BACKGROUND:Sepsis remains a significant clinical and public health concern, necessitating timely identification and targeted management for improved patient outcomes. This study describes the epidemiology of sepsis in emergency department attendees across England by analysing a unique multi-site linked dataset to inform approaches to strengthen surveillance and improve our understanding of clinical outcomes. METHODS:An existent study dataset was utilised comprising a sample of paediatric and adult emergency department admissions screened for community-onset sepsis in the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) program in the 2017/18 financial year linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and Office for National Statistics death registrations. This dataset was linked to the United Kingdom Health Security Agency's Second-Generation Surveillance System for microbiological data. Descriptive analyses were conducted to characterise sepsis screen positives and negatives in CQUIN, including demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, microbiological profiles, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS:Of the 4,027 sepsis-screened emergency admissions included, 2,454 (60.9%) were sepsis screen positive under the CQUIN indicator. Only 11.2% (453/4,027) had a positive blood culture within 2 days of hospital admission. Blood culture positivity rates were 15.2% (373/2,454) and 5.1% (80/1,573) for sepsis screen positive and negative in CQUIN, respectively. Monomicrobial episodes predominated (86.5%), with Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus species being the most commonly isolated bacteria. The study showed a case fatality rate of 17.1% (420/2,454) for sepsis screen positive in CQUIN but revealed no significant difference in all-cause 30-day mortality between sepsis screen positives in CQUIN with and without positive blood cultures. Sepsis screen positives in CQUIN with a focal site of infection code were more likely to have positive blood cultures, except for respiratory infections. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides novel insights into the epidemiology of sepsis screening in emergency departments across England, highlighting variability in blood culture positivity rates and microbial profiles. The findings underscore the importance of enhanced surveillance strategies, optimised screening protocols, tailored antimicrobial stewardship practices, and quality improvement initiatives to optimise sepsis management and outcomes. Systemic approaches are needed to address knowledge gaps and inform evidence-based interventions for sepsis care.

Background Bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global threat to both humans and livestock. Despite this, there is limited global consensus on data-informed, priority areas for intervention in both sectors. We compare current livestock AMR data collection efforts with other variables pertinent to human and livestock AMR to identify critical data gaps and mutual priorities. Methods We globally synthesized livestock AMR data from open-source surveillance reports and point prevalence surveys stratified for six pathogens ( Escherichia coli , Staphylococcus aureus , non-typhoidal Salmonella , Campylobacter spp., Enterococcus faecalis , Enterococcus faecium ) and eleven antimicrobial classes important in human and veterinary use, published between 2000 and 2020. We also included all livestock species represented in the data: cattle, chickens, pigs, sheep, turkeys, ducks, horses, buffaloes, and goats. We compared this data with intended priorities calculated from: disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), livestock antimicrobial usage (AMU), livestock biomass, and a global correlation exercise between livestock and human proportion of resistant isolates. Results Resistance to fluoroquinolones and macrolides in Staphylococcus aureus were identified as priorities in many countries but, less than 10% of these reported livestock AMR data. Resistance data for Escherichia coli specific to cattle, chickens, and pigs, which we prioritized, were also well collected. AMR data collection on non-typhoidal Salmonella and other livestock species were often not prioritized. Of 232 categories prioritized by at least one country, data were only collected for 48% (n = 112). Conclusions The lack of livestock AMR data globally for broad resistance in Staphylococcus aureus could underplay their zoonotic threat. Countries can bolster livestock AMR data collection, reporting, and intervention setting for Staphylococcus aureus as done for Escherichia coli . This framework can provide guidance on areas to strengthen AMR surveillance and decision-making for humans and livestock, and if done routinely, can adapt to resistance trends and priorities.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in food animals is a growing threat to animal health and potentially to human health. In resource-limited settings, allocating resources to address AMR can be guided with maps. Here, we mapped AMR prevalence in 7 antimicrobials in Escherichia coli and nontyphoidal Salmonella species across low- and middle-income countries (LIMCs), using 1088 point-prevalence surveys in combination with a geospatial model. Hotspots of AMR were predicted in China, India, Brazil, Chile, and part of central Asia and southeastern Africa. The highest resistance prevalence was for tetracycline (59% for E. coli and 54% for nontyphoidal Salmonella , average across LMICs) and lowest for cefotaxime (33% and 19%). We also identified the antimicrobial with the highest probability of resistance exceeding critical levels (50%) in the future (1.7–12.4 years) for each 10 × 10 km pixel on the map. In Africa and South America, 78% locations were associated with penicillins or tetracyclines crossing 50% resistance in the future. In contrast, in Asia, 77% locations were associated with penicillins or sulphonamides. Our maps highlight diverging geographic trends of AMR prevalence across antimicrobial classes, and can be used to target AMR surveillance in AMR hotspots for priority antimicrobial classes.

Background The Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) indicator on sepsis was introduced in 2015 to incentivise screening eligible emergency admissions for sepsis, with the aim to improve patient outcomes through early identification and timely treatment. The CQUIN sepsis indicator provides an alternative source of data which has potential in improving our understanding of sepsis epidemiology in England and for surveillance and monitoring purposes. Our objectives were to describe 30-day mortality when using CQUIN sepsis indicator data compared to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data, determine whether the CQUIN sepsis screen result was a good predictor of mortality, and identify other independent predictors of mortality in emergency admissions being screened for sepsis in CQUIN. Methods This study was a secondary analysis of a national linked dataset which contains CQUIN sepsis indicator data for financial year 2017/18 from a random sample of 30 NHS hospital trusts in England, linked to HES data and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Descriptive and univariable analyses were conducted to explore differences in mortality for admissions who screened positive or negative for sepsis in CQUIN. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify independent predictors of 30-day mortality. Results 30-day mortality for emergency admissions who screened positive for sepsis in CQUIN was 17% compared to 11% for admissions who screened negative. 30-day mortality differed when using CQUIN sepsis indicator data compared to HES data. We identified some evidence to suggest that the CQUIN sepsis screen result may be an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (adjusted OR, 1.27; 95% CI: 1.03–1.57). Other predictors of mortality included: age, respiratory infection, and the presence of comorbidities such as cancer, dementia, renal disease, liver disease and cardiovascular disease. Conclusion CQUIN sepsis screen identified emergency admissions who were more likely to have poor outcomes, though evidence was limited. Other independent predictors of mortality were identified. Variability in how the CQUIN sepsis indicator was applied limits use of the CQUIN sepsis indicator data, however, this study provides a foundation for further research to improve understanding of sepsis epidemiology in England and inform development of future indicators for clinical and surveillance purposes.

In Europe, systematic national surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in food-producing animals has been conducted for decades; however, geographic distribution within countries remains unknown. To determine distribution within Europe, we combined 33,802 country-level AMR prevalence estimates with 2,849 local AMR prevalence estimates from 209 point prevalence surveys across 31 countries. We produced geospatial models of AMR prevalence in Escherichia coli, nontyphoidal Salmonella, and Campylobacter for cattle, pigs, and poultry. We summarized AMR trends by using the proportion of tested antimicrobial compounds with resistance >50% and generated predictive maps at 10 × 10 km resolution that disaggregated AMR prevalence. For E. coli, predicted prevalence rates were highest in southern Romania and southern/eastern Italy; for Salmonella, southern Hungary and central Poland; and for Campylobacter, throughout Spain. Our findings suggest that AMR distribution is heterogeneous within countries and that surveillance data from below the country level could help with prioritizing resources to reduce AMR.

Human populations that hunt, butcher, and sell bushmeat (bushmeat activities) are at increased risk for zoonotic pathogen spillover. Despite associations with global epidemics of severe illnesses, such as Ebola and mpox, quantitative assessments of bushmeat activities are lacking. However, such assessments could help prioritize pandemic prevention and preparedness efforts. We used geospatial models that combined published data on bushmeat activities and ecologic and demographic drivers to map the distribution of bushmeat activities in rural regions globally. The resulting map had high predictive capacity for bushmeat activities (true skill statistic = 0.94). The model showed that mammal species richness and deforestation were principal drivers of the geographic distribution of bushmeat activities and that countries in West and Central Africa had the highest proportion of land area associated with bushmeat activities. These findings could help prioritize future surveillance of bushmeat activities and forecast emerging zoonoses at a global scale.

Use of antimicrobials in farming has enabled the growth of intensive animal production and helped in meeting the global increase in demand for animal protein. However, the widespread use of veterinary antimicrobials drives antimicrobial resistance, with important consequences for animal health, and potentially human health. Global monitoring of antimicrobial use is essential: first, to track progress in reducing the reliance of farming on antimicrobials. Second, to identify countries where antimicrobial-stewardship efforts should be targeted to curb antimicrobial resistance. Data on usage of antimicrobials in food animals were collected from 42 countries. Multivariate regression models were used in combination with projections of animal counts for cattle, sheep, chicken, and pigs from the Food and Agriculture Organization to estimate global antimicrobial usage of veterinary antimicrobials in 2020 and 2030. Maps of animal densities were used to identify geographic hotspots of antimicrobial use. In each country, estimates of antimicrobial use (tonnes) were calibrated to match continental-level reports of antimicrobial use intensity (milligrams per kilogram of animal) from the World Organization for Animal Health, as well as country-level reports of antimicrobial use from countries that made this information publicly available. Globally, antimicrobial usage was estimated at 99,502 tonnes (95% CI 68,535-198,052) in 2020 and is projected, based on current trends, to increase by 8.0% to 107,472 tonnes (95% CI: 75,927-202,661) by 2030. Hotspots of antimicrobial use were overwhelmingly in Asia (67%), while <1% were in Africa. Findings indicate higher global antimicrobial usage in 2030 compared to prior projections that used data from 2017; this is likely associated with an upward revision of antimicrobial use in Asia/Oceania (~6,000 tonnes) and the Americas (~4,000 tonnes). National-level reporting of antimicrobial use should be encouraged to better evaluate the impact of national policies on antimicrobial use levels.

AbstractBackgroundSARS-CoV-2 vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low income countries. Rapid point of care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated might assist in risk management and vaccine prioritisation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium’s AbC-19™ Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test; Roche N and EUROIMMUN S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure.FindingsPositive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection: adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) 0.00 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.01), 0.03 (0.02-0.05), 0.07 (0.05-0.10), and 0.09 (0.07-0.12) respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01-0.10).InterpretationLateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over 200 day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays.FundingUK GovernmentResearch in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched PubMed for research articles, using the search terms (“COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “coronavirus”) AND (“Antibody” OR “IgG”) AND ((“protection” OR “infection”) identifying studies of cohorts of unvaccinated individuals which reported antibody-associated disease protection published between Dec 1 2019 and 1 April 2022. Additionally, we reviewed studies matching “SARS-CoV-2” and “lateral flow” and “antibody” over the same period.Multiple cohort studies in healthy populations have demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2. Protection estimates were about 85% protection in two overlapping meta-analyses, while in several larger studies increased protection with higher antibody levels was observed.Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology which has been used on a large scale in population screening programs. However, there are wide variations in sensitivity and specificity of antibody detection between different devices. No studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.Added value of this studyIn a prospective cohort study of 2,826 UK key workers, we found positivity in lateral flow test results had a strong negative association with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection within 200 days in an unvaccinated population. The performance of different devices in predicting disease protection differed: positivity on more specific but less sensitive tests was associated with markedly decreased rate of disease. By contrast, protection associated with testing positive using more sensitive devices detecting lower levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was more modest.Implications of all the available evidenceIf the field performance of these tests against contemporary SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar to that observed in this study, lateral flow tests with high specificity may have a role in estimation of SARS-CoV-2 disease risk in unvaccinated populations and individuals.

Previous research has demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology that has been used on a large scale in population screening programs, yet no studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Dried blood spot samples (DBS) provide an alternative sample type to venous blood samples for antibody testing. DBS are used by NHS for diagnosing Hepatitis C and by Public Health England for large scale HIV and Hepatitis C serosurveillance; the applicability of DBS based approaches for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection is uncertain. The study aimed to compare antibody detection in DBS eluates using the Roche Elecsys ® immunoassay with antibody detection in paired plasma samples, using the same assay. The study was in one Police and one Fire & Rescue facility in England; it comprised of 195 participants within a larger sample COVID-19 serodiagnostics study of keyworkers, EDSAB-HOME. Outcome measures were sensitivity and specificity of DBS (the index test) relative to plasma (the reference test), at an experimental cut-off; quality of DBS sample collected; estimates of relative sensitivity of DBS vs. plasma immunoassay in a larger population. 18/195 (9.2%) participants tested positive using plasma samples. DBS sample quality varied markedly by phlebotomist, and low sample volume significantly reduced immunoassay signals. Using an experimental cut-off, sensitivity and specificity of DBS were 89.0% (95% CI 67.2, 96.9%) and 100.0% (95% CI 97.9, 100%) respectively compared with using plasma. The limit of detection for DBS is about 30 times higher than for plasma. DBS use for SARS-CoV-2 serology, though feasible, is insensitive relative to immunoassays on plasma. Sample quality impacts on assay performance. Alternatives, including the collection of capillary blood samples, should be considered for screening programs.

BACKGROUND:Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. In this study, we investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity. METHODS:Cross-sectional study of three key worker streams comprising (A) Police and Fire & Rescue (2 sites) (B) healthcare workers (1 site) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive PCR result (5 sites). We collected self-reported signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and compared this with serology results from two SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays (Roche Elecsys® and EUROIMMUN). RESULTS:Between 01 and 26 June, we recruited 2847 individuals (Stream A: 1,247, Stream B: 1,546 and Stream C: 154). Amongst those without previous positive PCR tests, 687/2,579 (26%) reported belief they had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms; however, only 208 (30.3%) of these were seropositive on both immunoassays. Both immunoassays had high sensitivities relative to previous PCR positivity (>93%); there was also limited decline in antibody titres up to 110 days post symptom onset. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had differing symptom profiles and shorter illnesses than seropositive individuals. CONCLUSION:Non-COVID-19 respiratory illness may have been mistaken for COVID-19 during the outbreak; laboratory testing is more specific than self-reported key worker beliefs in ascertaining past COVID-19 disease.

In November 2017, eight confirmed measles cases were reported to Public Health England from a hospital in the West Midlands. A multidisciplinary Incident Management Team (IMT) was established to determine the extent of the problem and coordinate an outbreak response. Between 1 November 2017 and 4 June 2018, a total of 116 confirmed and 21 likely measles cases were linked to this outbreak; just under half (43%) were aged over 15 years of age. Fifty-five of the confirmed cases were hospitalised (48%) and no deaths were reported. At the start of the outbreak, cases were mostly individuals of Romanian origin; the outbreak subsequently spread to the wider population. Over the 8-month response, the IMT conducted the following control measures: extensive contact tracing, immediate provision of post-exposure prophylaxis, community engagement amongst specific high-risk groups, MMR awareness raising including catch-up campaigns and enhanced vaccination services at selected GP surgeries. Key challenges to the effective control measures included language difficulties limiting community engagement; delays in diagnosis, notification and appropriate isolation of cases; limited resources for contact tracing across multiple high-risk settings (including GPs and hospitals) and lack of timely data on vaccine coverage in sub-groups of the population to guide public health action.

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for population surveillance and might have a future role in individual risk assessment. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver results rapidly and at scale, but have widely varying accuracy.MethodsIn a laboratory setting, we performed head-to-head comparisons of four LFIAs: the Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19TM Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. We analysed blood samples from 2,847 key workers and 1,995 pre-pandemic blood donors with all four devices.FindingsWe observed a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity: the IgG band of the SureScreen device and the AbC-19TM device had higher specificities but OrientGene and Biomerica higher sensitivities. Based on analysis of pre-pandemic samples, SureScreen IgG band had the highest specificity (98.9%, 95% confidence interval 98.3 to 99.3%), which translated to the highest positive predictive value across any pre-test probability: for example, 95.1% (95% uncertainty interval 92.6, 96.8%) at 20% pre-test probability. All four devices showed higher sensitivity at higher antibody concentrations ("spectrum effects"), but the extent of this varied by device.InterpretationThe estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be used to adjust for test error rates when using these devices to estimate the prevalence of antibody. If tests were used to determine whether an individual has SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an example scenario in which 20% of individuals have antibodies we estimate around 5% of positive results on the most specific device would be false positives.FundingPublic Health England.

Background: In August 2020, an outbreak of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) O157:H7 occurred in the United Kingdom. Whole genome sequencing revealed that these cases formed a genetically distinct cluster. Methods: Hypotheses generated from case interviews were tested in analytical studies, and results informed environmental sampling and food chain analysis. A case–case study used non-outbreak ‘comparison’ STEC cases; a case–control study used a market research panel to recruit controls. Results: A total of 36 cases were identified; all cases reported symptom onset between August 3 and August 16, 2020. The majority of cases (83%) resided in the Midlands region of England and in Wales. A high proportion of cases reported eating out, with one fast-food restaurant chain mentioned by 64% (n = 23) of cases. Both the case–case study (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 31.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6–624.9) and the case–control study (aOR 9.19, 95% CI 1.0–82.8) revealed statistically significant results, showing that the consumption of a specific fast-food product was independently associated with infection. Conclusions: Consumption of a specific fast-food product was a likely cause of this outbreak. The only ingredient specific to the product was cucumbers. The supply of cucumbers was immediately halted, and no further cases have been identified.

Abstract Objective To assess the accuracy of the AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Design Test accuracy study. Setting Laboratory based evaluation. Participants 2847 key workers (healthcare staff, fire and rescue officers, and police officers) in England in June 2020 (268 with a previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result (median 63 days previously), 2579 with unknown previous infection status); and 1995 pre-pandemic blood donors. Main outcome measures AbC-19 sensitivity and specificity, estimated using known negative (pre-pandemic) and known positive (PCR confirmed) samples as reference standards and secondly using the Roche Elecsys anti-nucleoprotein assay, a highly sensitive laboratory immunoassay, as a reference standard in samples from key workers. Results Test result bands were often weak, with positive/negative discordance by three trained laboratory staff for 3.9% of devices. Using consensus readings, for known positive and negative samples sensitivity was 92.5% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 95.1%) and specificity was 97.9% (97.2% to 98.4%). Using an immunoassay reference standard, sensitivity was 94.2% (90.7% to 96.5%) among PCR confirmed cases but 84.7% (80.6% to 88.1%) among other people with antibodies. This is consistent with AbC-19 being more sensitive when antibody concentrations are higher, as people with PCR confirmation tended to have more severe disease whereas only 62% (218/354) of seropositive participants had had symptoms. If 1 million key workers were tested with AbC-19 and 10% had actually been previously infected, 84 700 true positive and 18 900 false positive results would be projected. The probability that a positive result was correct would be 81.7% (76.8% to 85.8%). Conclusions AbC-19 sensitivity was lower among unselected populations than among PCR confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the scope for overestimation of assay performance in studies involving only PCR confirmed cases, owing to “spectrum bias.” Assuming that 10% of the tested population have had SARS-CoV-2 infection, around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives. Study registration ISRCTN 56609224.

Background: Immune correlates of protection from COVID-19 are important, but incompletely understood. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Of these, 2,672 were unselected volunteers recruited irrespective of previous SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results, and 154 others were recruited separately specifically because they previously tested positive. At recruitment in June 2020, we measured numbers of interferon-y; secreting, SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cells using T-SPOT Discovery SARS-CoV-2 kits (Oxford Immunotec Ltd), and antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 proteins using commercial immunoassays. We then described time to microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, stratified by immunological parameters. Results: T cells responsive to the spike (S), nuclear (N) and membrane proteins (M) dominated the responses measured. Using the sum of the spots (responsive cells within each well of 250,000 peripheral blood mononuclear cells) for S, N and M antigens minus the control, the 2,672 unselected participants were divided into those with higher responses (n=669, 25.4%; median 30 spots (IQR 18,54)) and those with low responses (n=2016, 76.7%, median 3 (IQR 1,6)), the cutoff we derived being 12 spots. Of the participants with higher T cell responses, 367 (53%) had detectable antibodies against the N or S proteins. During a median of 118 days follow-up, 20 participants with lower T cell responses developed COVID-19, compared with none in the population with high T cell responses (log-rank test, p=6x10-3). Conclusions: Peripheral blood SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers are associated with risk of developing COVID-19.

AbstractImmune correlates of protection from COVID-19 are incompletely understood. 2,826 keyworkers had T-SPOT®DiscoverySARS-CoV-2 tests (measuring interferon-γ secreting, SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cells, Oxford Immunotec Ltd), and anti-Spike S1 domain IgG antibody levels (EuroImmun AG) performed on recruitment into a cohort study. 285/2,826 (10.1%) of participants had positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests, predominantly associated with symptomatic illness, during 200 days followup. T cell responses to Spike, Nucleoprotein and Matrix proteins (SNM responses) were detected in some participants at recruitment, as were anti-Spike S1 IgG antibodies; higher levels of both were associated with protection from subsequent SARS-CoV-2 test positivity. In volunteers with moderate antibody responses, who represented 39% (252/654) of those with detectable anti-Spike IgG, protection was partial, and higher with higher circulating T cell SNM responses. SARS-CoV-2 responsive T cell numbers predict protection in individuals with low anti-Spike IgG responses; serology alone underestimates the proportion of the population protected after infection.

Abstract Background Flooding is expected to increase due to climate change, population growth and urban development. The longer-term mental health impacts of flooding are not well understood. In 2015, the English National Study of Flooding and Health was established to improve understanding of the impact of flooding on health and inform future public health action. Methods We used 3 years of data from the English National Study of Flooding and Health. Participants who had consented to follow up were sent a questionnaire. Participants were classified into either “unaffected”, “disrupted” or “flooded” according to their exposure. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios for probable depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in each exposure group. The Wald test was used to assess the difference in probable mental health outcomes for those who did and did not experience “persistent damage” to their home. Conditional logistic regression was conducted to assess change in prevalence over the 3 years and to identify possible determinants of recovery. Results Eight hundred nineteen individuals were included in the final analysis – 119 were classified as unaffected, 421 disrupted and 279 flooded. Overall, 5.7% had probable depression, 8.1% had probable anxiety and 11.8% had probable PTSD, with higher prevalence in the flooded group compared with the unaffected group. After adjustment for potential confounders, probable mental health outcomes were higher in the flooded group compared to the unaffected group, significantly for probable depression (aOR 8.48, 95% CI 1.04–68.97) and PTSD (aOR 7.74, 95% CI 2.24–26.79). Seventy-seven (9.4%) participants reported experiencing persistent damage to their home, most commonly damp (n = 40) and visible mould (n = 26) in liveable rooms. Of the 569 participants who responded at all 3 years, a significant reduction in prevalence for all probable mental health outcomes was observed in the flooded group. Conclusions Flooding can have severe long-lasting consequences on mental health in affected populations. If these problems are not identified and treated early, they may persist for years. Further research is necessary to develop and evaluate interventions to increase resilience in at risk populations and to ensure timely access to support services following flooding.

Caesarean section (CS) rates have risen worldwide in the past two decades, particularly in middle and high-income countries. In addition to changing maternal and health system factors, there is growing evidence that provider factors may contribute to rising unnecessary caesareans. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence for the association between individual provider characteristics, attitudes towards CS and decision-making for CS. A search was conducted in May 2018 in PubMed and Web of Science with 23 papers included in our final review. Our results show that higher anxiety scores and more favourable opinions of CS were associated with increased likelihood of performing CS. These findings highlight a need for appropriate interventions to target provider attitudes towards CS to reduce unnecessary procedures.

AbstractObjectiveTo measure the association between self-reported signs and symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.DesignCross-sectional study of three key worker groups.SettingSix acute NHS hospitals and two Police and Fire and Rescue sites in England.ParticipantsIndividuals were recruited from three streams: (A) Police and Fire and Rescue services (n = 1147), (B) healthcare workers (n = 1546) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive virus detection (n = 154).Main outcome measuresDetection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in plasma.Results943 of the 2847 participants (33%) reported belief they had had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms (including 152 from Stream C). Among individuals reporting COVID-19 compatible symptoms, 466 (49%) were seronegative on both Nucleoprotein (Roche) and Spike-protein (EUROIMMUN) antibody assays. However, among the 268 individuals with prior positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, of whom 96% reported symptoms with onset a median of 63 days (IQR 52 – 75 days) prior to venesection, Roche and EUROIMMUN assays had 96.6% (95% CI 93.7% – 98.2%) and 93.3% (95% CI 89.6% – 95.7%) sensitivity respectively. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had significantly earlier symptom onset dates than the symptomatic seropositive individuals, shorter illness duration and a much lower anosmia reporting frequency.ConclusionsSelf-reported belief of COVID-19 was common among our frontline worker cohort. About half of these individuals were seronegative, despite a high sensitivity of serology in this cohort, at least in individuals with previous positive PCR results. This is compatible with non-COVID-19 respiratory disease during the COVID-19 outbreak having been commonly mistaken for COVID-19 within the key worker cohort studied.What is already known on this topicScreening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; however, how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. There are limited studies that investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity.What this study addsAbout one third of a large cohort of key frontline workers believed they had had COVID-19 infection. In around half of these there was no serological evidence of infection. Individuals who believed they had previous infection, but were seronegative, differed systematically from the seropositive individuals: disordered sense of taste and smell was less common, illness duration was shorter, and reported onset of illness commonly predated the main COVID-19 epidemic in the UK.Although some individuals with previous COVID-19 may be seronegative, among symptomatic individuals who had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 within our cohort, sensitivity of the two immunoassays used (Roche Elecsys ® and EUROIMMUN) exceeded 90%. Together, these data indicate that many key workers may falsely believe, based on symptomatic illness experienced during 2020, that they have had COVID-19. Further research investigating the relationship between antibody detection and protection from future infection, with and without a history of COVID-19 disease, will help define the role serological testing can play in clinical practice.