ABSTRACT
Background: People living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of severe COVID-19. The UK recommends vaccination against COVID-19 for PLWH with two primary doses, a booster dose, then seasonal boosters (i.e. four doses by Autumn 2022). Vaccination uptake in the UK has been lower among non-white minority ethnic groups than in the white British population, despite these groups having a higher risk of severe COVID-19. Method(s): We evaluated vaccine uptake by PLWH attending treatment services at two NHS Trusts in North East England. To ensure representation of minorities, alternating PLWH from white and ethnic minorities (excluding white minorities) were purposively selected for review from the HIV and AIDS Reporting System;vaccination data were obtained from regional integrated care records. Result(s): 200 PLWH were included. 103 (51.5%) were from ethnic minority groups, of whom 78 (75.7%) were of black African ethnicity. Vaccination rates in the total population and among ethnic groups are shown in the table below. Similar proportions of white and minority ethnic background PLWH had received up to two vaccinations. These proportions among white PLWH were similar to those reported in the general English population, while fewer Black African PLWH were unvaccinated than in the general population (14.1% vs. 26%, data not shown). Vaccine uptake among PLWH diverged beyond 3 doses, with white people being almost three times as likely to have received four doses (OR 2.92;95% CI 1.63 to 5.19;pvalue for difference in distribution across all doses=0.005). Conclusion(s): Although ethnic minority PLWH were less likely to be fully vaccinated than white ethnicity PLWH, the proportion of unvaccinated black African PLWH was lower than that reported from the general population. This could infer that regular contact with healthcare professionals coupled with consistent promotion of vaccination by HIV clinicians can improve uptake. (Table Presented).
ABSTRACT
Background: People living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of severe or critical COVID-19. This is in addition to the increased risk associated with any coexisting conditions such as chronic pulmonary disease (CPD), chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular disease. Vaccination against COVID-19 is therefore strongly recommended for PLWH. Method(s): We conducted a descriptive study to evaluate comorbidities among PLWH attending for HIV care at two NHS Trusts in North East England and who were under- or unvaccinated against COVID-19, defined as having received either zero or 1 doses of any COVID-19 vaccine by 01/10/2022. PLWH under active care were identified using the HIV and AIDS Reporting System (HARS) dataset. Vaccination data were obtained from regional integrated care records (RICR) and cross-referenced with HARS. Information on comorbidities was collated for any patients who were under- or unvaccinated. To quantify risk and clinical vulnerability, we calculated the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) for each of these patients. A CCI score >=1 is associated with mortality/poor outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Result(s): 141 under- or unvaccinated patients were identified out of a total cohort of 1492 patients who attended for HIV care (9.5%);of these, 96 (68.1%) and 45 (31.9%) had received zero and one vaccination respectively. The median age of this under-/unvaccinated cohort was 41 years and 91 (64.5%) were male. 62 patients (44.0%) had a CCI score of 1 or more;13 patients (9.2%) had a diagnosis of AIDS during the time period evaluated;11 (84.6%) of the patients with an AIDS diagnosis were completely unvaccinated. Non-HIV comorbidities included liver disease (10/141, 7.1%), solid organ cancer (5/141, 3.5%), CPD (4/141, 2.8%) and connective tissue disease (3/141, 2.1%). Six patients (4.3%) had >=2 comorbidities. Conclusion(s): Nearly half of the under-/unvaccinated PLWH attending our services were identified as being at an increased risk of having a poor outcome in the event of contracting COVID-19. Proactively identifying these individuals would allow services to offer tailored support in making informed decisions about vaccinations. Useful strategies may include the use of patient information leaflets and targeted discussion with patients explaining their individual risk from COVID-19.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Prone positions have been used extensively to improve oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). During the COVID-19 pandemic there was widespread adoption of proning in patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure. Few studies explore the use of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Method(s): This study was part of the REACT COVID observational study at University Hospital Southampton (UHS) [1]. Eligibility included admission to UHS with a positive COVID-19 RT-PCR between 03/2020 and 03/2022. Data was collected from all available electronic clinical data sources using semi-automated and manual data extraction. Result(s): 184 patients received invasive mechanical ventilation with documented evidence for 931 prone episodes. We performed detailed analysis for 763 prone episodes. The rest were excluded due to insufficient data. The median duration of each cycle was 16 h (IQR 15-17 h). 459 cycles were done within 7 days of intubation (early), 202 in 7-14 days (intermediate) and 102 after 14 days (late). The change in oxygenation defined as delta PaO2/ FiO2 ratio (DELTAPF) for early, intermediate, and late cycles were 2.4 +/- 5.2 kPa, 1.6 +/- 3.7 kPa and 1.4 +/- 4.0 kPa, (p = 0.03) respectively. The overall DELTAPF for all groups after a cycle was 2.1 +/- 4.7 kPa. There was an increase in PaCO2 following proning with an overall change of 0.30 +/- 1.0, however, this was not statistically significant (p = 0.30). Conclusion(s): Following proning, there was significant improvement in oxygenation. Cycles lasted for 16 h consistent with current ARDS guidelines [2]. Although the results suggest a diminishing response in those proned at later times, the DELTAPF ratio was still significant. Overall, this suggests a beneficial effect on oxygenation. However, findings cannot be translated into survival benefit. Further research including randomised controlled trials is recommended.
ABSTRACT
COVID-19 has caused strain on healthcare systems worldwide and concern within the population over this strain and the chances of becoming infected has reduced the likelihood of people seeking medical treatment for other health events. Stroke is a medical emergency and swift treatment can make a difference in outcomes. Understanding how concern over the COVID-19 pandemic impacts the time delay in seeking treatment after a stroke can help understand both the long-term cost implications and how to target individuals to remind them of the importance of seeking treatment. We present an agent-based model to simulate the delay in seeking treatment for stroke due to concerns over COVID-19 and show that small changes in behaviour impact the average delay in seeking treatment. We find that introducing control measures and having multiple smaller peaks of the pandemic results in less delay in seeking treatment compared to a scenario with one large peak. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
ABSTRACT
This paper was written in response to a request by the editors of the AP: Online Journal of Public Archaeology, Jaime Almansa Sánchez and Elena Papagiannopoulou, for Claire Smith to write on the future of public archaeology in Australia. In Australia, public archaeology focusses on high profile colonial sites such as The Rocks in Sydney (Karskens 1999) and Port Arthur in Tasmania (Steele et al. 2007;Frew 2012), tourism (e.g. Cole and Wallis 2019) or enhancing school curricula (Nichols et al. 2005;Owens and Steele 2005). However, given her decades-long relationships with Jawoyn and Ngadjuri people (Smith 1999;Smith et al. 2016;Smith et al. 2020), Claire Smith decided that a useful way of approaching this topic would be to obtain Indigenous views on the subject. Accordingly, she contacted the Aboriginal co-authors of this article and invited them to co-author the paper. The possibility to write in free form was a boon. The ‘conversation’ format we settled on was designed to facilitate the voices of individuals, to present a range of Indigenous views, to allow people to express their views frankly, and to deal with the constraints of people being located in different parts of Australia as well as occasional lock-downs due to COVID-19. We decided on five topics/questions that would be the basis of the conversation. Each Aboriginal author gave their views either by email or by phone. These views were interwoven into a ‘conversation’. The language has been edited lightly for clarity and to simulate a real-life conversation. The final text was approved by all authors. © 2020, LAP: Online Journal in Public Archaeology. All Rights Reserved.