facilitated transmission. Nosocomial cases decreased to low levels (0-2 per day) despite continuing high numbers of admissions of community-onset SARS-CoV-2 cases (40-50 per day) and before the impact of introducing universal face masks and banning hospital visitors. CONCLUSION: Genomics was necessary to accurately resolve transmission clusters. Our data support unidentified cases-such as healthcare workers or asymptomatic patients-as important vectors of transmission. Evidence is needed to ascertain whether routine screening increases case ascertainment and limits nosocomial transmission.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cross Infection , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , Cross Infection/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Genome, Viral , Genomics , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics
20.
PLOS Glob Public Health ; 2(3): e0000128, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36962294

ABSTRACT

There is limited evidence on the cost and cost-effectiveness of cash transfer programmes to improve maternal and child health in Kenya and other sub-Saharan African countries. This article presents the economic evaluation results of the Afya trial, assessing the costs, cost-effectiveness and equity impact of a demand-side financing intervention that promotes utilisation of maternal health services in rural Kenya. The cost of implementing the Afya intervention was estimated from a provider perspective. Cost data were collected prospectively from all implementing and non-implementing partners, and from health service providers. Cost-efficiency was analysed using cost-transfer ratios and cost per mother enrolled into the intervention. Cost-effectiveness was assessed as cost per additional eligible antenatal care visit as a result of the intervention, when compared with standard care. The equity impact of the intervention was also assessed using a multidimensional poverty index (MPI). Programme cost per mother enrolled was International (INT)$313 of which INT$ 92 consisted of direct transfer payments, suggesting a cost transfer ratio of 2.4. Direct healthcare utilisation costs reflected a small proportion of total provider costs, amounting to INT$ 21,756. The total provider cost of the Afya intervention was INT$808,942. The provider cost per additional eligible ANC visit was INT$1,035. This is substantially higher than estimated annual health expenditure per capita at the county level of $INT61. MPI estimates suggest around 27.4% of participant households were multidimensionally poor. MPI quintiles did not significantly modify the intervention effect, suggesting the impact of the intervention did not differ by socioeconomic status. Based on the available evidence, it is not possible to conclude whether the Afya intervention was cost-effective. A simple comparison with current health expenditure in Siaya county suggests that the intervention as implemented is likely to be unaffordable. Consideration needs to be given to strengthening the supply-side of the cash transfer intervention before replication or uptake at scale.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...