Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls.

Background: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), male (1.54, 1.16-2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06-3.13 and 4.19, 2.14-8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09-2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00-1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00-1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders.

A retrospective cohort study of risk factors for mortality among nursing homes exposed to COVID-19 in Spain.

Long-term care (LTC) facilities have shown remarkably high mortality rates during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in many countries1, and different risk factors for mortality have been identified in this setting2-5. Using facilities as the unit of analysis, we investigated multiple variables covering facility characteristics and socioeconomic characteristics of the geographic location to identify risk factors for excess mortality from a comprehensive perspective. Furthermore, we used a clustering approach to detect patterns in datasets and generate hypotheses regarding potential relationships between types of nursing homes and mortality trends. Our retrospective analysis included 167 nursing homes providing LTC to 8,716 residents during the COVID-19 outbreak in Catalonia (northeast Spain). According to multiple regression analysis, COVID-19-related and overall mortality at the facility level were significantly associated with a higher percentage of patients with complex diseases, lower scores on pandemic preparedness measures and higher population incidence of COVID-19 in the surrounding population. When grouping nursing homes into eight clusters based on common features, we found higher mortality rates in four clusters, mainly characterized by a higher proportion of residents with complex chronic conditions or advanced diseases, lower scores on pandemic preparedness, being located in rural areas and larger capacity, respectively.

Comparison of new and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variant transmissibility through active contact testing. A comparative cross-sectional household seroprevalence study.

Historically SARS-CoV-2 secondary attack rates (SAR) have been based on PCR positivity on screening symptomatic contacts; this misses transmission events and identifies only symptomatic contacts who are PCR positive at the time of sampling. We used serology to detect the relative transmissibility of Alpha Variant of Concern (VOC) to non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 to calculate household secondary attack rates. We identified index patients diagnosed with Alpha and non-VOC SARS-CoV-2 across two London Hospitals between November 2020 and January 2021 during a prolonged and well adhered national lockdown. We completed a household seroprevalence survey and found that 61.8% of non-VOC exposed household contacts were seropositive compared to 82.1% of Alpha exposed household contacts. The odds of infection doubled with exposure to an index diagnosed with Alpha. There was evidence of transmission events in almost all households. Our data strongly support that estimates of SAR should include serological data to improve accuracy and understanding.

Effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and impaired lung function following hospital admission due to COVID-19 in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is common following hospital admission both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations of this for recovery after hospital admission are poorly understood despite sleep disturbance contributing to morbidity in other scenarios. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after discharge following hospital admission for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnoea. METHODS: CircCOVID was a prospective multicentre cohort substudy designed to investigate the effects of circadian disruption and sleep disturbance on recovery after COVID-19 in a cohort of participants aged 18 years or older, admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in the UK, and discharged between March, 2020, and October, 2021. Participants were recruited from the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID). Follow-up data were collected at two timepoints: an early time point 2-7 months after hospital discharge and a later time point 10-14 months after hospital discharge. Sleep quality was assessed subjectively using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and a numerical rating scale. Sleep quality was also assessed with an accelerometer worn on the wrist (actigraphy) for 14 days. Participants were also clinically phenotyped, including assessment of symptoms (ie, anxiety [Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale questionnaire], muscle function [SARC-F questionnaire], dyspnoea [Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire] and measurement of lung function), at the early timepoint after discharge. Actigraphy results were also compared to a matched UK Biobank cohort (non-hospitalised individuals and recently hospitalised individuals). Multivariable linear regression was used to define associations of sleep disturbance with the primary outcome of breathlessness and the other clinical symptoms. PHOSP-COVID is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: 2320 of 2468 participants in the PHOSP-COVID study attended an early timepoint research visit a median of 5 months (IQR 4-6) following discharge from 83 hospitals in the UK. Data for sleep quality were assessed by subjective measures (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and the numerical rating scale) for 638 participants at the early time point. Sleep quality was also assessed using device-based measures (actigraphy) a median of 7 months (IQR 5-8 months) after discharge from hospital for 729 participants. After discharge from hospital, the majority (396 [62%] of 638) of participants who had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19 reported poor sleep quality in response to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A comparable proportion (338 [53%] of 638) of participants felt their sleep quality had deteriorated following discharge after COVID-19 admission, as assessed by the numerical rating scale. Device-based measurements were compared to an age-matched, sex-matched, BMI-matched, and time from discharge-matched UK Biobank cohort who had recently been admitted to hospital. Compared to the recently hospitalised matched UK Biobank cohort, participants in our study slept on average 65 min (95% CI 59 to 71) longer, had a lower sleep regularity index (-19%; 95% CI -20 to -16), and a lower sleep efficiency (3·83 percentage points; 95% CI 3·40 to 4·26). Similar results were obtained when comparisons were made with the non-hospitalised UK Biobank cohort. Overall sleep quality (unadjusted effect estimate 3·94; 95% CI 2·78 to 5·10), deterioration in sleep quality following hospital admission (3·00; 1·82 to 4·28), and sleep regularity (4·38; 2·10 to 6·65) were associated with higher dyspnoea scores. Poor sleep quality, deterioration in sleep quality, and sleep regularity were also associated with impaired lung function, as assessed by forced vital capacity. Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea, while muscle weakness mediated 27-41% of this effect. INTERPRETATION: Sleep disturbance following hospital admission for COVID-19 is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety, and muscle weakness. Due to the association with multiple symptoms, targeting sleep disturbance might be beneficial in treating the post-COVID-19 condition. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Association between mobility, non-pharmaceutical interventions, and COVID-19 transmission in Ghana: A modelling study using mobile phone data

Governments around the world have implemented non-pharmaceutical interventions to limit the transmission of COVID-19. Here we assess if increasing NPI stringency was associated with a reduction in COVID-19 cases in Ghana. While lockdowns and physical distancing have proven effective for reducing COVID-19 transmission, there is still limited understanding of how NPI measures are reflected in indicators of human mobility. Further, there is a lack of understanding about how findings from high-income settings correspond to low and middle-income contexts. In this study, we assess the relationship between indicators of human mobility, NPIs, and estimates of Rt, a real-time measure of the intensity of COVID-19 transmission. We construct a multilevel generalised linear mixed model, combining local disease surveillance data from subnational districts of Ghana with the timing of NPIs and indicators of human mobility from Google and Vodafone Ghana. We observe a relationship between reductions in human mobility and decreases in Rt during the early stages of the COVID-19 epidemic in Ghana. We find that the strength of this relationship varies through time, decreasing after the most stringent period of interventions in the early epidemic. Our findings demonstrate how the association of NPI and mobility indicators with COVID-19 transmission may vary through time. Further, we demonstrate the utility of combining local disease surveillance data with large scale human mobility data to augment existing surveillance capacity to monitor the impact of NPI policies.

Protocol for an OpenSAFELY cohort study collecting patient-reported outcome measures using the TPP Airmid smartphone application and linked big data to quantify the health and economic costs of long COVID (OpenPROMPT).

INTRODUCTION: The impact of long COVID on health-related quality of-life (HRQoL) and productivity is not currently known. It is important to understand who is worst affected by long COVID and the cost to the National Health Service (NHS) and society, so that strategies like booster vaccines can be prioritised to the right people. OpenPROMPT aims to understand the impact of long COVID on HRQoL in adults attending English primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will ask people to participate in this cohort study through a smartphone app (Airmid), and completing a series of questionnaires held within the app. Questionnaires will ask about HRQoL, productivity and symptoms of long COVID. Participants will be asked to fill in the questionnaires once a month, for 90 days. Questionnaire responses will be linked, where possible, to participants' existing health records from primary care, secondary care, and COVID testing and vaccination data. Analysis will take place using the OpenSAFELY data platform and will estimate the impact of long COVID on HRQoL, productivity and cost to the NHS. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Proportionate Review Sub-Committee of the South Central-Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee has reviewed and approved the study and have agreed that we can ask people to take part (22/SC/0198). Our results will provide information to support long-term care, and make recommendations for prevention of long COVID in the future. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05552612.

One versus two doses of ivermectin-based mass drug administration for the control of scabies: A cluster randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Mass drug administration (MDA) based on two doses of ivermectin, one week apart, substantially reduces prevalence of both scabies and impetigo. The Regimens of Ivermectin for Scabies Elimination (RISE) trial assessed whether one-dose ivermectin-based MDA would be as effective. METHODS: RISE was a cluster-randomised trial in Solomon Islands. We assigned 20 villages in a 1:1 ratio to one- or two-dose ivermectin-based MDA. We planned to test whether the impact of one dose on scabies prevalence at 12 and 24 months was non-inferior to two, at a 5% non-inferiority margin. RESULTS: We deferred endpoint assessment to 21 months due to COVID-19. We enrolled 5239 participants in 20 villages at baseline and 3369 at 21 months from an estimated population of 5500. At baseline scabies prevalence was similar in the two arms (one-dose 17·2%; two-dose 13·2%). At 21 months, there was no reduction in scabies prevalence (one-dose 18·7%; two-dose 13·4%), and the confidence interval around the difference included values substantially greater than 5%. There was however a reduction in prevalence among those who had been present at the baseline assessment (one-dose 15·9%; two-dose 10·8%). Additionally, we found a reduction in both scabies severity and impetigo prevalence in both arms, to a similar degree. CONCLUSIONS: There was no indication of an overall decline in scabies prevalence in either arm. The reduction in scabies prevalence in those present at baseline suggests that the unexpectedly high influx of people into the trial villages, likely related to the COVID-19 pandemic, may have compromised the effectiveness of the MDA. Despite the lack of effect there are important lessons to be learnt from this trial about conducting MDA for scabies in high prevalence settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001086257.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19.

Background: Persistence of respiratory symptoms, particularly breathlessness, after acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods: PHOSP-COVID is a multicentre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0-10. We defined post-COVID-19 breathlessness as an increase in score of ≥1 compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Results: We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median 5 months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID-19 breathlessness were socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.14-2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (adjusted OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.06-2.35), female sex (adjusted OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.21-2.00) and admission duration (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.00-1.02). Black ethnicity (adjusted OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.35-0.89) and older age groups (adjusted OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID-19 breathlessness. Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance statistic 0.66, 95% CI 0.63-0.69) and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.21). Conclusions: Post-COVID-19 breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Prevalence of physical frailty, including risk factors, up to 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre, longitudinal cohort study.

Background: The scale of COVID-19 and its well documented long-term sequelae support a need to understand long-term outcomes including frailty. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited adults who had survived hospitalisation with clinically diagnosed COVID-19 across 35 sites in the UK (PHOSP-COVID). The burden of frailty was objectively measured using Fried's Frailty Phenotype (FFP). The primary outcome was the prevalence of each FFP group-robust (no FFP criteria), pre-frail (one or two FFP criteria) and frail (three or more FFP criteria)-at 5 months and 1 year after discharge from hospital. For inclusion in the primary analysis, participants required complete outcome data for three of the five FFP criteria. Longitudinal changes across frailty domains are reported at 5 months and 1 year post-hospitalisation, along with risk factors for frailty status. Patient-perceived recovery and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were retrospectively rated for pre-COVID-19 and prospectively rated at the 5 month and 1 year visits. This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN10980107. Findings: Between March 5, 2020, and March 31, 2021, 2419 participants were enrolled with FFP data. Mean age was 57.9 (SD 12.6) years, 933 (38.6%) were female, and 429 (17.7%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation. 1785 had measures at both timepoints, of which 240 (13.4%), 1138 (63.8%) and 407 (22.8%) were frail, pre-frail and robust, respectively, at 5 months compared with 123 (6.9%), 1046 (58.6%) and 616 (34.5%) at 1 year. Factors associated with pre-frailty or frailty were invasive mechanical ventilation, older age, female sex, and greater social deprivation. Frail participants had a larger reduction in HRQoL compared with before their COVID-19 illness and were less likely to describe themselves as recovered. Interpretation: Physical frailty and pre-frailty are common following hospitalisation with COVID-19. Improvement in frailty was seen between 5 and 12 months although two-thirds of the population remained pre-frail or frail. This suggests comprehensive assessment and interventions targeting pre-frailty and frailty beyond the initial illness are required. Funding: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Residual Lung Abnormalities Following COVID-19 Hospitalization: Interim Analysis of the UKILD Post-COVID Study.

RATIONALE: Shared symptoms and genetic architecture between COVID-19 and lung fibrosis suggests SARS-CoV-2 infection may lead to progressive lung damage. OBJECTIVES: The UKILD Post-COVID study interim analysis was planned to estimate the prevalence of residual lung abnormalities in people hospitalized with COVID-19 based on risk strata. METHODS: The Post-HOSPitalisation COVID Study (PHOSP-COVID) was used for capture of routine and research follow-up within 240 days from discharge. Thoracic CTs linked by PHOSP-COVID identifiers were scored for percentage of residual lung abnormalities (ground glass opacities and reticulations). Risk factors in linked CT were estimated with Bayesian binomial regression and risk strata were generated. Numbers within strata were used to estimate post-hospitalization prevalence using Bayesian binomial distributions. Sensitivity analysis was restricted to participants with protocol driven research follow-up. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The interim cohort comprised 3700 people. Of 209 subjects with linked CTs (median 119 days, interquartile range 83-155), 166 people (79.4%) had >10% involvement of residual lung abnormalities. Risk factors included abnormal chest X-ray (RR 1·21 95%CrI 1·05; 1·40), percent predicted DLco<80% (RR 1·25 95%CrI 1·00; 1·56) and severe admission requiring ventilation support (RR 1·27 95%CrI 1·07; 1·55). In the remaining 3491 people, moderate to very-high risk of residual lung abnormalities was classified in 7·8%, post-hospitalization prevalence was estimated at 8.5% (95%CrI 7.6%; 9.5%) rising to 11.7% (95%CrI 10.3%; 13.1%) in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Residual lung abnormalities were estimated in up to 11% of people discharged following COVID-19 related hospitalization. Health services should monitor at-risk individuals to elucidate long-term functional implications. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Chest radiograph classification and severity of suspected COVID-19 by different radiologist groups and attending clinicians: multi-reader, multi-case study.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify reader agreement for the British Society of Thoracic Imaging (BSTI) diagnostic and severity classification for COVID-19 on chest radiographs (CXR), in particular agreement for an indeterminate CXR that could instigate CT imaging, from single and paired images. METHODS: Twenty readers (four groups of five individuals)-consultant chest (CCR), general consultant (GCR), and specialist registrar (RSR) radiologists, and infectious diseases clinicians (IDR)-assigned BSTI categories and severity in addition to modified Covid-Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema Score (Covid-RALES), to 305 CXRs (129 paired; 2 time points) from 176 guideline-defined COVID-19 patients. Percentage agreement with a consensus of two chest radiologists was calculated for (1) categorisation to those needing CT (indeterminate) versus those that did not (classic/probable, non-COVID-19); (2) severity; and (3) severity change on paired CXRs using the two scoring systems. RESULTS: Agreement with consensus for the indeterminate category was low across all groups (28-37%). Agreement for other BSTI categories was highest for classic/probable for the other three reader groups (66-76%) compared to GCR (49%). Agreement for normal was similar across all radiologists (54-61%) but lower for IDR (31%). Agreement for a severe CXR was lower for GCR (65%), compared to the other three reader groups (84-95%). For all groups, agreement for changes across paired CXRs was modest. CONCLUSION: Agreement for the indeterminate BSTI COVID-19 CXR category is low, and generally moderate for the other BSTI categories and for severity change, suggesting that the test, rather than readers, is limited in utility for both deciding disposition and serial monitoring. KEY POINTS: • Across different reader groups, agreement for COVID-19 diagnostic categorisation on CXR varies widely. • Agreement varies to a degree that may render CXR alone ineffective for triage, especially for indeterminate cases. • Agreement for serial CXR change is moderate, limiting utility in guiding management.

Intimate Partner Violence During COVID-19 Restrictions: A Study of 30 Countries From the I-SHARE Consortium.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) causes substantial physical and psychological trauma. Restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including lockdowns and movement restrictions, may exacerbate IPV risk and reduce access to IPV support services. This cross-sectional study examines IPV during COVID-19 restrictions in 30 countries from the International Sexual HeAlth and REproductive Health (I-SHARE) study conducted from July 20th, 2020, to February, 15th, 2021. IPV was a primary outcome measure adapted from a World Health Organization multicountry survey. Mixed-effects modeling was used to determine IPV correlates among participants stratified by cohabitation status. The sample included 23,067 participants from 30 countries. A total of 1,070/15,336 (7.0%) participants stated that they experienced IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. A total of 1,486/15,336 (9.2%) participants stated that they had experienced either physical or sexual partner violence before the restrictions, which then decreased to 1,070 (7.0%) after the restrictions. In general, identifying as a sexual minority and experiencing greater economic vulnerability were associated with higher odds of experiencing IPV during COVID-19 restrictions, which were accentuated among participants who were living with their partners. Greater stringency of COVID-19 restrictions and living in urban or semi-urban areas were associated with lower odds of experiencing IPV in some settings. The I-SHARE data suggest a substantial burden of IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. However, the restrictions were correlated with reduced IPV in some settings. There is a need for investing in specific support systems for survivors of IPV during the implementation of restrictions designed to contain infectious disease outbreaks.

The effect of COVID rehabilitation for ongoing symptoms Post HOSPitalisation with COVID-19 (PHOSP-R): protocol for a randomised parallel group controlled trial on behalf of the PHOSP consortium.

INTRODUCTION: Many adults hospitalised with COVID-19 have persistent symptoms such as fatigue, breathlessness and brain fog that limit day-to-day activities. These symptoms can last over 2 years. Whilst there is limited controlled studies on interventions that can support those with ongoing symptoms, there has been some promise in rehabilitation interventions in improving function and symptoms either using face-to-face or digital methods, but evidence remains limited and these studies often lack a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a nested single-blind, parallel group, randomised control trial with embedded qualitative evaluation comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care and conducted within the PHOSP-COVID study. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions on exercise capacity, quality of life and symptoms such as breathlessness and fatigue. The primary outcome is the Incremental Shuttle Walking Test following the eight week intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include measures of function, strength and subjective assessment of symptoms. Blood inflammatory markers and muscle biopsies are an exploratory outcome. The interventions last eight weeks and combine symptom-titrated exercise therapy, symptom management and education delivered either in a face-to-face setting or through a digital platform ( www.yourcovidrecovery.nhs.uk ). The proposed sample size is 159 participants, and data will be intention-to-treat analyses comparing rehabilitation (face-to-face or digital) to usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was gained as part of the PHOSP-COVID study by Yorkshire and the Humber Leeds West Research NHS Ethics Committee, and the study was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN trial registry (ISRCTN13293865). Results will be disseminated to stakeholders, including patients and members of the public, and published in appropriate journals. Strengths and limitations of this study • This protocol utilises two interventions to support those with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19 • This is a two-centre parallel-group randomised controlled trial • The protocol has been supported by patient and public involvement groups who identified treatments of symptoms and activity limitation as a top priority.

SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript.

Characteristics and risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness after hospitalisation for COVID-19

Background Persistence of respiratory symptoms—particularly breathlessness—after acute COVID-19 infection has emerged as a significant clinical problem. We aimed to characterise and identify risk factors for patients with persistent breathlessness following COVID-19 hospitalisation. Methods PHOSP-COVID is a multi-centre prospective cohort study of UK adults hospitalised for COVID-19. Clinical data were collected during hospitalisation and at a follow-up visit. Breathlessness was measured by a numeric rating scale of 0–10. We defined post-COVID breathlessness as an increase in score of 1 or more compared to the pre-COVID-19 level. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and to develop a prediction model for post-COVID breathlessness. Results We included 1226 participants (37% female, median age 59 years, 22% mechanically ventilated). At a median five months after discharge, 50% reported post-COVID breathlessness. Risk factors for post-COVID breathlessness were socio-economic deprivation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.67;95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.44), pre-existing depression/anxiety (1.58;1.06–2.35), female sex (1.56;1.21–2.00) and admission duration (1.01;1.00–1.02). Black ethnicity (0.56;0.35–0.89) and older age groups (0.31;0.14–0.66) were less likely to report post-COVID breathlessness. Post-COVID breathlessness was associated with worse performance on the shuttle walk test and forced vital capacity, but not with obstructive airflow limitation. The prediction model had fair discrimination (concordance-statistic 0.66;0.63–0.69), and good calibration (calibration slope 1.00;0.80–1.21). Conclusions Post-COVID breathlessness was commonly reported in this national cohort of patients hospitalised for COVID-19 and is likely to be a multifactorial problem with physical and emotional components.

Demographics and Outcomes of Initial Phase of COVID-19 Medicines Delivery Units Across 4 UK Centers During Peak B1.1.529 Omicron Epidemic: A Service Evaluation.

Background: COVID-19 medicines delivery units (CMDU) were established in late December 2021 to deliver early antiviral therapy to patients classified as at risk with the aim of preventing hospitalization. Methods: We performed a service evaluation at 4 CMDUs in England. We assessed demographics and triage outcomes of CMDU referral, uptake of antiviral therapy, and the rate of subsequent hospitalizations within 2 weeks of CMDU referral. Results: Over a 3-week period, 4788 patients were referred and 3989 were ultimately assessed by a CMDU. Overall, 832 of the patients referred (17%) were judged eligible for treatment and 628 (13%) were ultimately prescribed an antiviral agent. The overall rate of admission within 14 days was 1%. Patients who were admitted were significantly older than those who did not require hospitalization. Of patients prescribed molnupiravir and sotrovimab, 1.8% and 3.2%, respectively, were admitted. Conclusions: There was a high volume of referrals to CMDU service during the initial surge of the Omicron wave in the United Kingdom. A minority of patients were judged to be eligible for therapy. In a highly vaccinated population, the overall hospitalization rate was low.

"We've all got the virus inside us now": Disaggregating public health relations and responsibilities for health protection in pandemic London.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted ethnic minorities in the global north, evidenced by higher rates of transmission, morbidity, and mortality relative to population sizes. Orthodox Jewish neighbourhoods in London had extremely high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates, reflecting patterns in Israel and the US. The aim of this paper is to examine how responsibilities over health protection are conveyed, and to what extent responsibility is sought by, and shared between, state services, and 'community' stakeholders or representative groups, and families in public health emergencies. The study investigates how public health and statutory services stakeholders, Orthodox Jewish communal custodians and households sought to enact health protection in London during the first year of the pandemic (March 2020-March 2021). Twenty-eight semi-structured interviews were conducted across these cohorts. Findings demonstrate that institutional relations - both their formation and at times fragmentation - were directly shaped by issues surrounding COVID-19 control measures. Exchanges around protective interventions (whether control measures, contact tracing technologies, or vaccines) reveal diverse and diverging attributions of responsibility and authority. The paper develops a framework of public health relations to understand negotiations between statutory services and minority groups over responsiveness and accountability in health protection. Disaggregating public health relations can help social scientists to critique who and what characterises institutional relationships with minority groups, and what ideas of responsibility and responsiveness are projected by differently-positioned stakeholders in health protection.

Prioritizing syphilis control: Now is the time for action.

Syphilis control programs and research received fewer resources and attention compared to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the pre-pandemic era. The neglect of syphilis within comprehensive STI control efforts may be related to diagnostic (poor diagnostics), historical (legacies of racism in research), public health (limited partner services), and social problems (limited public engagement). At the same time, there are increasingly compelling reasons to prioritize syphilis control programs and research by harnessing lessons learned and advances during COVID-19. The closure of many STI facilities has accelerated new syphilis diagnostic pathways (e.g., syphilis self-testing), providing new ways for people to be screened outside of clinics. COVID-19 has underlined health inequities that fuel syphilis transmission, providing an opportunity to reckon with the historical legacy of racism that is linked to syphilis research. COVID-19 partner tracing efforts have also contributed to additional resources for partner services which may enhance syphilis control efforts. Finally, COVID-19 has demonstrated the importance of public engagement, making the case for greater public involvement in syphilis control and prevention programs. Urgent action is needed to prioritize syphilis control in a wide range of settings.