Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on antimicrobial stewardship support for general practices in England: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: In England, Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) (now replaced by Integrated Care Systems (ICS)) and Primary Care Network (PCN) professionals support primary care prescribers to optimise antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). AIM: To explore views and experiences of CCG/PCN staff in supporting AMS, and the impact of COVID-19 on this support. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in primary care in England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews-with staff from CCG/PCNs responsible for AMS-at two time-points, via telephone interviews. These were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-seven interviews were conducted with 14 participants (nine CCG, five PCN) in Dec 2020/Jan 2021 and Feb/Mar 2021.We found that AMS support was 1) deprioritised- to keep general practice operational and deliver COVID-19 vaccines; 2) disrupted-as social distancing made it harder to build relationships, conduct routine AMS activities, and challenge prescribing decisions; and 3) adapted-with opportunities identified for greater use of technology and from changed patient/public perceptions of viruses and self-care. We also found that resources to support AMS were valued if they were both novel, to counter AMS 'fatigue', and sufficiently familiar to fit with existing/future AMS. CONCLUSION: AMS needs to be reprioritised in general practice in the post-pandemic era and within the new ICS in England. This should include interventions/strategies that combine novel elements with already familiar strategies to refresh prescribers' motivation and opportunity for AMS. Behaviour change interventions should be aimed at improving the culture and processes for how PCN pharmacists voice concerns about AMS to prescribers in general practice and take advantage of the changed patient/public perceptions of viruses and self-care.

COVID-19 vaccination, risk-compensatory behaviours, and contacts in the UK.

The physiological effects of vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) are well documented, yet the behavioural effects not well known. Risk compensation suggests that gains in personal safety, as a result of vaccination, are offset by increases in risky behaviour, such as socialising, commuting and working outside the home. This is potentially important because transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is driven by contacts, which could be amplified by vaccine-related risk compensation. Here, we show that behaviours were overall unrelated to personal vaccination, but-adjusting for variation in mitigation policies-were responsive to the level of vaccination in the wider population: individuals in the UK were risk compensating when rates of vaccination were rising. This effect was observed across four nations of the UK, each of which varied policies autonomously.

Inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 case rates by ethnicity, religion, measures of socioeconomic position, English proficiency, and self-reported disability: cohort study of 39 million people in England during the alpha and delta waves.

Objective: To examine sociodemographic inequalities in people with SARS-CoV-2 during the second (alpha) and third (delta) waves of the covid-19 pandemic. Design: Retrospective, population based cohort study. Setting: Resident population of England. Participants: 39 006 194 people aged 10 years and older who were enumerated in the 2011 census, registered with the NHS, and alive on 1 September 2020. Main outcome measures: Age standardised SARS-CoV-2 case rates (ie, the number of people who received a positive test result per 100 000 person weeks at risk) during the second wave (1 September 2020 to 22 May 2021) or third wave (23 May to 10 December 2021) of the pandemic. Age standardised rates were calculated by sociodemographic characteristics and adjusted rate ratios were estimated using generalised linear regression models with a Poisson distribution (models were adjusted for covariates including sex, age, geographical variables, and sociodemographic characteristics). Results: During the study period, 5 767 584 people (14.8% of the study population) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. In the second wave, the fully adjusted relative risks of having a positive test were highest for the Bangladeshi and Pakistani ethnic groups compared with the white British group, with rate ratios of 1.75 (95% confidence interval 1.73 to 1.77) and 1.69 (1.68 to 1.70), respectively. Muslim and Sikh religious groups had fully adjusted rate ratios of 1.51 (1.50 to 1.51) and 1.64 (1.63 to 1.66), respectively, compared with the Christian group. Greater area deprivation, disadvantaged socioeconomic position, living in a care home, and low English language proficiency were also associated with higher relative risk of having a positive test. However, the inequalities among groups varied over time. Being Christian, white British, without a disability, and from a more advantaged socioeconomic position were associated with increased relative risk of testing positive during the third wave. Conclusion: Research is urgently needed to understand the large sociodemographic inequalities in SARS-CoV-2 case rates in order to inform policy interventions in future waves or pandemics.

Omicron-associated changes in SARS-CoV-2 symptoms in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant has been replaced by the highly transmissible Omicron BA.1 variant, and subsequently by Omicron BA.2. It is important to understand how these changes in dominant variants affect reported symptoms, while also accounting for symptoms arising from other co-circulating respiratory viruses. METHODS: In a nationally representative UK community study, the COVID-19 Infection Survey, we investigated symptoms in PCR-positive infection episodes vs. PCR-negative study visits over calendar time, by age and vaccination status, comparing periods when the Delta, Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants were dominant. RESULTS: Between October-2020 and April-2022, 120,995 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episodes occurred in 115,886 participants, with 70,683 (58%) reporting symptoms. The comparator comprised 4,766,366 PCR-negative study visits (483,894 participants); 203,422 (4%) reporting symptoms. Symptom reporting in PCR-positives varied over time, with a marked reduction in loss of taste/smell as Omicron BA.1 dominated, maintained with BA.2 (44%/45% 17 October 2021, 16%/13% 2 January 2022, 15%/12% 27 March 2022). Cough, fever, shortness of breath, myalgia, fatigue/weakness and headache also decreased after Omicron BA.1 dominated, but sore throat increased, the latter to a greater degree than concurrent increases in PCR-negatives. Fatigue/weakness increased again after BA.2 dominated, although to a similar degree to concurrent increases in PCR-negatives. Symptoms were consistently more common in adults aged 18-65 years than in children or older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in sore throat (also common in the general community), and a marked reduction in loss of taste/smell, make Omicron harder to detect with symptom-based testing algorithms, with implications for institutional and national testing policies.

Risk of covid-19 related deaths for SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529) compared with delta (B.1.617.2): retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of covid-19 death after infection with omicron BA.1 compared with delta (B.1.617.2). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: England, United Kingdom, from 1 December 2021 to 30 December 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 1 035 149 people aged 18-100 years who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 under the national surveillance programme and had an infection identified as omicron BA.1 or delta compatible. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was covid-19 death as identified from death certification records. The exposure of interest was the SARS-CoV-2 variant identified from NHS Test and Trace PCR positive tests taken in the community (pillar 2) and analysed by Lighthouse laboratories. Cause specific Cox proportional hazard regression models (censoring non-covid-19 deaths) were adjusted for sex, age, vaccination status, previous infection, calendar time, ethnicity, index of multiple deprivation rank, household deprivation, university degree, keyworker status, country of birth, main language, region, disability, and comorbidities. Interactions between variant and sex, age, vaccination status, and comorbidities were also investigated. RESULTS: The risk of covid-19 death was 66% lower (95% confidence interval 54% to 75%) for omicron BA.1 compared with delta after adjusting for a wide range of potential confounders. The reduction in the risk of covid-19 death for omicron compared with delta was more pronounced in people aged 18-59 years (number of deaths: delta=46, omicron=11; hazard ratio 0.14, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.27) than in those aged ≥70 years (number of deaths: delta=113, omicron=135; hazard ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.61, P<0.0001). No evidence of a difference in risk was found between variant and number of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: The results support earlier studies showing a reduction in severity of infection with omicron BA.1 compared with delta in terms of hospital admission. This study extends the research to also show a reduction in the risk of covid-19 death for the omicron variant compared with the delta variant.

Symptoms and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Positivity in the General Population in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: "Classic" symptoms (cough, fever, loss of taste/smell) prompt severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in the United Kingdom. Studies have assessed the ability of different symptoms to identify infection, but few have compared symptoms over time (reflecting variants) and by vaccination status. METHODS: Using the COVID-19 Infection Survey, sampling households across the United Kingdom, we compared symptoms in PCR-positives vs PCR-negatives, evaluating sensitivity of combinations of 12 symptoms (percentage symptomatic PCR-positives reporting specific symptoms) and tests per case (TPC) (PCR-positives or PCR-negatives reporting specific symptoms/ PCR-positives reporting specific symptoms). RESULTS: Between April 2020 and August 2021, 27 869 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive episodes occurred in 27 692 participants (median 42 years), of whom 13 427 (48%) self-reported symptoms ("symptomatic PCR-positives"). The comparator comprised 3 806 692 test-negative visits (457 215 participants); 130 612 (3%) self-reported symptoms ("symptomatic PCR-negatives"). Symptom reporting in PCR-positives varied by age, sex, and ethnicity, and over time, reflecting changes in prevalence of viral variants, incidental changes (eg, seasonal pathogens (with sore throat increasing in PCR-positives and PCR-negatives from April 2021), schools reopening) and vaccination rollout. After May 2021 when Delta emerged, headache and fever substantially increased in PCR-positives, but not PCR-negatives. Sensitivity of symptom-based detection increased from 74% using "classic" symptoms, to 81% adding fatigue/weakness, and 90% including all 8 additional symptoms. However, this increased TPC from 4.6 to 5.3 to 8.7. CONCLUSIONS: Expanded symptom combinations may provide modest benefits for sensitivity of PCR-based case detection, but this will vary between settings and over time, and increases tests/case. Large-scale changes to targeted PCR-testing approaches require careful evaluation given substantial resource and infrastructure implications.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Community Antibiotic Prescribing and Stewardship: A Qualitative Interview Study with General Practitioners in England.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the delivery of primary care services. We aimed to identify general practitioners' (GPs') perceptions and experiences of how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) in general practice in England. Twenty-four semi-structured interviews were conducted with 18 GPs at two time-points: autumn 2020 (14 interviews) and spring 2021 (10 interviews). Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically, taking a longitudinal approach. Participants reported a lower threshold for antibiotic prescribing (and fewer consultations) for respiratory infections and COVID-19 symptoms early in the pandemic, then returning to more usual (pre-pandemic) prescribing. They perceived the pandemic as having had less impact on antibiotic prescribing for urinary and skin infections. Participants perceived the changing ways of working and consulting (e.g., proportions of remote and in-person consultations) in addition to changing patient presentations and GP workloads as influencing the fluctuations in antibiotic prescribing. This was compounded by decreased engagement with, and priority of, AMS due to COVID-19-related urgent priorities. Re-engagement with AMS is needed, e.g., through reviving antibiotic prescribing feedback and targets/incentives. The pandemic disrupted, and required adaptations in, the usual ways of working and AMS. It is now important to identify opportunities, e.g., for re-organising ways of managing infections and AMS in the future.

High Cure Rates for Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 6 in Advanced Liver Fibrosis With 12 Weeks Sofosbuvir and Daclatasvir: The Vietnam SEARCH Study.

BACKGROUND: Genotype 6 is the most genetically diverse lineage of hepatitis C virus, and it predominates in Vietnam. It can be treated with sofosbuvir with daclatasvir (SOF/DCV), the least expensive treatment combination globally. In regional guidelines, longer treatment durations of SOF/DCV (24 weeks) are recommended for cirrhotic individuals, compared with other pangenotypic regimens (12 weeks), based on sparse data. Early on-treatment virological response may offer means of reducing length and cost of therapy in patients with liver fibrosis. METHODS: In this prospective trial in Vietnam, genotype 6-infected adults with advanced liver fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis were treated with SOF/DCV. Day 14 viral load was used to guide duration of therapy: participants with viral load <500 IU/mL at day 14 were treated with 12 weeks of SOF/DCV and those ≥500 IU/mL received 24 weeks. Primary endpoint was sustained virological response (SVR). RESULTS: Of 41 individuals with advanced fibrosis or compensated cirrhosis who commenced treatment, 51% had genotype 6a and 34% had 6e. The remainder had 6h, 6k, 6l, or 6o. One hundred percent had viral load <500 IU/mL by day 14, meaning that all received 12 weeks of SOF/DCV. One hundred percent achieved SVR12 despite a high frequency of putative NS5A inhibitor resistance-associated substitutions at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing 12 weeks of SOF/DCV results in excellent cure rates in this population. These data support the removal of costly genotyping in countries where genotype 3 prevalence is <5%, in keeping with World Health Organization guidelines. NS5A resistance-associated mutations in isolation do not affect efficacy of SOF/DCV therapy. Wider evaluation of response-guided therapy is warranted.

Community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in England from April to November, 2020: results from the ONS Coronavirus Infection Survey.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about the continued need for control measures to contain the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rely on accurate and up-to-date information about the number of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and risk factors for testing positive. Existing surveillance systems are generally not based on population samples and are not longitudinal in design. METHODS: Samples were collected from individuals aged 2 years and older living in private households in England that were randomly selected from address lists and previous Office for National Statistics surveys in repeated cross-sectional household surveys with additional serial sampling and longitudinal follow-up. Participants completed a questionnaire and did nose and throat self-swabs. The percentage of individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA was estimated over time by use of dynamic multilevel regression and poststratification, to account for potential residual non-representativeness. Potential changes in risk factors for testing positive over time were also assessed. The study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN21086382. FINDINGS: Between April 26 and Nov 1, 2020, results were available from 1 191 170 samples from 280 327 individuals; 5231 samples were positive overall, from 3923 individuals. The percentage of people testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 changed substantially over time, with an initial decrease between April 26 and June 28, 2020, from 0·40% (95% credible interval 0·29-0·54) to 0·06% (0·04-0·07), followed by low levels during July and August, 2020, before substantial increases at the end of August, 2020, with percentages testing positive above 1% from the end of October, 2020. Having a patient-facing role and working outside your home were important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at the end of the first wave (April 26 to June 28, 2020), but not in the second wave (from the end of August to Nov 1, 2020). Age (young adults, particularly those aged 17-24 years) was an important initial driver of increased positivity rates in the second wave. For example, the estimated percentage of individuals testing positive was more than six times higher in those aged 17-24 years than in those aged 70 years or older at the end of September, 2020. A substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms around their positive test (45-68%, dependent on calendar time. INTERPRETATION: Important risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 varied substantially between the part of the first wave that was captured by the study (April to June, 2020) and the first part of the second wave of increased positivity rates (end of August to Nov 1, 2020), and a substantial proportion of infections were in individuals not reporting symptoms, indicating that continued monitoring for SARS-CoV-2 in the community will be important for managing the COVID-19 pandemic moving forwards. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care.