Search

IntroductionThe Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic has caused significant global mortality and impacted lives around the world. Virus Watch aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most likely to be effective in reducing transmission and impact of the virus, and will investigate community incidence, symptom profiles, and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours.Methods and analysisVirus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England & Wales and will run from June 2020 to August 2021. The study aims to recruit 50,000 people, including 12,500 from minority ethnic backgrounds, for an online survey cohort and monthly antibody testing using home finger prick kits. Nested within this larger study will be a sub-cohort of 10,000 individuals, including 3,000 people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This cohort of 10,000 people will have full blood serology taken between October 2020 and January 2021 and repeat serology between May 2021 and August 2021. Participants will also post self-administered nasal swabs for PCR assays of SARS-CoV-2 and will follow one of three different PCR testing schedules based upon symptoms.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Hampstead NHS Health Research Authority Ethics Committee. Ethics approval number – 20/HRA/2320. We are monitoring participant queries and using these to refine methodology where necessary, and are providing summaries and policy briefings of our preliminary findings to inform public health action by working through our partnerships with our study advisory group, Public Health England, NHS and Government Scientific Advisory panels.Strengths and limitations of this studyVirus Watch is a large national household community cohort study of the occurrence and risk factors for COVID-19 infection that aims to recruit 50,000 people, including 12,500 from minority ethnic backgrounds.Virus Watch is designed to estimate incidence of PCR confirmed COVID-19 in those with respiratory and non-respiratory presentations and the incidence of hospitalisation among PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases.Virus Watch will measure effectiveness and impact of recommended COVID-19 control measures including testing, isolation, social distancing, respiratory and hand hygiene measures on risk of respiratory infection.Only households with a lead householder able to speak English were able to take part in the study up until March 2021.Only households of up to six people were eligible for inclusion and they were also required to have access to an internet connection. These restrictions will limit the generalisability to large or multigenerational households, and those without access to the internet.

BackgroundDifferential exposure to public activities and non-household contacts may contribute to stark deprivation-related inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes, but has not been directly investigated. We set out to investigate whether participants in Virus Watch – a large community cohort study based in England and Wales – reported different levels of exposure to public activities and non-household contacts during the Autumn-Winter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic according to postcode-level socioeconomic deprivation.MethodsParticipants (n=20120-25228 across surveys) reported their daily activities during three weekly periods in late November 2020, late December 2020, and mid-February 2021. Deprivation was quantified based on participants’ postcode of residence using English or Welsh Indices of Multiple Deprivation quintiles. We used Poisson mixed effect models with robust standard errors to estimate the relationship between deprivation and risk of exposure to public activities during each survey period.ResultsRelative to participants in the least deprived areas, participants in the most deprived areas persistently exhibited elevated risk of exposure to vehicle sharing (aRR range across time points 1.73-8.52), public transport (aRR 3.13-5.73), work or education outside of the household (aRR 1.09-1.21), essential shops (aRR 1.09-1.13) and non-household contacts (aRR 1.15-1.19) across multiple survey periods.ConclusionDifferential exposure to essential public activities in deprived communities is likely to contribute to inequalities in infection risk and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health interventions to reduce exposure during essential activities and financial and practical support to enable low-paid workers to stay at home during periods of intense transmission may reduce COVID-related inequalities.

Background SARS-CoV-2 infection in Healthcare Workers (HCWs) is a public health concern during the pandemic. Little description has been made of their antibody response over time in the presence or absence detectable SARS-CoV-2 RNA and of symptoms. We followed a cohort of patient-facing HCWs at an acute hospital in London to measure seroconversion and RNA detection at the peak of the pandemic in London. Methods We enrolled 200 front-line HCWs between 26 March and 8 April 2020 and collected twice-weekly self-administered nose and throat swabs and monthly blood samples. Baseline and regular symptom data were also collected. Swabs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA by polymerase chain reaction, and serum for IgM, IgA and IgG antibodies to the virus spike protein by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and flow cytometry. Findings We enrolled HCWs with a variety of roles who worked in areas where COVID-19 patients were admitted and cared for. During the first month of observation, 42/200 (21%) HCWs were PCR positive in at least one nose and throat swab. Only 8/42 HCW (19%) who were PCR positive during the study period had symptoms that met the current case definition. Of 181 HCWs who provided enrollment and follow-up blood samples, 82/181 (45.3%) were seropositive; 36/181 (19.9%) seroconverted during the study and 46/181 (25.4%) were seropositive at both time points. In 33 HCWs who had positive serology at baseline but were PCR negative, 32 remained PCR negative throughout follow-up. One HCW had a PCR positive swab six days after enrollment, likely representing a waning infection. Interpretation The extremely high seropositivity and RNA detection in this cohort of front-line HCWs who worked during the peak of the pandemic brings policies to protect staff and patients in the hospital environment into acute focus. Our findings have implications for planning for the expected second wave and for future vaccination roll out campaigns in similar settings. The further evidence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection indicates that asymptomatic surveillance of HCWs is essential while our study sets the foundations to answer pertinent questions around the duration of protective immune response and the risk of re-infection.

Summary Background The propagation of prions, the causative agents of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and other human prion diseases, requires post-translational conversion of normal cellular prion protein to disease-associated forms. The antimalarial drug quinacrine (mepacrine) prevents this conversion in vitro, and was given to patients with various prion diseases to assess its safety and efficacy in changing the course of these invariably fatal and untreatable diseases. Methods Patients with prion disease were recruited via the UK national referral system and were offered a choice between quinacrine (300 mg daily), no quinacrine, or randomisation to immediate quinacrine or deferred quinacrine in an open-label, patient-preference trial. The primary endpoints were death and serious adverse events possibly or probably related to the study drug. This study is registered, ISRCTN 06722585. Findings 107 patients with prion disease (45 sporadic, two iatrogenic, 18 variant, and 42 inherited) were enrolled, 23 in a pilot study and 84 in the main study. Only two patients chose randomisation; 40 took quinacrine during follow-up (37 who chose it at enrolment). Choice of treatment was associated with disease severity, with those least and most severely affected more likely to choose not to receive quinacrine. 78 (73%) patients died: one randomly assigned to deferred treatment, 26 of 38 who chose immediate quinacrine, and 51 of 68 who chose no quinacrine. Although adjusted mortality was lower in those who chose to take quinacrine than in those who did not, this was due to confounding with disease severity, and there was no difference in mortality between groups after adjustment. Four of 40 patients who took quinacrine had a transient response on neurological rating scales. Only two of 14 reported serious adverse events were judged quinacrine-related. Interpretation Quinacrine at a dose of 300 mg per day was reasonably tolerated but did not significantly affect the clinical course of prion diseases in this observational study. Funding Department of Health (England); UK Medical Research Council.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of exposure to single-dose nevirapine (sdNVP) on virological response in young Ugandan/Zimbabwean children ( 0.3) or NNRTIs (P > 0.1) (n = 88) at week 144. CONCLUSION: Given the limited global availability of lopinavir/ritonavir, its significant formulation challenges in young children, and the significant paediatric treatment gap, tablet fixed-dose-combination NVP-based ART remains a good alternative to syrup lopinavir-based ART for children, particularly those over 1 year and even if exposed to sdNVP.This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial License 4.0, where it is permissible to download, share and reproduce the work in any medium, provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.

Background Dolutegravir (DTG)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) is highly effective and well-tolerated in adults and is rapidly being adopted globally. We describe the design of the ODYSSEY trial which evaluates the efficacy and safety of DTG-based ART compared with standard-of-care in children and adolescents. The ODYSSEY trial includes nested pharmacokinetic (PK) sub-studies which evaluated pragmatic World Health Organization (WHO) weight-band-based DTG dosing and opened recruitment to children Methods ODYSSEY (Once-daily DTG based ART in Young people vS. Standard thErapY) is an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority, basket trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DTG + 2 nucleos(t) ides (NRTIs) versus standard-of-care (SOC) in HIV-infected children Results Between September 2016 and June 2018, 707 children weighing ≥14 kg were enrolled; including 311 ART-naïve children and 396 children starting second-line. 47% of children were enrolled in Uganda, 21% Zimbabwe, 20% South Africa, 9% Thailand, 4% Europe. 362 (51%) participants were male; median age [range] at enrolment was 12.2 years [2.9–18.0]. 82 (12%) children weighed 14 to Conclusions By employing a basket design, to include ART-naïve and -experienced children, and nested PK sub-studies, the ODYSSEY trial efficiently evaluates multiple scientific questions regarding dosing and effectiveness of DTG-based ART in children. Trial registration NCT, NCT02259127, registered 7th October 2014; EUDRACT, 2014–002632-14, registered 18th June 2014 (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2014-002632-14/ES); ISRCTN, ISRCTN91737921, registered 4th October 2014.