Background Growing numbers of people have been potentially exposed to avian influenza (AI), as the United Kingdom has managed the largest and most sustained series outbreaks in recent years. Antiviral medication is recommended for exposed individuals for chemoprophylaxis to reduce the severity of illness and the likelihood of secondary transmission. However, some individuals have been hesitant or declined antivirals. In this study, we aimed to identify the factors affecting the uptake of and adherence to antiviral medication. Methods We interviewed 14 individuals occupationally exposed to avian influenza and conducted focus groups with 15 public health professionals involved in advising and arranging antivirals. The data were analysed thematically based on COM-B factors (capability, opportunity, motivation). Results Although participants saw avian influenza as a severe disease, most did not consider themselves susceptible to it because they felt safe in personal protective equipment and knew that bird-to-human transmission was rare. The biggest barrier to uptake and adherence was experiencing side effects, especially if these disrupted day-to-day life or work. Participants who took antivirals followed medical advice in a novel situation, had health conditions or vulnerable family members they wanted to protect. As responding to an outbreak was exhausting, easy access to antivirals for those at most risk was considered important for improving uptake. Conclusions The factors affecting antiviral uptake were multifaceted. Public health interventions should prioritise those at most risk and address multiple components of behaviour, such as advising how to manage side effects, addressing concerns about long-term usage and providing convenient access to antivirals for those at most risk.

A programme of asymptomatic swabbing was piloted in 2021/2022 in England to further understand the risk of human infection with avian influenza in exposed individuals and to evaluate this surveillance approach as a public health measure. There were challenges in deploying this pilot that will need to be addressed for future seasons. However, there was one detection of avian influenza A(H5N1) in a human despite low uptake in eligible exposed persons. Future use of asymptomatic swabbing could help provide an evidence base to quantify asymptomatic infection, quickly identify signals of increased animal to human transmission and improve public health preparedness.

Persons experiencing homelessness (PEH) or rough sleeping are a vulnerable population, likely to be disproportionately affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The impact of COVID-19 infection on this population is yet to be fully described in England. We present a novel method to identify COVID-19 cases in this population and describe its findings. A phenotype was developed and validated to identify PEH or rough sleeping in a national surveillance system. Confirmed COVID-19 cases in England from March 2020 to March 2022 were address-matched to known homelessness accommodations and shelters. Further cases were identified using address-based indicators, such as NHS pseudo postcodes. In total, 1835 cases were identified by the phenotype. Most were <39 years of age (66.8%) and male (62.8%). The proportion of cases was highest in London (29.8%). The proportion of cases of a minority ethnic background and deaths were disproportionality greater in this population, compared to all COVID-19 cases in England. This methodology provides an approach to track the impact of COVID-19 on a subset of this population and will be relevant to policy making. Future surveillance systems and studies may benefit from this approach to further investigate the impact of COVID-19 and other diseases on select populations.

Abstract The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) rapidly replaced Delta (B.1.617.2) to become dominant in England. Our study assessed differences in transmission between Omicron and Delta using two independent data sources and methods. Omicron and Delta cases were identified through genomic sequencing, genotyping and S-gene target failure in England from 5–11 December 2021. Secondary attack rates for named contacts were calculated in household and non-household settings using contact tracing data, while household clustering was identified using national surveillance data. Logistic regression models were applied to control for factors associated with transmission for both methods. For contact tracing data, higher secondary attack rates for Omicron vs. Delta were identified in households (15.0% vs. 10.8%) and non-households (8.2% vs. 3.7%). For both variants, in household settings, onward transmission was reduced from cases and named contacts who had three doses of vaccine compared to two, but this effect was less pronounced for Omicron (adjusted risk ratio, aRR 0.78 and 0.88) than Delta (aRR 0.62 and 0.68). In non-household settings, a similar reduction was observed only in contacts who had three doses vs. two doses for both Delta (aRR 0.51) and Omicron (aRR 0.76). For national surveillance data, the risk of household clustering, was increased 3.5-fold for Omicron compared to Delta (aRR 3.54 (3.29–3.81)). Our study identified increased risk of onward transmission of Omicron, consistent with its successful global displacement of Delta. We identified a reduced effectiveness of vaccination in lowering risk of transmission, a likely contributor for the rapid propagation of Omicron.

We identified key risk factors for HIV among people who inject drugs (PWID) in Pakistan and explored access to free clean needles. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate associations between HIV prevalence and demographic, behavioral, and socio-economic characteristics of PWID. Data came from the Government of Pakistan's Integrated Biological and Behavioral Surveillance (IBBS) Round 5 (2016-17; 14 cities). A secondary analysis investigated associations with reported access to clean needles. Unweighted HIV prevalence among 4,062 PWID (99% male) was 21.0%. Longer injecting duration (Odds ratio [OR] 1.06 [95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.10]; per year), higher injecting frequency (OR 1.67 [1.30-2.13]; per unit increase), and injecting heroin (OR 1.90 [1.11-3.25]) were positively associated with HIV prevalence. There was no association between using a used syringe at last injection and HIV. Having>10 years of education had lower odds of HIV than being illiterate (OR 0.58 [0.35-0.95]). Having a regular sexual partner (OR 0.74 [0.57-0.97]) or paying for sex with the opposite sex (OR = 0.62 [0.45-0.85]) had lower odds of HIV than not. Conversely, PWID paying a man/hijra for sex had higher odds of HIV (OR 1.20 [1.00-1.43]). Receipt of clean needles varied by city of residence (0-97% coverage), whilst PWID with knowledge of HIV service delivery programs had higher odds of receiving clean needles (OR 4.58 [3.50-5.99]). Injecting behaviors were associated with HIV prevalence among PWID, though risks related to paying for sex remain complicated. Geographical variation in access to clean needles suggests potential benefits of more widely spread public health services.

BackgroundThe emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Alpha variant in England coincided with a rapid increase in the number of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases in areas where the variant was concentrated.AimOur aim was to assess whether infection with Alpha was associated with more severe clinical outcomes than the wild type.MethodsLaboratory-confirmed infections with genomically sequenced SARS-CoV-2 Alpha and wild type between October and December 2020 were linked to routine healthcare and surveillance datasets. We conducted two statistical analyses to compare the risk of hospital admission and death within 28 days of testing between Alpha and wild-type infections: a matched cohort study and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. We assessed differences in disease severity by comparing hospital admission and mortality, including length of hospitalisation and time to death.ResultsOf 63,609 COVID-19 cases sequenced in England between October and December 2020, 6,038 had the Alpha variant. In the matched cohort analysis, we matched 2,821 cases with Alpha to 2,821 to cases with wild type. In the time-to-event analysis, we observed a 34% increased risk in hospitalisation associated with Alpha compared with wild type, but no significant difference in the risk of mortality.ConclusionWe found evidence of increased risk of hospitalisation after adjusting for key confounders, suggesting increased infection severity associated with the Alpha variant. Rapid assessments of the relative morbidity in terms of clinical outcomes and mortality associated with emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants compared with dominant variants are required to assess overall impact of SARS-CoV-2 mutations.

Background: The emergence of VOC202012/01 in England, known as B.1.1.7 or informally as the 'UK variant', has coincided with rapid increases in the number of PCR-confirmed positive cases in areas where the variant has been concentrated. Methods: To assess whether infection with SARS-CoV-2 variant VOC202012/01 is associated with more severe clinical outcomes compared to wild-type infection, genomically sequenced and confirmed variant and wild-type cases were linked to routine healthcare and surveillance datasets. Two statistical analyses were conducted to compare the risk of hospital admission and death within 28 days of test between variant and wild-type cases: a case-control study and an adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. Differences in severity of disease were assessed by comparing hospital admission and mortality, including length of hospitalisation and time to death.Results: Of 63,609 genomically sequenced COVID-19 cases tested in England between October and December 2020 6,038 were variant cases. In the matched cohort analysis 2,821 variant cases were matched to 2,821 to wild-type cases. In the time to event analysis we observed a 34% increased risk in hospitalisation associated with the variant compared to wild-type cases, however, no significant difference in the risk of mortality was observed. Conclusion: We found evidence of increased risk of hospitalisation after adjusting for key confounders, suggesting increase infection severity associated with this variant. Follow-up studies are needed to assess potential longer-term differences in the clinical outcomes of people infected with the VOC-202012/01 variant.