A modelled evaluation of the impact of COVID-19 on breast, bowel, and cervical cancer screening programmes in Australia.

Australia introduced COVID-19 infection prevention and control measures in early 2020. To help prepare health services, the Australian Government Department of Health commissioned a modelled evaluation of the impact of disruptions to population breast, bowel, and cervical cancer screening programmes on cancer outcomes and cancer services. We used the Policy1 modelling platforms to predict outcomes for potential disruptions to cancer screening participation, covering periods of 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo. We estimated missed screens, clinical outcomes (cancer incidence, tumour staging), and various diagnostic service impacts. We found that a 12-mo screening disruption would reduce breast cancer diagnoses (9.3% population-level reduction over 2020-2021) and colorectal cancer (up to 12.1% reduction over 2020-21), and increase cervical cancer diagnoses (up to 3.6% over 2020-2022), with upstaging expected for these cancer types (2, 1.4, and 6.8% for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers, respectively). Findings for 6-12-mo disruption scenarios illustrate that maintaining screening participation is critical to preventing an increase in the burden of cancer at a population level. We provide programme-specific insights into which outcomes are expected to change, when changes are likely to become apparent, and likely downstream impacts. This evaluation provided evidence to guide decision-making for screening programmes and emphasises the ongoing benefits of maintaining screening in the face of potential future disruptions.

Colon and rectal cancer treatment patterns and their associations with clinical, sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics: analysis of the Australian 45 and Up Study cohort.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most diagnosed cancer globally and the second leading cause of cancer death. We examined colon and rectal cancer treatment patterns in Australia. METHODS: From cancer registry records, we identified 1,236 and 542 people with incident colon and rectal cancer, respectively, diagnosed during 2006-2013 in the 45 and Up Study cohort (267,357 participants). Cancer treatment and deaths were determined via linkage to routinely collected data, including hospital and medical services records. For colon cancer, we examined treatment categories of "surgery only", "surgery plus chemotherapy", "other treatment" (i.e. other combinations of surgery/chemotherapy/radiotherapy), "no record of cancer-related treatment, died"; and, for rectal cancer, "surgery only", "surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy", "other treatment", and "no record of cancer-related treatment, died". We analysed survival, time to first treatment, and characteristics associated with treatment receipt using competing risks regression. RESULTS: 86.4% and 86.5% of people with colon and rectal cancer, respectively, had a record of receiving any treatment ≤2 years post-diagnosis. Of those treated, 93.2% and 90.8% started treatment ≤2 months post-diagnosis, respectively. Characteristics significantly associated with treatment receipt were similar for colon and rectal cancer, with strongest associations for spread of disease and age at diagnosis (p<0.003). For colon cancer, the rate of "no record of cancer-related treatment, died" was higher for people with distant spread of disease (versus localised, subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR)=13.6, 95% confidence interval (CI):5.5-33.9), age ≥75 years (versus age 45-74, SHR=3.6, 95%CI:1.8-7.1), and visiting an emergency department ≤1 month pre-diagnosis (SHR=2.9, 95%CI:1.6-5.2). For rectal cancer, the rate of "surgery plus chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy" was higher for people with regional spread of disease (versus localised, SHR=5.2, 95%CI:3.6-7.7) and lower for people with poorer physical functioning (SHR=0.5, 95%CI:0.3-0.8) or no private health insurance (SHR=0.7, 95%CI:0.5-0.9). CONCLUSION: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, most people with colon or rectal cancer received treatment ≤2 months post-diagnosis, however, treatment patterns varied by spread of disease and age. This work can be used to inform future healthcare requirements, to estimate the impact of cancer control interventions to improve prevention and early diagnosis, and serve as a benchmark to assess treatment delays/disruptions during the pandemic. Future work should examine associations with clinical factors (e.g. performance status at diagnosis) and interdependencies between characteristics such as age, comorbidities, and emergency department visits.

Retraction: Sung et al. Expression of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Receptor Binding Domain on Recombinant B. subtilis on Spore Surface: A Potential COVID-19 Oral Vaccine Candidate. Vaccines 2022, 10, 2.

The journal retracts the article "Expression of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Receptor Binding Domain on Recombinant B. subtilis on Spore Surface: A Potential COVID-19 Oral Vaccine Candidate"[...].

Expression of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Receptor Binding Domain on Recombinant B. subtilis on Spore Surface: A Potential COVID-19 Oral Vaccine Candidate.

Various types of vaccines, such as mRNA, adenovirus, and inactivated virus by injection, have been developed to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. Although some of them have already been approved under the COVID-19 pandemic, various drawbacks, including severe side effects and the requirement for sub-zero temperature storage, may hinder their applications. Bacillus subtilis (B. subtilis) is generally recognized as a safe and endotoxin-free Gram-positive bacterium that has been extensively employed as a host for the expression of recombinant proteins. Its dormant spores are extraordinarily resistant to the harsh environment in the gastrointestinal tract. This feature makes it an ideal carrier for oral administration in resisting this acidic environment and for release in the intestine. In this study, an engineered B. subtilis spore expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (sRBD) on the spore surface was developed. In a pilot test, no adverse health event was observed in either mice or healthy human volunteers after three oral courses of B. subtilis spores. Significant increases in neutralizing antibody against sRBD, in both mice and human volunteers, after oral administration were also found. These findings may enable the further clinical developments of B. subtilis spores as an oral vaccine candidate against COVID-19 in the future.

Quantifying face mask comfort.

Face mask usage is one of the most effective ways to limit SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but a mask is only useful if user compliance is high. Through anonymous surveys (n = 679), it was shown that mask discomfort is the primary source of noncompliance in mask wearing. Further, through these surveys, three critical predicting variables that dictate mask comfort were identified: air resistance, water vapor permeability, and face temperature change. To validate these predicting variables in a physiological context, experiments (n = 9) were performed to measure the respiratory rate and change in face temperature while wearing different types of three commonly used masks. Finally, using values of these predicting variables from experiments and the literature, and surveys asking users to rate the comfort of various masks, three machine learning algorithms were trained and tested to generate overall comfort scores for those masks. Although all three models performed with an accuracy of approximately 70%, the multiple linear regression model provides a simple analytical expression to predict the comfort scores for common face masks provided the input predicting variables. As face mask usage is crucial during the COVID-19 pandemic, the goal of this quantitative framework to predict mask comfort is hoped to improve user experience and prevent discomfort-induced noncompliance.

Risk quantification for SARS-CoV-2 infection through airborne transmission in university settings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted learning as many institutions switched to remote or hybrid instruction. An in-depth assessment of the risk of infection that considers environmental setting and mitigation strategies is needed to make safe and informed decisions regarding reopening university spaces. A quantitative model of infection probability that accounts for space-specific parameters is presented to enable assessment of the risk in reopening university spaces at given densities. The model uses the fraction of the campus population that are viral shedders, room capacity, face covering filtration efficiency, air exchange rate, room volume, and time spent in the space as parameters to calculate infection probabilities in teaching spaces, dining halls, dorms, and shared bathrooms. The model readily calculates infection probabilities in various university spaces, with face covering filtration efficiency and air exchange rate being among the dominant variables. When applied to university spaces, this model demonstrated that, under specific conditions that are feasible to implement, in-person classes could be held in large lecture halls with an infection risk over the semester <1%. Meal pick-ups from dining halls and usage of shared bathrooms in residential dormitories among small groups of students could also be accomplished with low risk. The results of applying this model to spaces at Harvard University (Cambridge and Allston campuses) and Stanford University are reported. Finally, a user-friendly web application was developed using this model to calculate infection probability following input of space-specific variables. The successful development of a quantitative model and its implementation through a web application may facilitate accurate assessments of infection risk in university spaces. However, since this model is thus far unvalidated, validation using infection rate and contact tracing data from university campuses will be crucial as such data becomes available at larger scales. In light of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on universities, this tool could provide crucial insight to students, faculty, and university officials in making informed decisions.