Oral health promotion in acute hospital setting: a quality improvement programme.

Tooth extraction is the most common hospital procedure for children aged 6-10 years in England. Tooth decay is almost entirely preventable and is inequitably distributed across the population: it can cause pain, infection, school absences and undermine overall health status.An oral health programme (OHP) was delivered in a hospital setting, comprising: (1) health promotion activities; (2) targeted supervised toothbrushing (STB) and (3) staff training. Outcomes were measured using three key performance indicators (KPI1: percentage of children/families seeing promotional material; KPI2: number of children receiving STB; KPI3: number of staff trained) and relevant qualitative indicators. Data were collected between November 2019 and August 2021 using surveys and data from the online booking platform.OHP delivery was impacted by COVID-19, with interventions interrupted, reduced, eliminated or delivered differently (eg, in-person training moved online). Despite these challenges, progress against all KPIs was made. 93 posters were deployed across the hospital site, along with animated video 41% (233/565) of families recalled seeing OHP materials across the hospital site (KPI1). 737 children received STB (KPI2), averaging 35 children/month during the active project. Following STB, 96% participants stated they learnt something, and 94% committed to behaviour change. Finally, 73 staff members (KPI3) received oral health training. All people providing feedback (32/32) reported learning something new from the training session, with 84% (27/32) reporting that they would do things differently in the future.Results highlight the importance of flexibility and resilience when delivering QI projects under challenging conditions or unforeseen circumstances. While results suggest that hospital-based OHP is potentially an effective and equitable way to improve patient, family and staff knowledge of good oral health practices, future work is needed to understand if and how patients and staff put into practice the desired behaviour change and what impact this may have on oral health outcomes.

T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 is critical to vaccine development, epidemiological surveillance and disease control strategies. This systematic review critically evaluates and synthesises the relevant peer-reviewed and pre-print literature published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: For this systematic review, keyword-structured literature searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Papers were independently screened by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements by a third researcher. Data were independently extracted into a pre-designed Excel template and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the MetaQAT tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 61 articles were included. 55 (90%) studies used observational designs, 50 (82%) involved hospitalised patients with higher acuity illness, and the majority had important limitations. Symptomatic adult COVID-19 cases consistently show peripheral T cell lymphopenia, which positively correlates with increased disease severity, duration of RNA positivity, and non-survival; while asymptomatic and paediatric cases display preserved counts. People with severe or critical disease generally develop more robust, virus-specific T cell responses. T cell memory and effector function has been demonstrated against multiple viral epitopes, and, cross-reactive T cell responses have been demonstrated in unexposed and uninfected adults, but the significance for protection and susceptibility, respectively, remains unclear. CONCLUSION: A complex pattern of T cell response to SARS-CoV-2 infection has been demonstrated, but inferences regarding population level immunity are hampered by significant methodological limitations and heterogeneity between studies, as well as a striking lack of research in asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic individuals. In contrast to antibody responses, population-level surveillance of the T cell response is unlikely to be feasible in the near term. Focused evaluation in specific sub-groups, including vaccine recipients, should be prioritised.

Antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Progress in characterising the humoral immune response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has been rapid but areas of uncertainty persist. Assessment of the full range of evidence generated to date to understand the characteristics of the antibody response, its dynamics over time, its determinants and the immunity it confers will have a range of clinical and policy implications for this novel pathogen. This review comprehensively evaluated evidence describing the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 published from 01/01/2020-26/06/2020. METHODS: Systematic review. Keyword-structured searches were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase and COVID-19 Primer. Articles were independently screened on title, abstract and full text by two researchers, with arbitration of disagreements. Data were double-extracted into a pre-designed template, and studies critically appraised using a modified version of the Public Health Ontario Meta-tool for Quality Appraisal of Public Health Evidence (MetaQAT) tool, with resolution of disagreements by consensus. Findings were narratively synthesised. RESULTS: 150 papers were included. Most studies (113 or 75%) were observational in design, were based wholly or primarily on data from hospitalised patients (108, 72%) and had important methodological limitations. Few considered mild or asymptomatic infection. Antibody dynamics were well described in the acute phase, up to around three months from disease onset, but the picture regarding correlates of the antibody response was inconsistent. IgM was consistently detected before IgG in included studies, peaking at weeks two to five and declining over a further three to five weeks post-symptom onset depending on the patient group; IgG peaked around weeks three to seven post-symptom onset then plateaued, generally persisting for at least eight weeks. Neutralising antibodies were detectable within seven to 15 days following disease onset, with levels increasing until days 14-22 before levelling and then decreasing, but titres were lower in those with asymptomatic or clinically mild disease. Specific and potent neutralising antibodies have been isolated from convalescent plasma. Cross-reactivity but limited cross-neutralisation with other human coronaviridae was reported. Evidence for protective immunity in vivo was limited to small, short-term animal studies, showing promising initial results in the immediate recovery phase. CONCLUSIONS: Literature on antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 is of variable quality with considerable heterogeneity of methods, study participants, outcomes measured and assays used. Although acute phase antibody dynamics are well described, longer-term patterns are much less well evidenced. Comprehensive assessment of the role of demographic characteristics and disease severity on antibody responses is needed. Initial findings of low neutralising antibody titres and possible waning of titres over time may have implications for sero-surveillance and disease control policy, although further evidence is needed. The detection of potent neutralising antibodies in convalescent plasma is important in the context of development of therapeutics and vaccines. Due to limitations with the existing evidence base, large, cross-national cohort studies using appropriate statistical analysis and standardised serological assays and clinical classifications should be prioritised.

Horses for courses? Assessing the potential value of a surrogate, point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 epidemic control.

Point-of-care tests (POCTs) offer considerable potential for improving clinical and public health management of COVID-19 by providing timely information to guide decision-making, but data on real-world performance are in short supply. Besides SARS-CoV-2-specific tests, there is growing interest in the role of surrogate (non-specific) tests such as FebriDx, a biochemical POCT which can be used to distinguish viral from bacterial infection in patients with influenza-like illnesses. This short report assesses what is currently known about FebriDx performance across settings and populations by comparison with some of the more intensively evaluated SARS-CoV-2-specific POCTs. While FebriDx shows some potential in supporting triage for early-stage infection in acute care settings, this is dependent on SARS-CoV-2 being the most likely cause for influenza-like illnesses, with reduction in discriminatory power when COVID-19 case numbers are low, and when co-circulating viral respiratory infections become more prevalent during the autumn and winter. Too little is currently known about its performance in primary care and the community to support use in these contexts, and further evaluation is needed. Reliable SARS CoV2-specific POCTs-when they become available-are likely to rapidly overtake surrogates as the preferred option given the greater specificity they provide.