Projecting the development of antimicrobial resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae from antimicrobial surveillance data: a mathematical modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends changing the first-line antimicrobial treatment for gonorrhoea when ≥ 5% of Neisseria gonorrhoeae cases fail treatment or are resistant. Susceptibility to ceftriaxone, the last remaining treatment option has been decreasing in many countries. We used antimicrobial resistance surveillance data and developed mathematical models to project the time to reach the 5% threshold for resistance to first-line antimicrobials used for N. gonorrhoeae. METHODS: We used data from the Gonococcal Resistance to Antimicrobials Surveillance Programme (GRASP) in England and Wales from 2000-2018 about minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) for ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, cefixime and ceftriaxone and antimicrobial treatment in two groups, heterosexual men and women (HMW) and men who have sex with men (MSM). We developed two susceptible-infected-susceptible models to fit these data and produce projections of the proportion of resistance until 2030. The single-step model represents the situation in which a single mutation results in antimicrobial resistance. In the multi-step model, the sequential accumulation of resistance mutations is reflected by changes in the MIC distribution. RESULTS: The single-step model described resistance to ciprofloxacin well. Both single-step and multi-step models could describe azithromycin and cefixime resistance, with projected resistance levels higher with the multi-step than the single step model. For ceftriaxone, with very few observed cases of full resistance, the multi-step model was needed to describe long-term dynamics of resistance. Extrapolating from the observed upward drift in MIC values, the multi-step model projected ≥ 5% resistance to ceftriaxone could be reached by 2030, based on treatment pressure alone. Ceftriaxone resistance was projected to rise to 13.2% (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.7-44.8%) among HMW and 19.6% (95%CrI: 2.6-54.4%) among MSM by 2030. CONCLUSIONS: New first-line antimicrobials for gonorrhoea treatment are needed. In the meantime, public health authorities should strengthen surveillance for AMR in N. gonorrhoeae and implement strategies for continued antimicrobial stewardship. Our models show the utility of long-term representative surveillance of gonococcal antimicrobial susceptibility data and can be adapted for use in, and for comparison with, other countries.

Early Warning Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 Omicron Variants, United Kingdom, November 2021-September 2022.

Since June 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation (SIREN) study has conducted routine PCR testing in UK healthcare workers and sequenced PCR-positive samples. SIREN detected increases in infections and reinfections during Omicron subvariant waves contemporaneous with national surveillance. SIREN's sentinel surveillance methods can be used for variant surveillance.

The European response to control and manage multi- and extensively drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae.

Because cefixime and ceftriaxone resistance in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and gonorrhoea treatment failures were increasing, a response plan to control and manage multidrug-resistant N. gonorrhoeae (MDR-NG) in Europe was published in 2012. The three main areas of the plan were to: (i) strengthen surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), (ii) implement monitoring of treatment failures and (iii) establish a communication strategy to increase awareness and disseminate AMR results. Since 2012, several additional extensively drug-resistant N. gonorrhoeae (XDR-NG) strains have emerged, and strains with high-level ceftriaxone resistance spread internationally. This prompted an evaluation and review of the 2012 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) response plan, revealing an overall improvement in many aspects of monitoring AMR in N. gonorrhoeae; however, treatment failure monitoring was a weakness. Accordingly, the plan was updated in 2019 to further support European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) countries in controlling and managing the threat of MDR/XDR-NG in Europe through further strengthening of AMR surveillance and clinical management including treatment failure monitoring. The plan will be assessed biennially to ensure its effectiveness and its value. Along with prevention, diagnostic, treatment and epidemiological surveillance strategies, AMR surveillance is essential for effective control of gonorrhoea.

Antibody correlates of protection from SARS-CoV-2 reinfection prior to vaccination: A nested case-control within the SIREN study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate serological differences between SARS-CoV-2 reinfection cases and contemporary controls, to identify antibody correlates of protection against reinfection. METHODS: We performed a case-control study, comparing reinfection cases with singly infected individuals pre-vaccination, matched by gender, age, region and timing of first infection. Serum samples were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (anti-S), anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (anti-N), live virus microneutralisation (LV-N) and pseudovirus microneutralisation (PV-N). Results were analysed using fixed effect linear regression and fitted into conditional logistic regression models. RESULTS: We identified 23 cases and 92 controls. First infections occurred before November 2020; reinfections occurred before February 2021, pre-vaccination. Anti-S levels, LV-N and PV-N titres were significantly lower among cases; no difference was found for anti-N levels. Increasing anti-S levels were associated with reduced risk of reinfection (OR 0·63, CI 0·47-0·85), but no association for anti-N levels (OR 0·88, CI 0·73-1·05). Titres >40 were correlated with protection against reinfection for LV-N Wuhan (OR 0·02, CI 0·001-0·31) and LV-N Alpha (OR 0·07, CI 0·009-0·62). For PV-N, titres >100 were associated with protection against Wuhan (OR 0·14, CI 0·03-0·64) and Alpha (0·06, CI 0·008-0·40). CONCLUSIONS: Before vaccination, protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection was directly correlated with anti-S levels, PV-N and LV-N titres, but not with anti-N levels. Detectable LV-N titres were sufficient for protection, whilst PV-N titres >100 were required for a protective effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11041050.

SARS-CoV-2 infection rates of antibody-positive compared with antibody-negative health-care workers in England: a large, multicentre, prospective cohort study (SIREN).

BACKGROUND: Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. METHODS: A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. FINDINGS: From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13-0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. INTERPRETATION: A previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 84% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed 7 months following primary infection. This time period is the minimum probable effect because seroconversions were not included. This study shows that previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces effective immunity to future infections in most individuals. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care of the UK Government, Public Health England, The National Institute for Health Research, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.