Search

Background The public order and safety (POS) sector remains susceptible to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreaks, as workplace attendance is typically compulsory and close physical contact is often needed. Here, we report on a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with an attack rate of 39% (9/23), which occurred between 19 and 29 June 2021 among a cohort of new POS recruits participating in a mandatory 18-week training programme in England. Methods The COVID-OUT (COVID-19 Outbreak investigation to Understand Transmission) study team undertook a multidisciplinary outbreak investigation, including viral surface sampling, workplace environmental assessment, participant viral and antibody testing, and questionnaires, at the two associated training facilities between 5 July and 24 August 2021. Results Environmental factors, such as ventilation, were deemed inadequate in some areas of the workplace, with carbon dioxide (CO2) levels exceeding 1,500 ppm on multiple occasions within naturally ventilated classrooms. Activities during safety training required close contact, with some necessitating physical contact, physical exertion, and shouting. Furthermore, most participants reported having physical contact with colleagues (67%) and more than one close work contact daily (97%). Conclusions Our investigation suggests that site- and activity-specific factors likely contributed to the transmission risks within the POS trainee cohort. Potential interventions for mitigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission in this POS training context could include implementing regular rapid lateral flow testing, optimizing natural ventilation, using portable air cleaning devices in classrooms, and expanding use of well-fitted FFP2/FFP3 respirators during activities where prolonged close physical contact is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most studies assessing pathophysiological heterogeneity in asthma have been conducted in high-income countries (HICs), with little known about the prevalence and characteristics of different asthma inflammatory phenotypes in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study assessed sputum inflammatory phenotypes in five centres, in Brazil, Ecuador, Uganda, New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK).Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 998 asthmatics and 356 non-asthmatics in 2016-20. All centres studied children and adolescents (age range 8-20 years), except the UK centre which involved 26-27 year-olds. Information was collected using questionnaires, clinical characterization, blood and induced sputum.Results: Of 623 asthmatics with sputum results, 39% (243) were classified as eosinophilic or mixed granulocytic, i.e. eosinophilic asthma (EA). Adjusted for age and sex, with NZ as baseline, the UK showed similar odds of EA (odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.37-2.94) with lower odds in the LMICs: Brazil (0.73, 0.42-1.27), Ecuador (0.40, 0.24-0.66) and Uganda (0.62, 0.37-1.04). Despite the low prevalence of neutrophilic asthma in most centres, sputum neutrophilia was increased in asthmatics and non-asthmatics in Uganda.Conclusions: This is the first time that sputum induction has been used to compare asthma inflammatory phenotypes in HICs and LMICs. Most cases were non-eosinophilic, including in settings where corticosteroid use was low. A lower prevalence of EA was observed in the LMICs than in the HICs. This has major implications for asthma prevention and management, and suggests that novel prevention strategies and therapies specifically targeting non-eosinophilic asthma are required globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives A COVID-19 Job Exposure Matrix (COVID-19-JEM) has been developed, consisting of four dimensions on transmission, two on mitigation measures, and two on precarious work. This study aims to validate the COVID-19-JEM by (i) comparing risk scores assigned by the COVID-19-JEM with self-reported data, and (ii) estimating the associations between the COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19. Methods Data from measurements 2 (July 2020, n = 7690) and 4 (March 2021, n = 6794) of the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey-COVID-19 (NWCS-COVID-19) cohort study were used. Responses to questions related to the transmission risks and mitigation measures of Measurement 2 were used to calculate self-reported risk scores. These scores were compared with the COVID-19-JEM attributed risk scores, by assessing the percentage agreement and weighted kappa (κ). Based on Measurement 4, logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the associations between all COVID-19-JEM risk scores and self-reported COVID-19 (infection in general and infected at work). Results The agreement between the COVID-19-JEM and questionnaire-based risk scores was good (κ ≥ 0.70) for most dimensions, except work location (κ = 0.56), and face covering (κ = 0.41). Apart from the precarious work dimensions, higher COVID-19-JEM assigned risk scores had higher odds ratios (ORs; ranging between 1.28 and 1.80) on having had COVID-19. Associations were stronger when the infection were thought to have happened at work (ORs between 2.33 and 11.62). Conclusions Generally, the COVID-19-JEM showed a good agreement with self-reported infection risks and infection rates at work. The next step is to validate the COVID-19-JEM with objective data in the Netherlands and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Studies have shown a higher mortality due to COVID-19 amongst certain professions. The risk of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and the occupational conditions associated with this, have not been studied extensively. This study aimed to develop and validate a Job Exposure Matrix (JEM) to assess the risk of COVID-19 in the workplace. Methods Researchers from three European countries defined six dimensions (four transmission determinants, two mitigation measures) to classify occupational risk. A combination of national statistics and expert judgement was used to classify ISCO-08 codes in no, low, elevated, or high risk for each dimension. Two data driven aspects of precarious work were also included and classified in four categories. The JEM was translated to SOC2010-codes and validated by comparing it to UK infection survey data and ONS estimates of exposure based on ONET data. Results A slightly increasing proportion of COVID-19 cases was observed with increasing risk scores in each dimension of the JEM. There was a high correlation between the JEM and the ONS estimates for physical proximity (r = 0.71) and exposure to COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 infection (r = 0.80) Conclusions Successful development and initial validation of this JEM has resulted in a useful tool for risk assessment of COVID-19 in the workplace. Further validation exercises will continue. Key messages This publicly available JEM can play a key role in the essential assessment of occupational contribution to the total burden of the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]