Ethnic differences in cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in UK healthcare workers: a cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Few studies have compared SARS-CoV-2 vaccine immunogenicity by ethnic group. We sought to establish whether cellular and humoral immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination differ according to ethnicity in UK Healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, we used baseline data from two immunological cohort studies conducted in HCWs in Leicester, UK. Blood samples were collected between March 3, and September 16, 2021. We excluded HCW who had not received two doses of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine at the time of sampling and those who had serological evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcome measures were SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific total antibody titre, neutralising antibody titre and ELISpot count. We compared our outcome measures by ethnic group using univariable (t tests and rank-sum tests depending on distribution) and multivariable (linear regression for antibody titres and negative binomial regression for ELISpot counts) tests. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for age, sex, vaccine type, length of interval between vaccine doses and time between vaccine administration and sample collection and expressed as adjusted geometric mean ratios (aGMRs) or adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). To assess differences in the early immune response to vaccination we also conducted analyses in a subcohort who provided samples between 14 and 50 days after their second dose of vaccine. Findings: The total number of HCWs in each analysis were 401 for anti-spike antibody titres, 345 for neutralising antibody titres and 191 for ELISpot. Overall, 25.4% (19.7% South Asian and 5.7% Black/Mixed/Other) were from ethnic minority groups. In analyses including the whole cohort, neutralising antibody titres were higher in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs (aGMR 1.47, 95% CI [1.06-2.06], P = 0.02) as were T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 S1 peptides (aIRR 1.75, 95% CI [1.05-2.89], P = 0.03). In a subcohort sampled between 14 and 50 days after second vaccine dose, SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific antibody and neutralising antibody geometric mean titre (GMT) was higher in South Asian HCWs compared to White HCWs (9616 binding antibody units (BAU)/ml, 95% CI [7178-12,852] vs 5888 BAU/ml [5023-6902], P = 0.008 and 2851 95% CI [1811-4487] vs 1199 [984-1462], P < 0.001 respectively), increments which persisted after adjustment (aGMR 1.26, 95% CI [1.01-1.58], P = 0.04 and aGMR 2.01, 95% CI [1.34-3.01], P = 0.001). SARS-CoV-2 ELISpot responses to S1 and whole spike peptides (S1 + S2 response) were higher in HCWs from South Asian ethnic groups than those from White groups (S1: aIRR 2.33, 95% CI [1.09-4.94], P = 0.03; spike: aIRR, 2.04, 95% CI [1.02-4.08]). Interpretation: This study provides evidence that, in an infection naïve cohort, humoral and cellular immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination are stronger in South Asian HCWs than White HCWs. These differences are most clearly seen in the early period following vaccination. Further research is required to understand the underlying mechanisms, whether differences persist with further exposure to vaccine or virus, and the potential impact on vaccine effectiveness. Funding: DIRECT and BELIEVE have received funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) through the COVID-19 National Core Studies Immunity (NCSi) programme (MC_PC_20060).

Utilising the impact of COVID-19 on trauma throughput to adapt elective care models for more efficient trauma care.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has necessitated adaptations in local trauma services, with implementation of novel methods of practice, strategic adaptations, and shifting of resource management. Many of these may serve the driver for landmark changes to future healthcare provision. AIM: To analyse the impact of COVID-19 on service provision by comparing throughput and productivity metrics with preceding years to identify differences in practice that were successful, cost-effective, and sustainable. METHODS: We quantified orthopaedic trauma care provision at a single University Teaching Hospital over a three consecutive year period, from 1st January 2018 to 31st December 2020. Each year was split into four phases based on the 2020 national COVID-19 pandemic periods. We quantitatively analysed change in rates of inpatient trauma operative case load, sub-specialty variation, theatre throughput, and changes in management strategy. Qualitative analysis was based on multidisciplinary team interviews to highlight changes to care pathways. RESULTS: Of 1704 cases were admitted in 2020, 11.9% and 12.4% fewer than 2019 and 2018, respectively. During phase 1, hip fractures encompassed the majority (48.8%) of trauma throughput, with all other subspecialties seeing a reduction. Mean length of stay was shorter during phase 1 (5.7 d); however, the time in theatre was longer (144.3 min). Both, Charlson (0.90) and Elixhauser (1.55) Comorbidity Indices indicated the most co-morbid admissions during 2020 phase 1. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has resulted in a paradigm shift in how care is accessed and delivered, with many evolving changes and adaptations likely to leave an impression upon healthcare provision in the future.

The impact of deprivation on patients awaiting planned care.

AIMS: Deprivation underpins many societal and health inequalities. COVID-19 has exacerbated these disparities, with access to planned care falling greatest in the most deprived areas of the UK during 2020. This study aimed to identify the impact of deprivation on patients on growing waiting lists for planned care. METHODS: Questionnaires were sent to orthopaedic waiting list patients at the start of the UK's first COVID-19 lockdown to capture key quantitative and qualitative aspects of patients' health. A total of 888 respondents were divided into quintiles, with sampling stratified based on the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD); level 1 represented the 'most deprived' cohort and level 5 the 'least deprived'. RESULTS: The least deprived cohort were older (mean 65.95 years (SD 13.33)) than the most deprived (mean 59.48 years (SD 13.85)). Mean symptom duration was lower in the least deprived areas (68.59 months (SD 112.26)) compared to the most deprived (85.85 months (SD 122.50)). Mean pain visual analogue scores (VAS) were poorer in the most compared to the least deprived cohort (7.11 (SD 2.01) vs 5.99 (SD 2.57)), with mean mood scores also poorer (6.06 (SD 2.65) vs 4.71 (SD 2.78)). The most deprived areas exhibited lower mean quality of life (QoL) scores than the least (0.37 (SD 0.30) vs 0.53 (SD 0.31)). QoL findings correlated with health VAS and Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item (GAD2) scores, with the most deprived areas experiencing poorer health (health VAS 50.82 (SD 26.42) vs 57.29 (SD 24.19); GAD2: 2.94 (SD 2.35) vs 1.88 (SD 2.07)). Least-deprived patients had the highest self-reported activity levels and lowest sedentary cohort, with the converse true for patients from the most deprived areas. CONCLUSION: The most deprived patients experience poorer physical and mental health, with this most adversely impacted by lengthy waiting list delays. Interventions to address inequalities should focus on prioritizing the most deprived.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):777-785.

Pain Mapping as a Predictive Model for Diagnosis and Treatment in Foot and Ankle Conditions

Category: Other;Ankle;Ankle Arthritis;Bunion;Hindfoot;Lesser Toes;Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: With the COVID19 pandemic, virtual consultations are becoming a necessity. Clinicians are having to adapt consultations to determine where patients' symptoms are, and what the appropriate next line of investigation or treatment should be, without the benefit of traditional face-to-face contact. The aim of this project was therefore to use pain mapping in foot and ankle conditions, in order to see if there was a predictive correlation between certain symptomatic areas and the ultimate surgical treatment required by patients. Methods: Data was collected prospectively from patients attending foot and ankle clinics from 2014 to 2019, and this was cross- matched with operative data subsequently. Data included patient demographics, co-morbidities, smoking status and previous injuries or surgeries. In a structured questionnaire, patients also marked the regions of the foot and ankle that they thought were the most symptomatic. The foot and ankle was divided into 12 segments for the purpose of analysis. Results: A total of 2007 patients completed these questionnaires, from which operative data was available for 407 patients. In the first instance, data was analysed for 122 patients who underwent one of five specific procedures. Pain mapping was found to have a good predictive value for first MTP fusion and bunion surgery (n=20, 46), 1st metatarsal cheilectomy (n=10) and arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (n=23). The least predictive pain mapping was seen for patients who had a triple arthrodesis (n=23), with those patients presenting with pain more globally in the foot and ankle. Conclusion: The results suggest that pain mapping can be used effectively as postal questionnaires, prior to a virtual consultation, as an aid to predict diagnosis and the ultimate treatment required in some specific foot and ankle conditions.

Joint patient and clinician priority setting to identify 10 key research questions regarding the long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Given the large numbers of people infected and high rates of ongoing morbidity, research is clearly required to address the needs of adult survivors of COVID-19 living with ongoing symptoms (long COVID). To help direct resource and research efforts, we completed a research prioritisation process incorporating views from adults with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19, carers, clinicians and clinical researchers. The final top 10 research questions were agreed at an independently mediated workshop and included: identifying underlying mechanisms of long COVID, establishing diagnostic tools, understanding trajectory of recovery and evaluating the role of interventions both during the acute and persistent phases of the illness.

Rate of COVID-19 infection and 30 day mortality between blue and green (dedicated COVID-19 safe) pathways: Results from phase 1 and 2 of the UK foot and ankle COVID-19 national (UK-FAlCoN) audit.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to determine the differences in COVID-19 infection rate and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery between different treatment pathways over the two phases of the UK-FALCON audit, spanning the first and second UK national lockdowns. SETTING: This was an ambispective (retrospective Phase 1 and prospective Phase 2) national audit of foot and ankle procedures in the UK in 2020 completed between 13th January 2020 and 30th November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included from 46 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Patients were categorised as either a green pathway (designated COVID-19 free) or blue pathway (no protocols to prevent COVID-19 infection). RESULTS: 10,846 patients were included, 6644 from phase 1 and 4202 from phase 2. Over the 2 phases the infection rate on a blue pathway was 1.07% (69/6470) and 0.21% on a green pathway (9/4280). In phase 1, there was no significant difference in the COVID-19 perioperative infection rate between the blue and green pathways in any element of the first phase (pre-lockdown (p = .109), lockdown (p = .923) or post-lockdown (p = .577)). However, in phase 2 there was a significant reduction in perioperative infection rate when using the green pathway in both the pre-lockdown (p < .001) and lockdown periods (Odd's Ratio 0.077, p < .001). There was no significant difference in COVID-19 related mortality between pathways. CONCLUSIONS: There was a five-fold reduction in the perioperative COVID-19 infection rate when using designated COVID-19 green pathways over the whole study period; however the success of the pathways only became significant in phase 2 of the study, where there was a 13-fold reduction in infection rate. The study shows a developing success to using green pathways in reducing the risk to patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery.

What can we learn from the experiences and expectations of patients on growing waiting lists for planned care in the COVID-19 pandemic?

AIMS: COVID-19 has compounded a growing waiting list problem, with over 4.5 million patients now waiting for planned elective care in the UK. Views of patients on waiting lists are rarely considered in prioritization. Our primary aim was to understand how to support patients on waiting lists by hearing their experiences, concerns, and expectations. The secondary aim was to capture objective change in disability and coping mechanisms. METHODS: A minimum representative sample of 824 patients was required for quantitative analysis to provide a 3% margin of error. Sampling was stratified by body region (upper/lower limb, spine) and duration on the waiting list. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of elective orthopaedic waiting list patients with their planned intervention paused due to COVID-19. Analyzed parameters included baseline health, change in physical/mental health status, challenges and coping strategies, preferences/concerns regarding treatment, and objective quality of life (EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2-item scale (GAD-2)). Qualitative analysis was performed via the Normalization Process Theory. RESULTS: A total of 888 patients responded. Better health, pain, and mood scores were reported by upper limb patients. The longest waiters reported better health but poorer mood and anxiety scores. Overall, 82% had tried self-help measures to ease symptoms; 94% wished to proceed with their intervention; and 21% were prepared to tolerate deferral. Qualitative analysis highlighted the overall patient mood to be represented by the terms 'understandable', 'frustrated', 'pain', 'disappointed', and 'not happy/depressed'. COVID-19-mandated health and safety measures and technology solutions were felt to be implemented well. However, patients struggled with access to doctors and pain management, quality of life (physical and psychosocial) deterioration, and delay updates. CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to hear the views of this 'hidden' cohort. Our findings are widely relevant to ensure provision of better ongoing support and communication, mostly within the constraints of current resources. In response, we developed a reproducible local action plan to address highlighted issues. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):573-583.

The UK Foot and Ankle COVID-19 National (FAlCoN) audit.

AIMS: The primary objective was to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery during the global pandemic. Secondary objectives were to determine if there was a change in infection and complication profile with changes introduced in practice. METHODS: This UK-based multicentre retrospective national audit studied foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13 January and 31 July 2020, examining time periods pre-UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23 March to 11 May 2020), and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included. A total of 43 centres in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland participated. Variables recorded included demographic data, surgical data, comorbidity data, COVID-19 and mortality rates, complications, and infection rates. RESULTS: A total of 6,644 patients were included. Of the operated patients, 0.52% (n = 35) contracted COVID-19. The overall all-cause 30-day mortality rate was 0.41%, however in patients who contracted COVID-19, the mortality rate was 25.71% (n = 9); this was significantly higher for patients undergoing diabetic foot surgery (75%, n = 3 deaths). Matching for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities, the odds ratio of mortality with COVID-19 infection was 11.71 (95% confidence interval 1.55 to 88.74; p = 0.017). There were no differences in surgical complications or infection rates prior to or after lockdown, and among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. After lockdown the COVID-19 infection rate was 0.15% and no patient died of COVID-19. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 infection was rare in foot and ankle patients even at the peak of lockdown. However, there was a significant mortality rate in those who contracted COVID-19. Overall surgical complications and postoperative infection rates remained unchanged during the period of this audit. Patients and treating medical personnel should be aware of the risks to enable informed decisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(4):216-226.

The UK foot and ankle COVID-19 national (FAlCoN) audit - Regional variations in COVID-19 infection and national foot and ankle surgical activity.

AIMS: This paper details the impact of COVID-19 on foot and ankle activity in the UK. It describes regional variations and COVID-19 infection rate in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery before, during and after the first national lock-down. PATIENTS & METHODS: This was a multicentre, retrospective, UK-based, national audit on foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13th January and 31st July 2020. Data was examined pre- UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23rd March to 11th May 2020) and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period included from 43 participating centres in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Regional, demographic and COVID-19 related data were captured. RESULTS: 6644 patients were included. In total 0.53% of operated patients contracted COVID-19 (n = 35). The rate of COVID-19 infection was highest during lockdown (2.11%, n = 16) and lowest after lockdown (0.16%, n = 3). Overall mean activity during lockdown was 24.44% of pre-lockdown activity with decreases in trauma, diabetic and elective foot and ankle surgery; the change in elective surgery was most marked with only 1.73% activity during lock down and 10.72% activity post lockdown as compared to pre-lockdown. There was marked regional variation in numbers of cases performed, but the proportion of decrease in cases during and after lockdown was comparable between all regions. There was also a significant difference between rates of COVID-19 and timing of peak, cumulative COVID-19 infections between regions with the highest rate noted in South East England (3.21%). The overall national peak infection rate was 1.37%, occurring during the final week of lockdown. General anaesthetic remained the most common method of anaesthesia for foot and ankle surgery, although a significant increase in regional anaesthesia was witnessed in the lock-down and post-lockdown periods. CONCLUSIONS: National surgical activity reduced significantly for all cases across the country during lockdown with only a slow subsequent increase in elective activity. The COVID-19 infection rate and peaks differed significantly across the country.

Foot and ankle trauma management during the COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences from a major trauma unit.

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a paradigm shift in clinical practice, particularly in ways in which healthcare is accessed by patients and delivered by healthcare practitioners. Many of these changes have been serially modified in adaptation to growing service demands and department provision capacity. We evaluated the impact of the pandemic on the foot and ankle service at our trauma unit, assessing whether these adaptations to practice were justifiable, successful and sustainable for the future. This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study analysing the patient care pathway from admission to discharge, for two pre-defined timeframes: Phase 0 (pre-lockdown phase) and Phase 1 (lockdown phase). Patients were split into stable and unstable injuries depending on their fracture pattern. The follow-up modality and duration were evaluated. Trauma throughput for the equivalent timeframe in 2019 was also analysed for comparison. There were 106 unstable fractures and 100 stable fractures in 2020.78 interventional procedures were performed on 72 patients with unstable fractures in Phase-1. Close contact casting was performed on 13 patients at presentation in the ED. Selective patients underwent partial fixation in theatre, which still provided adequate stability. 35% of patients with a stable fracture were discharged directly from the ED with written advice from a review letter. The treatment modality in selective patients, particularly the vulnerable should be carefully assessed. Interventions performed at presentation often negate the need for admission. Partial fixation reduces intraoperative time and surgical insult. Integrating telemedicine into the care pathway, particularly for stable ankle fractures reduces the need for physician-patient contact and eases follow-up burden. Many of our recommended changes are easily replicated in other clinical settings. Should these adaptations demonstrate long-term sustainability, it is likely they will remain incorporated into future clinical practice.

Annotation: The COVID-19 pandemic and clinical orthopaedic and trauma surgery.

This article provides a brief overview of the current COVID-19 pandemic crisis and the impact on trauma and orthopaedic surgeons. The principles of protect, avoid, restrict and abbreviate are recommended. Coordination of response, communication and support are also important. The versatility of orthopaedic surgeons lends them to having an important role.