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

OBJECTIVES

To describe the built environment in long-term care facilities (LTCF) and its association with introduction and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey with linkage to routine surveillance data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

LTCFs in England caring for adults ≥65 years old, participating in the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421) were eligible. Data were included from residents and staff.

METHODS

Cross-sectional survey of the LTCF built environment with linkage to routinely collected asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing and vaccination data between September 1, 2020, and March 31, 2022. We used individual and LTCF level Poisson and Negative Binomial regression models to identify risk factors for 4 outcomes: incidence rate of resident infections and outbreaks, outbreak size, and duration. We considered interactions with variant transmissibility (pre vs post Omicron dominance).

RESULTS

A total of 134 of 151 (88.7%) LTCFs participated in the survey, contributing data for 13,010 residents and 17,766 staff. After adjustment and stratification, outbreak incidence (measuring infection introduction) was only associated with SARS-CoV-2 incidence in the community [incidence rate ratio (IRR) for high vs low incidence, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.85-4.36]. Characteristics of the built environment were associated with transmission outcomes and differed by variant transmissibility. For resident infection incidence, factors included number of storeys (0.64; 0.43-0.97) and bedrooms (1.04; 1.02-1.06), and purpose-built vs converted buildings (1.99; 1.08-3.69). Air quality was associated with outbreak size (dry vs just right 1.46; 1.00-2.13). Funding model (0.99; 0.99-1.00), crowding (0.98; 0.96-0.99), and bedroom temperature (1.15; 1.01-1.32) were associated with outbreak duration.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

We describe previously undocumented diversity in LTCF built environments. LTCFs have limited opportunities to prevent SARS-CoV-2 introduction, which was only driven by community incidence. However, adjusting the built environment, for example by isolating infected residents or improving airflow, may reduce transmission, although data quality was limited by subjectivity. Identifying LTCF built environment modifications that prevent infection transmission should be a research priority.

COVID-19-related mortality and hospital admissions in the VIVALDI study cohort: October 2020 to March 2023

BACKGROUND

Long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) were heavily affected by COVID-19 early in the pandemic, but the impact of the virus has reduced over time with vaccination campaigns and build-up of immunity from prior infection.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the mortality and hospital admissions associated with SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs in England over the course of the VIVALDI study, from October 2020 to March 2023.

METHODS

We included residents aged ≥65 years from participating LTCFs who had available follow-up time within the analysis period. We calculated incidence rates (IRs) of COVID-19-linked mortality and hospital admissions per calendar quarter, along with infection fatality ratios (IFRs, within 28 days) and infection hospitalization ratios (IHRs, within 14 days) following positive SARS-CoV-2 test.

RESULTS

A total of 26,286 residents were included, with at least one positive test for SARS-CoV-2 in 8513 (32.4%). The IR of COVID-19-related mortality peaked in the first quarter (Q1) of 2021 at 0.47 per 1000 person-days (1 kpd) (around a third of all deaths), in comparison with 0.10 per 1 kpd for Q1 2023 which had a similar IR of SARS-CoV-2 infections. There was a fall in observed IFR for SARS-CoV-2 infections from 24.9% to 6.7% between these periods, with a fall in IHR from 12.1% to 8.8%. The population had high overall IRs for mortality for each quarter evaluated, corresponding to annual mortality probability of 28.8-41.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized real-time monitoring of hospitalization and mortality following infection in LTCFs could inform policy on the need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission.

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

INTRODUCTION

Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13296529.

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

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused severe disease in unvaccinated long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Initial booster vaccination following primary vaccination is known to provide strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection and the protective effect of further booster vaccinations.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of third, fourth and fifth dose booster vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality amongst older residents of LTCFs.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

LTCFs for older people in England participating in the VIVALDI study.

METHODS

Residents aged >65 years at participating LTCFs were eligible for inclusion if they had at least one polymerase chain reaction or lateral flow device result within the analysis period 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. We excluded individuals who had not received at least two vaccine doses before the analysis period. Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 related mortality following 1-3 booster vaccinations compared with primary vaccination, stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex and LTCF size (total beds).

RESULTS

A total of 13,407 residents were included. Our results indicate that third, fourth and fifth dose booster vaccination provide additional short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality relative to primary vaccination, with consistent stabilisation beyond 112 days to 45-75% reduction in risk relative to primary vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

Successive booster vaccination doses provide additional short-term protection against SARS-CoV-2 related mortality amongst older LTCF residents. However, we did not find evidence of a longer-term reduction in risk beyond that provided by initial booster vaccination.

The Development and Evaluation of a Combined Infection-Rheumatology Assessment Service in Response to the Chikungunya Fever Epidemic

The chikungunya virus is an arthritogenic alphavirus. Acute infection may be followed by persistent arthralgia, often causing significant functional impairment. The 2014-2015 chikungunya fever (CHIKF) epidemic resulted in a marked increase in cases presenting to rheumatology and tropical diseases services. A combined multidisciplinary rheumatology-tropical diseases service for assessment, management, and follow-up of patients with proven CHIKF and persistent (≥ 4 weeks) arthralgia was proposed and rapidly developed at The Hospital for Tropical Diseases in London. Rapid set up of a multidisciplinary clinic in response to the epidemic was achieved. Of a total of 54 patients, 21 (38.9%) patients with CHIKF developed persistent arthralgia and were reviewed by the multidisciplinary service. A combined assessment approach enabled comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment of CHIKF, assessment of joint pathology through ultrasound, and appropriate follow-up. A combined rheumatology-tropical diseases service was successfully used to identify and assess CHIKF-associated morbidity. Future outbreaks may be approached by establishing tailored multidisciplinary clinics.

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

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

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

Background

Successive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have caused severe disease in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Primary vaccination provides strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection following booster vaccines, particularly against the Omicron variant. We investigated the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among LTCF residents and staff in England.

Methods

We included residents and staff of LTCFs within the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN 14447421) who underwent routine, asymptomatic testing (December 12, 2021-March 31, 2022). Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associated hospitalization and death at 0-13, 14-48, 49-83, 84-111, 112-139, and 140+ days after dose 3 of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with 2 doses (after 84+ days), stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex, LTCF capacity, and local SARS-CoV-2 incidence.

Results

A total of 14 175 residents and 19 793 staff were included. In residents without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection risk was reduced 0-111 days after the first booster, but no protection was apparent after 112 days. Additional protection following booster vaccination waned but was still present at 140+ days for COVID-associated hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.63) and death (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20-1.27). Most residents (64.4%) had received primary course vaccine of AstraZeneca, but this did not impact pre- or postbooster risk. Staff showed a similar pattern of waning booster effectiveness against infection, with few hospitalizations and no deaths.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that booster vaccination provided sustained protection against severe outcomes following infection with the Omicron variant, but no protection against infection from 4 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs is crucial.

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

Background

Older age and frailty are risk factors for poor clinical outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection. As such, COVID-19 vaccination has been prioritised for individuals with these factors, but there is concern that immune responses might be impaired due to age-related immune dysregulation and comorbidity. We aimed to study humoral and cellular responses to COVID-19 vaccines in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

Methods

In this observational cohort study, we assessed antibody and cellular immune responses following COVID-19 vaccination in members of staff and residents at 74 LTCFs across the UK. Staff and residents were eligible for inclusion if it was possible to link them to a pseudo-identifier in the COVID-19 datastore, if they had received two vaccine doses, and if they had given a blood sample 6 days after vaccination at the earliest. There were no comorbidity exclusion criteria. Participants were stratified by age (<65 years or ≥65 years) and infection status (previous SARS-CoV-2 infection [infection-primed group] or SARS-CoV-2 naive [infection-naive group]). Anticoagulated edetic acid (EDTA) blood samples were assessed and humoral and cellular responses were quantified.

Findings

Between Dec 11, 2020, and June 27, 2021, blood samples were taken from 220 people younger than 65 years (median age 51 years [IQR 39-61]; 103 [47%] had previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection) and 268 people aged 65 years or older of LTCFs (median age 87 years [80-92]; 144 [43%] had a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection). Samples were taken a median of 82 days (IQR 72-100) after the second vaccination. Antibody responses following dual vaccination were strong and equivalent between participants younger then 65 years and those aged 65 years and older in the infection-primed group (median 125 285 Au/mL [1128 BAU/mL] for <65 year olds vs 157 979 Au/mL [1423 BAU/mL] for ≥65 year olds; p=0·47). The antibody response was reduced by 2·4-times (467 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and 8·1-times (174 BAU/mL; p≤0·0001) in infection-naive residents compared with their infection-primed counterparts. Antibody response was 2·6-times lower in infection-naive residents than in infection-naive people younger than 65 years (p=0·0006). Impaired neutralisation of delta (1.617.2) variant spike binding was also apparent in infection-naive people younger than 65 years and in those aged 65 years and older. Spike-specific T-cell responses were also significantly enhanced in the infection-primed group. Infection-naive people aged 65 years and older (203 SFU per million [IQR 89-374]) had a 52% lower T-cell response compared with infection-naive people younger than 65 years (85 SFU per million [30-206]; p≤0·0001). Post-vaccine spike-specific CD4 T-cell responses displayed single or dual production of IFN-γ and IL-2 were similar across infection status groups, whereas the infection-primed group had an extended functional profile with TNFα and CXCL10 production.

Interpretation

These data reveal suboptimal post-vaccine immune responses within infection-naive residents of LTCFs, and they suggest the need for optimisation of immune protection through the use of booster vaccination.

Funding

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Robust SARS-CoV-2-specific and heterologous immune responses in vaccine-naïve residents of long-term care facilities who survive natural infection

We studied humoral and cellular immunity against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in 152 long-term care facility staff and 124 residents over a prospective 4-month period shortly after the first wave of infection in England. We show that residents of long-term care facilities developed high and stable levels of antibodies against spike protein and receptor-binding domain. Nucleocapsid-specific responses were also elevated but waned over time. Antibodies showed stable and equivalent levels of functional inhibition against spike-angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 binding in all age groups with comparable activity against viral variants of concern. SARS-CoV-2 seropositive donors showed high levels of antibodies to other beta-coronaviruses but serostatus did not impact humoral immunity to influenza or other respiratory syncytial viruses. SARS-CoV-2-specific cellular responses were similar across all ages but virus-specific populations showed elevated levels of activation in older donors. Thus, survivors of SARS-CoV-2 infection show a robust and stable immunity against the virus that does not negatively impact responses to other seasonal viruses.

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

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 omicron variant (B.1.1.529) is highly transmissible, but disease severity appears to be reduced compared with previous variants such as alpha and delta. We investigated the risk of severe outcomes following infection in residents of long-term care facilities.

Methods

We did a prospective cohort study in residents of long-term care facilities in England who were tested regularly for SARS-CoV-2 between Sept 1, 2021, and Feb 1, 2022, and who were participants of the VIVALDI study. Residents were eligible for inclusion if they had a positive PCR or lateral flow device test during the study period, which could be linked to a National Health Service (NHS) number, enabling linkage to hospital admissions and mortality datasets. PCR or lateral flow device test results were linked to national hospital admission and mortality records using the NHS-number-based pseudo-identifier. We compared the risk of hospital admission (within 14 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test) or death (within 28 days) in residents who had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the period shortly before omicron emerged (delta-dominant) and in the omicron-dominant period, adjusting for age, sex, primary vaccine course, past infection, and booster vaccination. Variants were confirmed by sequencing or spike-gene status in a subset of samples.

Results

795 233 tests were done in 333 long-term care facilities, of which 159 084 (20·0%) could not be linked to a pseudo-identifier and 138 012 (17·4%) were done in residents. Eight residents had two episodes of infection (>28 days apart) and in these cases the second episode was excluded from the analysis. 2264 residents in 259 long-term care facilities (median age 84·5 years, IQR 77·9-90·0) were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2, of whom 253 (11·2%) had a previous infection and 1468 (64·8%) had received a booster vaccination. About a third of participants were male. Risk of hospital admissions was markedly lower in the 1864 residents infected in the omicron-period (4·51%, 95% CI 3·65-5·55) than in the 400 residents infected in the pre-omicron period (10·50%, 7·87-13·94), as was risk of death (5·48% [4·52-6·64] vs 10·75% [8·09-14·22]). Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) also indicated a reduction in hospital admissions (0·64, 95% CI 0·41-1·00; p=0·051) and mortality (aHR 0·68, 0·44-1·04; p=0·076) in the omicron versus the pre-omicron period. Findings were similar in residents with a confirmed variant.

Interpretation

Observed reduced severity of the omicron variant compared with previous variants suggests that the wave of omicron infections is unlikely to lead to a major surge in severe disease in long-term care facility populations with high levels of vaccine coverage or natural immunity. Continued surveillance in this vulnerable population is important to protect residents from infection and monitor the public health effect of emerging variants.

Funding

UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Anti-Spike Antibody Levels Following Second Dose of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 Vaccine in Residents of Long-term Care Facilities in England (VIVALDI)

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.

Prevalence and duration of detectable SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibodies in staff and residents of long-term care facilities over the first year of the pandemic (VIVALDI study): prospective cohort study in England

Background

Long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have reported high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates and related mortality, but the proportion of infected people among those who have survived, and duration of the antibody response to natural infection, is unknown. We determined the prevalence and stability of nucleocapsid antibodies (the standard assay for detection of previous infection) in staff and residents in LTCFs in England.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort study of residents 65 years or older and of staff 65 years or younger in 201 LTCFs in England between March 1, 2020, and May 7, 2021. Participants were linked to a unique pseudo-identifier based on their UK National Health Service identification number. Serial blood samples were tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid protein using the Abbott ARCHITECT i-system (Abbott, Maidenhead, UK) immunoassay. Primary endpoints were prevalence and cumulative incidence of antibody positivity, which were weighted to the LTCF population. Incidence rate of loss of antibodies (seroreversion) was estimated from Kaplan-Meier curves.

Findings

9488 samples were included, 8636 (91·0%) of which could be individually linked to 1434 residents and 3288 staff members. The cumulative incidence of nucleocapsid seropositivity was 34·6% (29·6–40·0) in residents and 26·1% (23·0–29·5) in staff over 11 months. 239 (38·6%) residents and 503 women (81·3%) were included in the antibody-waning analysis, and median follow-up was 149 days (IQR 107–169). The incidence rate of seroreversion was 2·1 per 1000 person-days at risk, and median time to reversion was 242·5 days.

Interpretation

At least a quarter of staff and a third of surviving residents were infected with SAR-CoV-2 during the first two waves of the pandemic in England. Nucleocapsid-specific antibodies often become undetectable within the first year following infection, which is likely to lead to marked underestimation of the true proportion of people with previous infection. Given that natural infection might act to boost vaccine responses, better assays to identify natural infection should be developed.

Funding

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Changes in COVID-19 outbreak severity and duration in long-term care facilities following vaccine introduction, England, November 2020 to June 2021

We describe the impact of changing epidemiology and vaccine introduction on characteristics of COVID-19 outbreaks in 330 long-term care facilities (LTCF) in England between November 2020 and June 2021. As vaccine coverage in LTCF increased and national incidence declined, the total number of outbreaks and outbreak severity decreased across the LTCF. The number of infected cases per outbreak decreased by 80.6%, while the proportion of outbreaks affecting staff only increased. Our study supports findings of vaccine effectiveness in LTCF.

Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination.

METHODS

The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421.

FINDINGS

10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Vaccine effectiveness of the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 against SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents of long-term care facilities in England (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in older adults living in long-term care facilities is uncertain. We investigated the protective effect of the first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca non-replicating viral-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19; AZD1222) and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA-based vaccine (BNT162b2) in residents of long-term care facilities in terms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection over time since vaccination.

METHODS

The VIVALDI study is a prospective cohort study that commenced recruitment on June 11, 2020, to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission, infection outcomes, and immunity in residents and staff in long-term care facilities in England that provide residential or nursing care for adults aged 65 years and older. In this cohort study, we included long-term care facility residents undergoing routine asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 testing between Dec 8, 2020 (the date the vaccine was first deployed in a long-term care facility), and March 15, 2021, using national testing data linked within the COVID-19 Datastore. Using Cox proportional hazards regression, we estimated the relative hazard of PCR-positive infection at 0-6 days, 7-13 days, 14-20 days, 21-27 days, 28-34 days, 35-48 days, and 49 days and beyond after vaccination, comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated person-time from the same cohort of residents, adjusting for age, sex, previous infection, local SARS-CoV-2 incidence, long-term care facility bed capacity, and clustering by long-term care facility. We also compared mean PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values for positive swabs obtained before and after vaccination. The study is registered with ISRCTN, number 14447421.

FINDINGS

10 412 care home residents aged 65 years and older from 310 LTCFs were included in this analysis. The median participant age was 86 years (IQR 80-91), 7247 (69·6%) of 10 412 residents were female, and 1155 residents (11·1%) had evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. 9160 (88·0%) residents received at least one vaccine dose, of whom 6138 (67·0%) received ChAdOx1 and 3022 (33·0%) received BNT162b2. Between Dec 8, 2020, and March 15, 2021, there were 36 352 PCR results in 670 628 person-days, and 1335 PCR-positive infections (713 in unvaccinated residents and 612 in vaccinated residents) were included. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for PCR-positive infection relative to unvaccinated residents declined from 28 days after the first vaccine dose to 0·44 (95% CI 0·24-0·81) at 28-34 days and 0·38 (0·19-0·77) at 35-48 days. Similar effect sizes were seen for ChAdOx1 (adjusted HR 0·32, 95% CI 0·15-0·66) and BNT162b2 (0·35, 0·17-0·71) vaccines at 35-48 days. Mean PCR Ct values were higher for infections that occurred at least 28 days after vaccination than for those occurring before vaccination (31·3 [SD 8·7] in 107 PCR-positive tests vs 26·6 [6·6] in 552 PCR-positive tests; p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Single-dose vaccination with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines provides substantial protection against infection in older adults from 4-7 weeks after vaccination and might reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the risk of infection is not eliminated, highlighting the ongoing need for non-pharmaceutical interventions to prevent transmission in long-term care facilities.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

The diagnostic performance of novel skin-based in-vivo tests for tuberculosis infection compared with purified protein derivative tuberculin skin tests and blood-based in vitro interferon-γ release assays: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel skin-based tests for tuberculosis infection might present suitable alternatives to current tests; however, diagnostic performance of new tests compared with the purified protein derivative-tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-γ release assays (IGRA) needs systematic assessment.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched English (Medline OVID), Chinese (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Russian (e-library) databases from the inception of each database to May 15, 2019, (with updated search of the Russian and English databases on Oct, 20 2020) using terms "ESAT6" OR "CFP10" AND "skin test" AND "Tuberculosis" OR "C-Tb" OR "Diaskintest". We included studies reporting on the performance of index tests alone or compared with a comparator. Inclusion criteria varied according to review objectives and performance outcome, but reporting of test cut-offs for positivity applied to study population was required from all studies. We used a hierarchy of reference standards for tuberculosis infection consistent with the 2020 WHO framework to evaluate diagnostic performance. Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts for English and Chinese (LF and MK) and Russian studies (MK and VN). Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. Pooled random-effects estimates are presented when appropriate for total agreement proportion, sensitivity in microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis and specificity in cohorts with low risk of tuberculosis infection. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019135572.

FINDINGS

We identified 1466 original articles, of which 37 (2·5%) studies, including 10 915 individuals (7111 Diaskintest, 2744 C-Tb, 887 EC, 173 DPPD), were included in the qualitative analysis (29 [78%] studies of Diaskintest, five [15%] studies of C-Tb, two [5%] studies of EC-skintest, and one [3%] study of DPPD). 22 (1·5%) studies including 5810 individuals (3143 Diaskintest, 2129 C-Tb, 538 EC-skintest) were included in the quantitative analysis: 15 (68%) of Diaskintest, five (23%) of C-Tb, and two (9%) of EC-skintest. Tested sub-populations included individuals with HIV, children (0-18 years), and individuals exposed to tuberculosis. Studies were heterogeneous with moderate to high risk of bias. Nine head-to-head studies of index test versus TST and IGRA permitted direct comparisons and pooling. In a mixed cohort of people with and without tuberculosis, Diaskintest pooled agreement with IGRA was 87·16% (95% CI 79·47-92·24) and 55·45% (46·08-64·45) with TST-5 mm cut-off (TST^{5 mm}). Diaskintest sensitivity was 91·18% (95% CI 81·72-95·98) compared with 88·24% (78·20-94·01) for TST^{5 mm}, 89·66 (78·83-95·28) for IGRA QuantiFERON, and 90·91% (79·95-96·16) for TSPOT.TB. C-Tb agreement with IGRA in individuals with active tuberculosis was 79·80% (95% CI 76·10-83·07) compared with 78·92% (74·65-82·63) for TST5 mm/15 mm cut-off (TST^{5 mm/15 mm}). TST^5/15mm reflects threshold in cohorts that applied stratified cutoffs: 5 mm for HIV-infected, immunocompromised, or BCG-naive individuals, and 15mm for BCG-vaccinated immunocompetent individuals. C-Tb sensitivity was 74·52% (95% CI 70·39-78·25) compared with a sensitivity of 78·18% (67·75-85·94) for TST^{5 mm/15 mm}, and 71·67% (63·44-78·68) for IGRA. Specificity was 97·85% (95% CI 93·96-99·25) for C-Tb versus 93·31% (90·22-95·48) for TST 15 mm cut-off and 99·15% (79·66-99·97) for IGRA. EC-skintest sensitivity was 86·06% (95% CI 82·39-89·07).

INTERPRETATION

Novel skin-based tests for tuberculosis infection appear to perform similarly to IGRA or TST; however, study quality varied. Evaluation of test performance, patient-important outcomes, and diagnostic use in current clinical algorithms will inform implementation in key populations.

FUNDING

StopTB (New Diagnostics Working Group) and FIND.

TRANSLATIONS

For the Chinese and Russian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Profile of humoral and cellular immune responses to single doses of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines in residents and staff within residential care homes (VIVALDI): an observational study

BACKGROUND

Residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) have been prioritised for COVID-19 vaccination because of the high COVID-19 mortality in this population. Several countries have implemented an extended interval of up to 12 weeks between the first and second vaccine doses to increase population coverage of single-dose vaccination. We aimed to assess the magnitude and quality of adaptive immune responses following a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents and staff.

METHODS

From the LTCFs participating in the ongoing VIVALDI study (ISRCTN14447421), staff and residents who had received a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [tozinameran] or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19), had pre-vaccination and post-vaccination blood samples (collected between Dec 11, 2020, and Feb 16, 2021), and could be linked to a pseudoidentifier in the COVID-19 Data Store were included in our cohort. Past infection with SARS-CoV-2 was defined on the basis of nucleocapsid-specific IgG antibodies being detected through a semiquantitative immunoassay, and participants who tested positive on this assay after but not before vaccination were excluded from the study. Processed blood samples were assessed for spike-specific immune responses, including spike-specific IgG antibody titres, T-cell responses to spike protein peptide mixes, and inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from four variants of SARS-CoV-2 (the original strain as well as the B.1.1.7, B.1.351, and P.1 variants). Responses before and after vaccination were compared on the basis of age, previous infection status, role (staff or resident), and time since vaccination.

FINDINGS

Our cohort comprised 124 participants from 14 LTCFs: 89 (72%) staff (median age 48 years [IQR 35·5-56]) and 35 (28%) residents (87 years [77-90]). Blood samples were collected a median 40 days (IQR 25-47; range 6-52) after vaccination. 30 (24%) participants (18 [20%] staff and 12 [34%] residents) had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants with previous infection had high antibody titres following vaccination that were independent of age (r s=0·076, p=0·70). In participants without evidence of previous infection, titres were negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·434, p<0·0001) and were 8·2-times lower in residents than in staff. This effect appeared to result from a kinetic delay antibody generation in older infection-naive participants, with the negative age correlation disappearing only in samples taken more than 42 days post-vaccination (r s=-0·207, p=0·20; n=40), in contrast to samples taken after 0-21 days (r s=-0·774, p=0·0043; n=12) or 22-42 days (r s=-0·437, p=0·0034; n=43). Spike-specific cellular responses were similar between older and younger participants. In infection-naive participants, antibody inhibition of ACE2 binding by spike protein from the original SARS-CoV-2 strain was negatively correlated with age (r s=-0·439, p<0·0001), and was significantly lower against spike protein from the B.1.351 variant (median inhibition 31% [14-100], p=0·010) and the P.1 variant (23% [14-97], p<0·0001) than against the original strain (58% [27-100]). By contrast, a single dose of vaccine resulted in around 100% inhibition of the spike-ACE2 interaction against all variants in people with a history of infection.

INTERPRETATION

History of SARS-CoV-2 infection impacts the magnitude and quality of antibody response after a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine in LTCF residents. Residents who are infection-naive have delayed antibody responses to the first dose of vaccine and should be considered for an early second dose where possible.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline antibody status in staff and residents of 100 long-term care facilities (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection represents a major challenge for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and many residents and staff are seropositive following persistent outbreaks. We aimed to investigate the association between the SARS-CoV-2 antibody status at baseline and subsequent infection in this population.

METHODS

We did a prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff (aged <65 years) and residents (aged >65 years) at 100 LTCFs in England between Oct 1, 2020, and Feb 1, 2021. Blood samples were collected between June and November, 2020, at baseline, and 2 and 4 months thereafter and tested for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins. PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done weekly in staff and monthly in residents. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of a PCR-positive test by baseline antibody status, adjusted for age and sex, and stratified by LTCF.

FINDINGS

682 residents from 86 LCTFs and 1429 staff members from 97 LTCFs met study inclusion criteria. At baseline, IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid were detected in 226 (33%) of 682 residents and 408 (29%) of 1429 staff members. 93 (20%) of 456 residents who were antibody-negative at baseline had a PCR-positive test (infection rate 0·054 per month at risk) compared with four (2%) of 226 residents who were antibody-positive at baseline (0·007 per month at risk). 111 (11%) of 1021 staff members who were antibody-negative at baseline had PCR-positive tests (0·042 per month at risk) compared with ten (2%) of 408 staff members who were antibody-positive staff at baseline (0·009 per month at risk). The risk of PCR-positive infection was higher for residents who were antibody-negative at baseline than residents who were antibody-positive at baseline (adjusted HR [aHR] 0·15, 95% CI 0·05-0·44, p=0·0006), and the risk of a PCR-positive infection was also higher for staff who were antibody-negative at baseline compared with staff who were antibody-positive at baseline (aHR 0·39, 0·19-0·82; p=0·012). 12 of 14 reinfected participants had available data on symptoms, and 11 of these participants were symptomatic. Antibody titres to spike and nucleocapsid proteins were comparable in PCR-positive and PCR-negative cases.

INTERPRETATION

The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline antibody status in staff and residents of 100 long-term care facilities (VIVALDI): a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection represents a major challenge for long-term care facilities (LTCFs) and many residents and staff are seropositive following persistent outbreaks. We aimed to investigate the association between the SARS-CoV-2 antibody status at baseline and subsequent infection in this population.

METHODS

We did a prospective cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection in staff (aged <65 years) and residents (aged >65 years) at 100 LTCFs in England between Oct 1, 2020, and Feb 1, 2021. Blood samples were collected between June and November, 2020, at baseline, and 2 and 4 months thereafter and tested for IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid and spike proteins. PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 was done weekly in staff and monthly in residents. Cox regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) of a PCR-positive test by baseline antibody status, adjusted for age and sex, and stratified by LTCF.

FINDINGS

682 residents from 86 LCTFs and 1429 staff members from 97 LTCFs met study inclusion criteria. At baseline, IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid were detected in 226 (33%) of 682 residents and 408 (29%) of 1429 staff members. 93 (20%) of 456 residents who were antibody-negative at baseline had a PCR-positive test (infection rate 0·054 per month at risk) compared with four (2%) of 226 residents who were antibody-positive at baseline (0·007 per month at risk). 111 (11%) of 1021 staff members who were antibody-negative at baseline had PCR-positive tests (0·042 per month at risk) compared with ten (2%) of 408 staff members who were antibody-positive staff at baseline (0·009 per month at risk). The risk of PCR-positive infection was higher for residents who were antibody-negative at baseline than residents who were antibody-positive at baseline (adjusted HR [aHR] 0·15, 95% CI 0·05-0·44, p=0·0006), and the risk of a PCR-positive infection was also higher for staff who were antibody-negative at baseline compared with staff who were antibody-positive at baseline (aHR 0·39, 0·19-0·82; p=0·012). 12 of 14 reinfected participants had available data on symptoms, and 11 of these participants were symptomatic. Antibody titres to spike and nucleocapsid proteins were comparable in PCR-positive and PCR-negative cases.

INTERPRETATION

The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks in long-term care facilities in England: a national cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have occurred in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) worldwide, but the reasons why some facilities are particularly vulnerable to outbreaks are poorly understood. We aimed to identify factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection and outbreaks among staff and residents in LTCFs.

METHODS

We did a national cross-sectional survey of all LTCFs providing dementia care or care to adults aged 65 years or older in England between May 26 and June 19, 2020. The survey collected data from managers of eligible LTCFs on LTCF characteristics, staffing factors, the use of disease control measures, and the number of confirmed cases of infection among staff and residents in each LTCF. Survey responses were linked to individual-level SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test results obtained through the national testing programme in England between April 30 and June 13, 2020. The primary outcome was the weighted period prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents and staff reported via the survey. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to identify factors associated with infection in staff and residents, an outbreak (defined as at least one case of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a resident or staff member), and a large outbreak (defined as LTCFs with more than a third of the total number of residents and staff combined testing positive, or with >20 residents and staff combined testing positive) using data from the survey and from the linked survey-test dataset.

FINDINGS

9081 eligible wLTCFs were identified, of which 5126 (56·4%) participated in the survey, providing data on 160 033 residents and 248 594 staff members. The weighted period prevalence of infection was 10·5% (95% CI 9·9-11·1) in residents and 3·8% (3·4-4·2) in staff members. 2724 (53·1%) LTCFs reported outbreaks, and 469 (9·1%) LTCFs reported large outbreaks. The odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·80 [95% CI 0·75-0·86], p<0·0001) and staff (0·70 [0·65-0·77], p<0·0001), and of large outbreaks (0·59 [0·38-0·93], p=0·024) were significantly lower in LTCFs that paid staff statutory sick pay compared with those that did not. Each one unit increase in the staff-to-bed ratio was associated with a reduced odds of infection in residents (0·82 [0·78-0·87], p<0·0001) and staff (0·63 [0·59-0·68], p<0·0001. The odds of infection in residents (1·30 [1·23-1·37], p<0·0001) and staff (1·20 [1·13-1·29], p<0·0001), and of outbreaks (2·56 [1·94-3·49], p<0·0001) were significantly higher in LTCFs in which staff often or always cared for both infected or uninfected residents compared with those that cohorted staff with either infected or uninfected residents. Significantly increased odds of infection in residents (1·01 [1·01-1·01], p<0·0001) and staff (1·00 [1·00-1·01], p=0·0005), and of outbreaks (1·08 [1·05-1·10], p<0·0001) were associated with each one unit increase in the number of new admissions to the LTCF relative to baseline (March 1, 2020). The odds of infection in residents (1·19 [1·12-1·26], p<0·0001) and staff (1·19 [1·10-1·29], p<0·0001), and of large outbreaks (1·65 [1·07-2·54], p=0·024) were significantly higher in LTCFs that were for profit versus those that were not for profit. Frequent employment of agency nurses or carers was associated with a significantly increased odds of infection in residents (aOR 1·65 [1·56-1·74], p<0·0001) and staff (1·85 [1·72-1·98], p<0·0001), and of outbreaks (2·33 [1·72-3·16], p<0·0001) and large outbreaks (2·42 [1·67-3·51], p<0·0001) compared with no employment of agency nurses or carers. Compared with LTCFs that did not report difficulties in isolating residents, those that did had significantly higher odds of infection in residents (1·33 [1·28-1·38], p<0·0001) and staff (1·48 [1·41-1·56], p<0·0001), and of outbreaks (1·84 [1·48-2·30], p<0·0001) and large outbreaks (1·62 [1·24-2·11], p=0·0004).

INTERPRETATION

Half of LTCFs had no cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first wave of the pandemic. Reduced transmission from staff is associated with adequate sick pay, minimal use of agency staff, an increased staff-to-bed ratio, and staff cohorting with either infected or uninfected residents. Increased transmission from residents is associated with an increased number of new admissions to the facility and poor compliance with isolation procedures.

FUNDING

UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Study Protocol: Understanding SARS-Cov-2 infection, immunity and its duration in care home residents and staff in England (VIVALDI)

Global infection and mortality rates from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are disproportionately high in certain populations, including amongst older people. Care home residents are frequently exposed to infection due to contact with staff and other residents, and are highly susceptible to infection due to their age and co-morbidity. In England, official statistics suggest that at least 25% of all deaths in care home residents since the start of pandemic are linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but limited testing for SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic means estimates of the true burden of disease are lacking. Additionally, little is known about patterns of transmission between care homes, the community and hospitals, or the relationship between infection and immunity in care home staff and residents. The VIVALDI study plans to address these questions. VIVALDI is a prospective cohort study aiming to recruit  6,500 staff and 5000 residents from 105 care homes across England. Successive rounds of testing for infection will be performed over a period of 12 months.  Nasopharyngeal swabs will detect evidence of viral RNA and therefore active infection (accompanied by collection of data on symptoms), whereas blood tests will detect antibodies and evidence of cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Whole genome sequencing of viral isolates to investigate pathways of transmission of infection is planned in collaboration with the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium. Qualitative interviews with care home staff will investigate the impact of the pandemic on ways of working and how test results influence infection control practices and behaviours. Data from residents and staff will be linked to national datasets on hospital admissions, antibody and PCR test results, mortality and care home characteristics.  Data generated will support national public health efforts to prevent transmission of COVID-19 and protect care home staff and residents from infection. Protocol registration: ISRCTN14447421 05/06/2020.

Study Protocol: Understanding SARS-Cov-2 infection, immunity and its duration in care home residents and staff in England (VIVALDI)

Global infection and mortality rates from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are disproportionately high in certain populations, including amongst older people. Care home residents are frequently exposed to infection due to contact with staff and other residents, and are highly susceptible to infection due to their age and co-morbidity. In England, official statistics suggest that at least 25% of all deaths in care home residents since the start of pandemic are linked to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but limited testing for SARS-CoV-2 early in the pandemic means estimates of the true burden of disease are lacking. Additionally, little is known about patterns of transmission between care homes, the community and hospitals, or the relationship between infection and immunity in care home staff and residents. The VIVALDI study plans to address these questions.

VIVALDI is a prospective cohort study aiming to recruit  6,500 staff and 5000 residents from 105 care homes across England. Successive rounds of testing for infection will be performed over a period of 12 months.  Nasopharyngeal swabs will detect evidence of viral RNA and therefore active infection (accompanied by collection of data on symptoms), whereas blood tests will detect antibodies and evidence of cellular immunity to SARS-CoV-2. Whole genome sequencing of viral isolates to investigate pathways of transmission of infection is planned in collaboration with the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium. Qualitative interviews with care home staff will investigate the impact of the pandemic on ways of working and how test results influence infection control practices and behaviours. Data from residents and staff will be linked to national datasets on hospital admissions, antibody and PCR test results, mortality and care home characteristics. 

Data generated will support national public health efforts to prevent transmission of COVID-19 and protect care home staff and residents from infection.

Protocol registration: ISRCTN14447421 05/06/2020

The relationship between social risk factors and latent tuberculosis infection among individuals residing in England: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between social risk factors and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among individuals who are eligible for LTBI screening in the United Kingdom (UK).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used data collected in the UK Prognostic Evaluation of Diagnostic Interferon-Gamma Release Assays (IGRAs) Consortium Study which enrolled 9176 recent tuberculosis (TB) contacts and migrants at National Health Service (NHS) facilities and community settings in the UK. The study outcome was LTBI (positive IGRA test (QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube or T-SPOT.TB)). The main exposures were history of smoking, history of substance misuse, homelessness, prison stay and socioeconomic deprivation.

RESULTS

4914 (56.2%) individuals resided in the most deprived areas and 2536 (27.6%) had LTBI. In the multivariable analysis (adjusting for age, gender, place of birth, ethnicity, HIV status, BCG vaccination and recent TB contact) living in the least deprived areas compared with living in the most deprived areas was associated with reduced odds of LTBI (odds ratio (OR)=0.68, 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.90) while ever been homeless (OR=1.50, 95% CI: 1.02 to 2.21) was associated with increased odds of LTBI. Smoking, homelessness and substance misuse were not associated with LTBI.

CONCLUSION

Social deprivation could be an important risk factor for LTBI, highlighting the social inequality in the burden of TB infection in the UK. Migrants and TB contacts who were socially deprived or homeless were at a significantly higher risk for LTBI, thus tailored intense public health interventions to these groups may help to reduce the risk of future TB disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT01162265).

Discovery and validation of a personalized risk predictor for incident tuberculosis in low transmission settings

The risk of tuberculosis (TB) is variable among individuals with latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (LTBI), but validated estimates of personalized risk are lacking. In pooled data from 18 systematically identified cohort studies from 20 countries, including 80,468 individuals tested for LTBI, 5-year cumulative incident TB risk among people with untreated LTBI was 15.6% (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.0-29.2%) among child contacts, 4.8% (95% CI, 3.0-7.7%) among adult contacts, 5.0% (95% CI, 1.6-14.5%) among migrants and 4.8% (95% CI, 1.5-14.3%) among immunocompromised groups. We confirmed highly variable estimates within risk groups, necessitating an individualized approach to risk stratification. Therefore, we developed a personalized risk predictor for incident TB (PERISKOPE-TB) that combines a quantitative measure of T cell sensitization and clinical covariates. Internal-external cross-validation of the model demonstrated a random effects meta-analysis C-statistic of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.82-0.93) for incident TB. In decision curve analysis, the model demonstrated clinical utility for targeting preventative treatment, compared to treating all, or no, people with LTBI. We challenge the current crude approach to TB risk estimation among people with LTBI in favor of our evidence-based and patient-centered method, in settings aiming for pre-elimination worldwide.

Extraspinal articular tuberculosis: An 11-year retrospective study of demographic features and clinical outcomes in East London

OBJECTIVES

To describe demographic features, clinical outcomes and diagnostic delay amongst patients with extra-spinal articular tuberculosis (TB) in a low-incidence setting.

METHODS

Cases of TB treated at our institution between 2004 and 2014 were identified via the London TB register (LTBR). Demographic features of extra-spinal articular TB cases were compared to controls with TB at all other sites. For articular cases (excluding individuals <16 years or with spinal TB without peripheral joint involvement) clinical data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

6,146 TB patients were identified over the study period; 146 (2.4%) cases had extra-spinal articular infection. There was no difference in median age between extra-spinal articular TB cases and controls with TB at other sites (31 vs 32 years, p = 0.57). Articular cases were more likely to be male (70.6% vs 59.5%, p = 0.007), Bangladeshi (28.7% vs 18.0%) or Pakistani (24.0% vs 16.1%) and were less likely to be Black-African (9.5% vs 19.8%) (p < 0.001). 93 cases were included in the case series; 85 (88.5%) were migrants and 83 (89.2%) were South Asian. Knee and elbow joints were affected in 22 (23.7%) and 18 (19.4%) cases respectively. The median durations of pre-healthcare and healthcare associated delay were 16 and 6 weeks respectively. Where mycobacterial culture was performed, 57/75 (76%) were positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. 86 (92.5%) cases received standard quadruple therapy for a median of 6 months (IQR 6-9). Recurrence of TB infection occurred in 4 (4.3%) cases and there were no TB related deaths. Seven (7.6%) cases required surgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Extra-spinal articular TB more commonly affected men and people of South Asian ethnicity. Significant diagnostic delays were identified, including avoidable healthcare-associated delays.

Managing severe tuberculosis and its sequelae: from intensive care to surgery and rehabilitation

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) continue to challenge physicians and public health specialists. Global treatment outcomes continue to be unsatisfactory, positive outcomes being achieved in only 54% of patients. Overall outcomes are even worse in patients infected with highly resistant strains. Treating MDR-/XDR-TB is difficult because of frequent adverse events, the long duration of drug regimens, the high costs of second-line drugs, chronic post-infectious sequelae, and loss of organ function. Ongoing research efforts (studies and trials) have various aims: increasing the rates of treatment success; understanding the potentialities of new and repurposed drugs; shortening the treatment duration; and reducing the rates of adverse events. It is hoped that better access to rapid diagnostics, increased awareness, and treatments that are more effective will reduce the rate of complications and of lung function impairment. This article aims to discuss the management of severe tuberculosis (defined as that which is potentially life threatening, requiring higher levels of care) and its sequelae, from intensive care to the postoperative period, rehabilitation, and recovery. We also discuss the nonpharmacological interventions available to manage chronic sequelae and improve patient quality of life. Because the majority of MDR-/XDR-TB cases evolve to lung function impairment (typically obstructive but occasionally restrictive), impaired quality of life, and low performance status (as measured by walk tests or other metrics), other interventions (e.g., smoking cessation, pulmonary rehabilitation, vaccination/prevention of secondary bacterial infections/exacerbations, complemented by psychological and nutritional support) are required.

"Treatment is of primary importance, and social assistance is secondary": A qualitative study on the organisation of tuberculosis (TB) care and patients' experience of starting and staying on TB treatment in Riga, Latvia

BACKGROUND

Vulnerable individuals with tuberculosis (TB) struggle to access and stay on treatment. While patient-related and social barriers to TB treatment adherence are well documented, less is known about how the organisation and delivery of TB care influences adherence behaviour.

AIM

To examine the influence of TB service organisation and culture on patients' experience of starting and staying on treatment in Riga, Latvia.

METHODS

An intervention package to support adherence to TB treatment amongst vulnerable patients in Riga, Latvia was piloted between August 2016 and March 2017. Qualitative observations (5), interviews with staff (20) and with TB patients (10) were conducted mid-way and at the end of the intervention to understand perceptions, processes, and experiences of TB care.

RESULTS

The organisation of TB services is strongly influenced by a divide between medical and social aspects of TB care. Communication and care practices are geared towards addressing individual risk factors for non-adherence rather than the structural vulnerabilities that patients experience in accessing care. Support for vulnerable patients is limited because of standardised programmatic approaches, resource constraints and restricted job descriptions for non-medical staff.

CONCLUSION

Providing support for vulnerable patients is challenged in this setting by the strict division between medical and social aspects of TB care, and the organisational focus on patient-related rather than systems-related barriers to access and adherence. Potential systems interventions include the introduction of multi-disciplinary approaches and teams in TB care, strengthening patient literacy at the point of treatment initiation, as well as stronger linkages with social care organisations.

When the heart rules the head: ischaemic stroke and intracerebral haemorrhage complicating infective endocarditis

Sir William Osler meticulously described the clinical manifestations of infective endocarditis in 1885, concluding that: 'few diseases present greater difficulties in the way of diagnosis … which in many cases are practically insurmountable'. Even with modern investigation techniques, diagnosing infective endocarditis can be hugely challenging, yet is critically important in patients presenting with stroke (both cerebral infarction and intracranial haemorrhage), its commonest neurological complication. In ischaemic stroke, intravenous thrombolysis carries an unacceptably high risk of intracranial haemorrhage, while in intracerebral haemorrhage, mycotic aneurysms require urgent treatment to avoid rebleeding, and in all cases, prompt treatment with antibiotics and valve surgery may be life-saving. Here, we describe typical presentations of ischaemic stroke and intracerebral haemorrhage caused by infective endocarditis. We review the diagnostic challenges, the importance of rapid diagnosis, treatment options and controversies.

Chikungunya Virus Infection: An Update on Joint Manifestations and Management

The advent of sophisticated diagnostics has enabled the discovery of previously unknown arthropod-borne viruses like Chikungunya. This infection has become increasingly prevalent in the last 10 years across the Indian Ocean and has been brought to media attention by a recent outbreak in the Caribbean. The outbreak has been aided by a drastic rise in air travel, allowing infected individuals to transport the virus to previously unaffected regions. In addition, a recently documented viral mutation has allowed its transmission by the Aedes albopictus mosquito, therefore facilitating outbreaks in Southern Europe and the USA. The duration and extent of the arthritis seen peri- and post infection has become a topic of academic interest. Although published data are largely observational, there has been a definite increase in original research focusing on this. Symptoms can persist for years, particularly in older patients with pre-existing medical conditions. The etiology is still not fully understood, but viral persistence and immune activation within synovial fluid have been shown in mouse models. There have been no prospective clinical trials of treatment in humans; however, animal trials are in process. The mainstay of treatment remains anti-inflammatories and steroids where necessary. The clinical presentation seems to mimic common rheumatological conditions like rheumatoid arthritis; therefore recent recommendations suggest the use disease-modifying agents as a common practice for the specific syndrome. This review uses recent published data and draws on our own clinical experience to provide an overview of joint complications of Chikungunya infection.