Laboratory diagnosed microbial infection in English UK Biobank participants in comparison to the general population.

Understanding the genetic and environmental risk factors for serious bacterial infections in ageing populations remains incomplete. Utilising the UK Biobank (UKB), a prospective cohort study of 500,000 adults aged 40-69 years at recruitment (2006-2010), can help address this. Partial implementation of such a system helped groups around the world make rapid progress understanding risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19, with insights appearing as early as May 2020. In principle, such approaches could also to be used for bacterial isolations. Here we report feasibility testing of linking an England-wide dataset of microbial reporting to UKB participants, to enable characterisation of microbial infections within the UKB Cohort. These records pertain mainly to bacterial isolations; SARS-CoV-2 isolations were not included. Microbiological infections occurring in patients in England, as recorded in the Public Health England second generation surveillance system (SGSS), were linked to UKB participants using pseudonymised identifiers. By January 2015, ascertainment of laboratory reports from UKB participants by SGSS was estimated at 98%. 4.5% of English UKB participants had a positive microbiological isolate in 2015. Half of UKB isolates came from 12 laboratories, and 70% from 21 laboratories. Incidence rate ratios for microbial isolation, which is indicative of serious infection, from the UKB cohort relative to the comparably aged general population ranged from 0.6 to 1, compatible with the previously described healthy participant bias in UKB. Data on microbial isolations can be linked to UKB participants from January 2015 onwards. This linked data would offer new opportunities for research into the role of bacterial agents on health and disease in middle to-old age.

Daily use of lateral flow devices by contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases to enable exemption from isolation compared with standard self-isolation to reduce onward transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in England: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, during the study period (April to July, 2021), all contacts of people with COVID-19 were required to self-isolate for 10 days, which had adverse impacts on individuals and society. Avoiding the need to self-isolate for those who remain uninfected would be beneficial. We investigated whether daily use of lateral flow devices (LFDs) to test for SARS-CoV-2, with removal of self-isolation for 24 h if negative, could be a safe alternative to self-isolation as a means to minimise onward transmission of the virus. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial in adult contacts identified by COVID-19 contact tracing in England. Consenting participants were randomly assigned to self-isolation (single PCR test, 10-day isolation) or daily contact testing (DCT; seven LFD tests, two PCR tests, no isolation if negative on LFD); participants from a single household were assigned to the same group. Participants were prospectively followed up, with the effect of each intervention on onward transmission established from routinely collected NHS Test and Trace contact tracing data for participants who tested PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period and tertiary cases arising from their contacts (ie, secondary contacts). The primary outcome of the study was the attack rate, the percentage of secondary contacts (close contacts of SARS-CoV-2-positive study participants) who became COVID-19 cases (tertiary cases) in each group. Attack rates were derived from Bernoulli regression models using Huber-White (robust) sandwich estimator clustered standard errors. Attack rates were adjusted for household exposure, vaccination status, and ability to work from home. The non-inferiority margin was 1·9%. The primary analysis was a modified intention-to-treat analysis excluding those who actively withdrew from the study as data from these participants were no longer held. This study is registered with the Research Registry (number 6809). Data collection is complete; analysis is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between April 29 and July 28, 2021, 54 923 eligible individuals were enrolled in the study, with final group allocations (following withdrawals) of 26 123 (52·6%) participants in the DCT group and 23 500 (47·4%) in the self-isolation group. Overall, 4694 participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR (secondary cases), 2364 (10·1%) in the self-isolation group and 2330 (8·9%) in the DCT group. Adjusted attack rates (among secondary contacts) were 7·5% in the self-isolation group and 6·3% in the DCT group (difference of -1·2% [95% CI -2·3 to -0·2]; significantly lower than the non-inferiority margin of 1·9%). INTERPRETATION: DCT with 24 h exemption from self-isolation for essential activities appears to be non-inferior to self-isolation. This study, which provided evidence for the UK Government's daily lateral flow testing policy for vaccinated contacts of COVID-19 cases, indicated that daily testing with LFDs could allow individuals to reduce the risk of onward transmission while minimising the adverse effects of self-isolation. Although contacts in England are no longer required to isolate, the findings will be relevant for future policy decisions around COVID-19 or other communicable infections. FUNDING: UK Government Department of Health and Social Care.

Exploring the impact of shielding advice on the wellbeing of individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable amid the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The national shielding programme was introduced by UK Government at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, with individuals identified as clinically extremely vulnerable (CEV) offered advice and support to stay at home and avoid all non-essential contact. This study aimed to explore the impact and responses of "shielding" on the health and wellbeing of CEV individuals in Southwest England during the first COVID-19 lockdown. METHODS: A two-stage mixed methods study, including a structured survey (7 August-23 October 2020) and semi-structured telephone interviews (26 August-30 September 2020) with a sample of individuals who had been identified as CEV and advised to "shield" by Bristol, North Somerset & South Gloucestershire (BNSSG) Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 203 people (57% female, 54% > 69 years, 94% White British, 64% retired) in Southwest England identified as CEV by BNSSG CCG. Thirteen survey respondents participated in follow-up interviews (53% female, 40% > 69 years, 100% White British, 61% retired). Receipt of 'official' communication from NHS England or General Practitioner (GP) was considered by participants as the legitimate start of shielding. 80% of survey responders felt they received all relevant advice needed to shield, yet interviewees criticised the timing of advice and often sought supplementary information. Shielding behaviours were nuanced, adapted to suit personal circumstances, and waned over time. Few interviewees received community support, although food boxes and informal social support were obtained by some. Worrying about COVID-19 was common for survey responders (90%). Since shielding had begun, physical and mental health reportedly worsened for 35% and 42% of survey responders respectively. 21% of survey responders scored ≥ 10 on the PHQ-9 questionnaire indicating possible depression and 15% scored ≥ 10 on the GAD-7 questionnaire indicating possible anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights the difficulties in providing generic messaging that is applicable and appropriate given the diversity of individuals identified as CEV and the importance of sharing tailored and timely advice to inform shielding decisions. Providing messages that reinforce self-determined action and assistance from support services could reduce the negative impact of shielding on mental health and feelings of social isolation.

Association of Results of Four Lateral Flow Antibody Tests with Subsequent SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine coverage remains incomplete, being only 15% in low-income countries. Rapid point-of-care tests predicting SARS-CoV-2 infection susceptibility in the unvaccinated may assist in risk management and vaccine prioritization. We conducted a prospective cohort study in 2,826 participants working in hospitals and Fire and Police services in England, UK, during the pandemic (ISRCTN5660922). Plasma taken at recruitment in June 2020 was tested using four lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) devices and two laboratory immunoassays detecting antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (UK Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19 rapid test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM rapid test cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 rapid test cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM rapid test; Roche N and Euroimmun S laboratory assays). We monitored participants for microbiologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for 200 days. We estimated associations between test results at baseline and subsequent infection, using Poisson regression models adjusted for baseline demographic risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Positive IgG results on each of the four LFIAs were associated with lower rates of subsequent infection with adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) of 0.00 (95% confidence interval, 0.00 to 0.01), 0.03 (0.02 to 0.05), 0.07 (0.05 to 0.10), and 0.09 (0.07 to 0.12), respectively. The protective association was strongest for AbC-19 and SureScreen. The aIRR for the laboratory Roche N antibody assay at the manufacturer-recommended threshold was similar to those of the two best performing LFIAs at 0.03 (0.01 to 0.10). Lateral flow devices measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG predicted disease risk in unvaccinated individuals over a 200-day follow-up. The association of some LFIAs with subsequent infection was similar to laboratory immunoassays. IMPORTANCE Previous research has demonstrated an association between the detection of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 following natural infection and protection from subsequent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG are a cheap, readily deployed technology that has been used on a large scale in population screening programs, yet no studies have investigated whether LFIA results are associated with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study of 2,826 United Kingdom key workers, we found positivity in lateral flow test results had a strong negative association with subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection within 200 days in an unvaccinated population. Positivity on more-specific but less-sensitive tests was associated with a markedly decreased rate of disease; protection associated with testing positive using more sensitive devices detecting lower levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was more modest. Lateral flow tests with high specificity may have a role in estimation of SARS-CoV-2 disease risk in unvaccinated populations.

The acceptability of testing contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases using serial, self-administered lateral flow devices as an alternative to self-isolation.

Introduction. Evidence suggests that although people modify their behaviours, full adherence to self-isolation guidance in England may be suboptimal, which may have a detrimental impact on COVID-19 transmission rates.Hypothesis. Testing asymptomatic contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 could reduce onward transmission by improving case ascertainment and lessen the impact of self-isolation on un-infected individuals.Aim. This study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a 'test to enable approach' as part of England's tracing strategy.Methodology. Contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases were offered serial testing as an alternative to self-isolation using daily self-performed lateral flow device (LFD) tests for the first 7 days post-exposure. Asymptomatic participants with a negative LFD result were given 24 h of freedom from self-isolation between each test. A self-collected confirmatory PCR test was performed on testing positive or at the end of the LFD testing period.Results. Of 1760 contacts, 882 consented to daily testing, of whom 812 individuals were within 48 h of exposure and were sent LFD testing packs. Of those who declined to participate, 39.1% stated they had already accessed PCR testing. Of the 812 who were sent LFD packs, 570 (70.2%) reported one or more LFD results; 102 (17.9%) tested positive. Concordance between reported LFD result and a supplied LFD image was 97.1%. In total, 82.8% of PCR-positive samples and 99.6% of PCR-negative samples were correctly detected by LFD. The proportion of secondary cases from contacts of those who participated in the study and tested positive (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.4-11.1%) was comparable to a comparator group who self-isolated (7.6%; 95% CI: 7.3-7.8%).Conclusion. This study shows a high acceptability, compliance and positivity rates when using self-administered LFDs among contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases. Offering routine testing as a structured part of the contact tracing process is likely to be an effective method of case ascertainment.

Mental Health Presentations Across Health Care Settings During the First 9 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic in England: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in an unprecedented impact on the day-to-day lives of people, with several features potentially adversely affecting mental health. There is growing evidence of the size of the impact of COVID-19 on mental health, but much of this is from ongoing population surveys using validated mental health scores. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the impact of the pandemic and control measures on mental health conditions presenting to a spectrum of national health care services monitored using real-time syndromic surveillance in England. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational descriptive study of mental health presentations (those calling the national medical helpline, National Health Service [NHS] 111; consulting general practitioners [GPs] in and out-of-hours; calling ambulance services; and attending emergency departments) from January 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020. Estimates for the impact of lockdown measures were provided using an interrupted time series analysis. RESULTS: Mental health presentations showed a marked decrease during the early stages of the pandemic. Postlockdown, attendances for mental health conditions reached higher than prepandemic levels across most systems-a rise of 10% compared to that expected for NHS 111 and 21% for GP out-of-hours service-while the number of consultations to GP in-hours service was 13% lower compared to the same time previous year. Increases were observed in calls to NHS 111 for sleep problems. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses showed marked changes in the health care attendances and prescribing for common mental health conditions across a spectrum of health care provision, with some of these changes persisting. The reasons for such changes are likely to be complex and multifactorial. The impact of the pandemic on mental health may not be fully understood for some time, and therefore, these syndromic indicators should continue to be monitored.

Workplace exposures associated with COVID-19: evidence from a case-control study with multiple sampling periods in England, August-October 2020.

We investigated risk factors associated with COVID-19 by conducting a retrospective, frequency-matched case-control study, with three sampling periods (August-October 2020). We compared cases completing routine contact tracing to asymptomatic population controls. Multivariable analyses estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for non-household community settings. Meta-analyses using random effects provided pooled odds ratios (pORs). Working in healthcare (pOR 2.87; aORs 2.72, 2.81, 3.08, for study periods 1-3 respectively), social care (pOR 4.15; aORs 2.46, 5.06, 5.41, for study periods 1-3 respectively) or hospitality (pOR 2.36; aORs 2.01, 2.54, 2.63, for study periods 1-3 respectively) were associated with increased odds of being a COVID-19 case. Additionally, working in bars, pubs and restaurants, warehouse settings, construction, educational settings were significantly associated. While definitively determining where transmission occurs is impossible, we provide evidence that in certain sectors, the impact of mitigation measures may only be partial and reinforcement of measures should be considered in these settings.

A qualitative process analysis of daily contact testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed carrier of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In July 2021, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to compare the effect on SARS-CoV-2 transmission of seven days of Daily Contact Testing (DCT) using Lateral Flow Test (LFT) and two Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests as an alternative to 10 days of standard self-isolation with one PCR, following close contact with a SARS-CoV-2 carrier. In this qualitative study, we used a nested process evaluation to aid interpretation of the trial and provide insight into factors influencing use of tests, understanding of test results, and how tests were used to inform behavioural decisions. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 60 participants (42 randomised to DCT and 18 randomised to self-isolation) who had been in close contact with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 carrier and had consented to take part in the trial. RESULTS: Data were organised into three overarching themes: (1) assessing the risks and benefits of DCT (2) use of testing during the study period and (3) future use of testing. Attitudes toward DCT as an alternative to self-isolation and behaviour during the testing period appeared to be informed by an assessment of the associated risks and benefits. Participants reported how important it was for them to avoid isolation, how necessary self-isolation was considered to be, and the ability of LFTs to detect infection. Behaviour during the testing period was modified to reduce risks and harms as much as possible. Testing was considered a potential compromise, reducing both risk of transmission and the negative impact of self-isolation, and was regarded as a way to return to normal. CONCLUSION: Participants in this study viewed DCT as a sensible, feasible, and welcome means of avoiding unnecessary self-isolation. Although negative LFTs provided reassurance, most people still restricted their activity as recommended. DCT was also highly valued by those in vulnerable households as a means of providing reassurance of the absence of infection and as an important means of detecting infection and prompting self-isolation when necessary.

Exploration of attitudes regarding uptake of COVID-19 vaccines among vaccine hesitant adults in the UK: a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to explore barriers and facilitators to uptake of COVID-19 vaccines and to explore views and reactions to efforts to improve vaccine uptake among vaccine hesitant individuals. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people between the age of 18-29 years who had not had a COVID-19 vaccine, and those between 30 and 49 years who had not had a second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: A total of 70 participants took part in the study, 35 participants had received one dose, and 35 had not been vaccinated. Participants described a willingness to be vaccinated to keep themselves and those around them safe and to avoid restrictions. Barriers to uptake included: (1) perceived lack of need for COVID-19 vaccinations, (2) concerns about the efficacy of vaccinations, (3) concerns about safety, and (4) access issues. Uptake appeared to be influenced by age and health status, trust in government, and knowledge and understanding of science. Introduction of vaccine passes may provide a motive for having a vaccine but may be viewed as coercive. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant, rather than opposed, and had questions about their need for, and the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. Young people did not consider themselves to be at risk of becoming ill from COVID-19, did not think the vaccination was effective in preventing transmission, and did not think sufficient research had been conducted regarding possible long-term side-effects. Concerns were exacerbated by a lack of trust in government, and misunderstanding of science. To promote uptake, public health campaigns should focus on the provision of information from trusted sources that explains the benefits of vaccination and addresses safety concerns more effectively. To overcome inertia in people with low levels of motivation to be vaccinated, appointments must be easily accessible.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gastrointestinal infection trends in England, February-July 2020.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the impact of the first 6 months of the COVID-19 outbreak response on gastrointestinal (GI) infection trends in England. DESIGN: Retrospective ecological study using routinely collected national and regional surveillance data from seven UK Health Security Agency coordinated laboratory, outbreak and syndromic surveillance systems using key dates of UK governmental policy change to assign phases for comparison between 2020 and historic data. RESULTS: Decreases in GI illness activity were observed across all surveillance indicators as COVID-19 cases began to peak. Compared with the 5-year average (2015-2019), during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 response, there was a 52% decrease in GI outbreaks reported (1544 vs 3208 (95% CI 2938 to 3478)) and a 34% decrease in laboratory confirmed cases (27 859 vs 42 495 (95% CI 40 068 to 44 922)). GI indicators began to rise during the first lockdown and lockdown easing, although all remained substantially lower than historic figures. Reductions in laboratory confirmed cases were observed across all age groups and both sexes, with geographical heterogeneity observed in diagnosis trends. Health seeking behaviour changed substantially, with attendances decreasing prior to lockdown across all indicators. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a marked change in trends of GI infections in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The drivers of this change are likely to be multifactorial; while changes in health seeking behaviour, pressure on diagnostic services and surveillance system ascertainment have undoubtably played a role, there has likely been a true decrease in the incidence for some pathogens resulting from the control measures and restrictions implemented. This suggests that if some of these changes in behaviour such as improved hand hygiene were maintained, then we could potentially see sustained reductions in the burden of GI illness.

Cluster randomised controlled trial to assess a tailored intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in rural China: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Up to 80% of patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) attending healthcare facilities in rural areas of China are prescribed antibiotics, many of which are unnecessary. Since 2009, China has implemented several policies to try to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use; however, antibiotic prescribing remains high in rural health facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be carried out to estimate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing antibiotic prescribing at township health centres in Anhui Province, China. 40 Township health centres will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care arms. In the intervention group, practitioners will receive an intervention comprising: (1) training to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing for RTI, (2) a computer-based treatment decision support system, (3) virtual peer support, (4) a leaflet for patients and (5) a letter of commitment to optimise antibiotic use to display in their clinic. The primary outcome is the percentage of antibiotics (intravenous and oral) prescribed for RTI patients. Secondary outcomes include patient symptom severity and duration, recovery status, satisfaction, antibiotic consumption. A full economic evaluation will be conducted within the trial period. Costs and savings for both clinics and patients will be considered and quality of life will be measured by EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L). A qualitative process evaluation will explore practitioner and patient views and experiences of trial processes, intervention fidelity and acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (Ref: 20180259); the study has undergone due diligence checks and is registered at the University of Bristol (Ref: 2020-3137). Research findings will be disseminated to stakeholders through conferences and peer-reviewed journals in China, the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30652037.

Describing the indirect impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation using syndromic surveillance systems.

BACKGROUND: Since the end of January 2020, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has been responsible for a global health crisis. In England a number of non-pharmaceutical interventions have been introduced throughout the pandemic, including guidelines on healthcare attendance (for example, promoting remote consultations), increased handwashing and social distancing. These interventions are likely to have impacted the incidence of non-COVID-19 conditions as well as healthcare seeking behaviour. Syndromic Surveillance Systems offer the ability to monitor trends in healthcare usage over time. METHODS: This study describes the indirect impact of COVID-19 on healthcare utilisation using a range of syndromic indicators including eye conditions, mumps, fractures, herpes zoster and cardiac conditions. Data from the syndromic surveillance systems monitored by Public Health England were used to describe the number of contacts with NHS 111, general practitioner (GP) In Hours (GPIH) and Out-of-Hours (GPOOH), Ambulance and Emergency Department (ED) services over comparable periods before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: The peak pandemic period in 2020 (weeks 13-20), compared to the same period in 2019, displayed on average a 12% increase in NHS 111 calls, an 11% decrease in GPOOH consultations, and a 49% decrease in ED attendances. In the GP In Hours system, conjunctivitis consultations decreased by 64% and mumps consultations by 31%. There was a 49% reduction in attendance at EDs for fractures, and there was no longer any weekend increase in ED fracture attendances, with similar attendance patterns observed across each day of the week. There was a decrease in the number of ED attendances with diagnoses of myocardial ischaemia. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic drastically impacted healthcare utilisation for non-COVID-19 conditions, due to a combination of a probable decrease in incidence of certain conditions and changes in healthcare seeking behaviour. Syndromic surveillance has a valuable role in describing and understanding these trends.

Engagement With Daily Testing Instead of Self-Isolating in Contacts of Confirmed Cases of SARS-CoV-2: A Qualitative Analysis.

Introduction: In December 2020 and January 2021 Public Health England (PHE) with NHS Test and Trace conducted a study to explore the feasibility and acceptability of daily testing as an alternative to self-isolation following close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. This qualitative paper aims to identify factors influencing uptake among those offered daily testing, and the subsequent impact on behaviour. Methods: We conducted in-depth interviews with 52 participants who had taken part in the feasibility study. Participants were asked about their experiences of daily testing or self-isolating, their reasons for choosing to test or isolate, and their behaviour during the study period. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Results are presented under two main headings: (1) factors influencing acceptance of testing and (2) impact of test results. Participants appeared highly motivated to engage in behaviours that would protect others from the virus. Factors influencing the decision to accept testing included (1) needing to avoid self-isolation, (2) concerns about test sensitivity, and (3) perceived benefits of detecting infection. Participants who were taking tests reported: (1) positive consequences following confirmation of COVID status, (2) engaging in essential activities, (3) uncertainty, and (4) self-isolating whilst testing. Conclusions: This study has identified a range of factors that appear to influence the decision to engage in daily testing or to self-isolate following close contact with a positive case, many of which could be addressed by clear communications. Covid-19 infection rates and government restrictions influenced experiences, and so further research is needed to explore perceptions of daily testing and behaviour following close contact with a positive case among a wider range of individuals, in the context of lower rates of COVID-19, few government restrictions on general population behaviour and more widespread testing.

Experiences of supported isolation in returning travellers during the early COVID-19 response: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: (1) To understand the experiences and perceptions of those who underwent supported isolation, particularly in relation to factors that were associated with improved compliance and well-being; (2) to inform recommendations for the management of similar supported isolation procedures. DESIGN: We carried out a qualitative study using semistructured interviews to capture participants' experiences and perceptions of supported isolation. Data were analysed using the framework approach, a type of thematic analysis that is commonly used in research that has implications for policy. SETTING: Telephone interviews carried out within approximately 1 month of an individual leaving supported isolation. PARTICIPANTS: 26 people who underwent supported isolation at either Arrowe Park Hospital (n=18) or Kents Hill Park Conference Centre (n=8) after being repatriated from Wuhan in January to February 2020. RESULTS: Six key themes were identified: factors affecting compliance with supported isolation; risk perceptions around catching COVID-19; management of supported isolation; communication with those outside supported isolation; relationship with others in supported isolation; and feelings on leaving supported isolation. Participants were willing to undergo supported isolation because they understood that it would protect themselves and others. Positive treatment by staff was fundamental to participants' willingness to comply with isolation procedures. Despite the high level of compliance, participants expressed some uncertainty about what the process would involve. CONCLUSIONS: As hotel quarantine is introduced across the UK for international arrivals, our findings suggest that those in charge should: communicate effectively before, during and after quarantine, emphasising why quarantine is important and how it will protect others; avoid coercion if possible and focus on supporting and promoting voluntary compliance; facilitate shared social experiences for those in quarantine; and ensure all necessary supplies are provided. Doing so is likely to increase adherence and reduce any negative effects on well-being.

Accuracy of four lateral flow immunoassays for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a head-to-head comparative study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for population surveillance and might have a future role in individual risk assessment. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver results rapidly and at scale, but have widely varying accuracy. METHODS: In a laboratory setting, we performed head-to-head comparisons of four LFIAs: the Rapid Test Consortium's AbC-19TM Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. We analysed blood samples from 2,847 key workers and 1,995 pre-pandemic blood donors with all four devices. FINDINGS: We observed a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity: the IgG band of the SureScreen device and the AbC-19TM device had higher specificities but OrientGene and Biomerica higher sensitivities. Based on analysis of pre-pandemic samples, SureScreen IgG band had the highest specificity (98.9%, 95% confidence interval 98.3 to 99.3%), which translated to the highest positive predictive value across any pre-test probability: for example, 95.1% (95% uncertainty interval 92.6, 96.8%) at 20% pre-test probability. All four devices showed higher sensitivity at higher antibody concentrations ("spectrum effects"), but the extent of this varied by device. INTERPRETATION: The estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be used to adjust for test error rates when using these devices to estimate the prevalence of antibody. If tests were used to determine whether an individual has SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an example scenario in which 20% of individuals have antibodies we estimate around 5% of positive results on the most specific device would be false positives. FUNDING: Public Health England.

Engagement with daily testing instead of self-isolating in contacts of confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2.

BACKGROUND: In December 2020, Public Health England with NHS Test and Trace initiated a pilot study in which close contacts of people with confirmed COVID-19 were given the option to carryout lateral flow device antigen tests at home, as an alternative to self-isolation for 10-14 days. In this study, we evaluated engagement with daily testing, and assessed levels of adherence to the rules relating to behaviour following positive or negative test results. METHODS: We conducted a service evaluation of the pilot study, examining survey responses from a subset of those who responded to an evaluation questionnaire. We used an online cross-sectional survey offered to adult contacts of confirmed COVID-19 cases who consented to daily testing. We used a comparison group of contacts who were not offered testing and instead self-isolated. RESULTS: Acceptability of daily testing was lower among survey respondents who were not offered the option of testing and among people from ethnic minority groups. Overall, 52% of respondents reported being more likely to share details of people that they had been in contact with following a positive test result, if they knew that their contacts would be offered the option of daily testing. Only 2% reported that they would be less likely to provide details of their contacts. On the days that they were trying to self-isolate, 19% of participants reported that they left the house, with no significant group differences. Following a negative test, 13% of respondents reported that they increased their contacts, but most (58%) reported having fewer risky contacts. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that daily testing is potentially acceptable, may facilitate sharing contact details of close contacts among those who test positive for COVID-19, and promote adherence to self-isolation. A better understanding is needed of how to make this option more acceptable for all households. The impact of receiving a negative test on behaviour remains a risk that needs to be monitored and mitigated by appropriate messaging. Future research should examine attitudes and behaviour in a context where infection levels are lower, testing is more familiar, and restrictions on activity have been reduced.

Association between self-reported signs and symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection in UK key workers.

BACKGROUND: Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. In this study, we investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of three key worker streams comprising (A) Police and Fire & Rescue (2 sites) (B) healthcare workers (1 site) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive PCR result (5 sites). We collected self-reported signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and compared this with serology results from two SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays (Roche Elecsys® and EUROIMMUN). RESULTS: Between 01 and 26 June, we recruited 2847 individuals (Stream A: 1,247, Stream B: 1,546 and Stream C: 154). Amongst those without previous positive PCR tests, 687/2,579 (26%) reported belief they had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms; however, only 208 (30.3%) of these were seropositive on both immunoassays. Both immunoassays had high sensitivities relative to previous PCR positivity (>93%); there was also limited decline in antibody titres up to 110 days post symptom onset. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had differing symptom profiles and shorter illnesses than seropositive individuals. CONCLUSION: Non-COVID-19 respiratory illness may have been mistaken for COVID-19 during the outbreak; laboratory testing is more specific than self-reported key worker beliefs in ascertaining past COVID-19 disease.

Risk of symptomatic COVID-19 due to aircraft transmission: a retrospective cohort study of contact-traced flights during England's containment phase.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge gaps remain regarding SARS-CoV-2 transmission on flights. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to estimate risk of acquiring symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 on aircraft, to inform contact tracing and infection control efforts. METHODS: We identified co-passengers of infectious passengers on 18 England-bound flights from European cities up to 12/03/2020, using manifests received for contact tracing. Infectious passengers were laboratory-confirmed cases with symptom onset from 7 days before to 2 days after the flight. Possible aircraft-acquired cases were laboratory-confirmed with onset 3-14 days post-flight with no known non-flight exposure. Manifests was merged with the national case management dataset (identifying cases, onset dates, contact tracing status) and the national COVID-19 linelist. Contact tracing notes were reviewed to identify non-flight exposures. We calculated attack rates (ARs) among all co-passengers and within subgroups, including by distance from infectious cases and number of infectious cases on-board. RESULTS: There were 55 infectious passengers and 2313 co-passengers, including 2221 flight-only contacts. Five possible aircraft-acquired cases were identified; ARs of 0.2% (95%CI 0.1-0.5) among all flight-only contacts and 3.8% (95%CI 1.3-10.6) among contact-traced flight-only contacts sat within a two-seat radius. The AR among 92 co-travellers with known non-flight exposure to infectious cases was 13.0% (95%CI 7.6%-21.4%). There were insufficient numbers to assess differences between subgroups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that risk of symptomatic COVID-19 due to transmission on short to medium-haul flights is low, and recommend prioritising contact-tracing of close contacts and co-travellers where resources are limited. Further research on risk on aircraft is encouraged.

Understanding patterns of adherence to COVID-19 mitigation measures: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence highlights the disproportionate impact of measures that have been introduced to reduce the spread of coronavirus on individuals from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities, and among those on a low income. An understanding of barriers to adherence in these populations is needed. In this qualitative study, we examined the patterns of adherence to mitigation measures and reasons underpinning these behaviors. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from BAME and low-income White backgrounds. The topic guide was designed to explore how individuals are adhering to social distancing and self-isolation during the pandemic and to explore the reasons underpinning this behavior. RESULTS: We identified three categories of adherence to lockdown measures: (i) caution-motivated super-adherence (ii) risk-adapted partial-adherence and (iii) necessity-driven partial-adherence. Decisions about adherence considered potential for exposure to the virus, ability to reduce risk through use of protective measures and perceived importance of/need for the behavior. CONCLUSIONS: This research highlights a need for a more nuanced understanding of adherence to lockdown measures. Provision of practical and financial support could reduce the number of people who have to engage in necessity-driven partial-adherence. More evidence is required on population level risks of people adopting risk-adapted partial-adherence.

Accuracy of UK Rapid Test Consortium (UK-RTC) "AbC-19 Rapid Test" for detection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection in key workers: test accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the AbC-19 Rapid Test lateral flow immunoassay for the detection of previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Test accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory based evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: 2847 key workers (healthcare staff, fire and rescue officers, and police officers) in England in June 2020 (268 with a previous polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive result (median 63 days previously), 2579 with unknown previous infection status); and 1995 pre-pandemic blood donors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AbC-19 sensitivity and specificity, estimated using known negative (pre-pandemic) and known positive (PCR confirmed) samples as reference standards and secondly using the Roche Elecsys anti-nucleoprotein assay, a highly sensitive laboratory immunoassay, as a reference standard in samples from key workers. RESULTS: Test result bands were often weak, with positive/negative discordance by three trained laboratory staff for 3.9% of devices. Using consensus readings, for known positive and negative samples sensitivity was 92.5% (95% confidence interval 88.8% to 95.1%) and specificity was 97.9% (97.2% to 98.4%). Using an immunoassay reference standard, sensitivity was 94.2% (90.7% to 96.5%) among PCR confirmed cases but 84.7% (80.6% to 88.1%) among other people with antibodies. This is consistent with AbC-19 being more sensitive when antibody concentrations are higher, as people with PCR confirmation tended to have more severe disease whereas only 62% (218/354) of seropositive participants had had symptoms. If 1 million key workers were tested with AbC-19 and 10% had actually been previously infected, 84 700 true positive and 18 900 false positive results would be projected. The probability that a positive result was correct would be 81.7% (76.8% to 85.8%). CONCLUSIONS: AbC-19 sensitivity was lower among unselected populations than among PCR confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2, highlighting the scope for overestimation of assay performance in studies involving only PCR confirmed cases, owing to "spectrum bias." Assuming that 10% of the tested population have had SARS-CoV-2 infection, around one in five key workers testing positive with AbC-19 would be false positives. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 56609224.