IMpleMenting Effective infection prevention and control in ReSidential aged carE (IMMERSE): protocol for a multi-level mixed methods implementation study (preprint)

Background Older people living in residential aged care facilities are at high risk of acquiring infections such as influenza, gastroenteritis, and more recently COVID-19. These infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among this cohort. Quality infection prevention and control practice in residential aged care is therefore imperative. Although appointment of a dedicated infection prevention and control (IPC) lead in every Australian residential aged care facility is now mandated, all people working in this setting have a role to play in IPC. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed inadequacies in IPC in this sector and highlighted the need for interventions to improve implementation of best practice. Methods Using mixed methods, this four-phase implementation study will use theory-informed approaches to: (1) assess residential aged care facilities’ readiness for IPC practice change, (2) explore current practice using scenario-based assessments, (3) investigate barriers to best practice IPC, and (4) determine and evaluate feasible and locally tailored solutions to overcome the identified barriers. IPC leads will be upskilled and supported to operationalise the selected solutions. Staff working in residential aged care facilities, residents and their families will be recruited for participation in surveys and semi-structured interviews. Data will be analysed and triangulated at each phase, with findings informing the subsequent phases. Stakeholder groups at each facility and the IMMERSE project’s Reference Group will contribute to the interpretation of findings at each phase of the project. Discussion This multi-site study will comprehensively explore infection prevention and control practices in residential aged care. It will inform and support locally appropriate evidence-based strategies for enhancing infection prevention and control practice.

Normalizing Community Mask-Wearing: A Cluster Randomized Trial in Bangladesh

A randomized-trial of community-level mask promotion in rural Bangladesh during COVID-19 shows that the intervention tripled mask usage and is a cost-effective means of promoting public health.

Immune responses in COVID-19 respiratory tract and blood reveal mechanisms of disease severity (preprint)

Although the respiratory tract is the primary site of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the ensuing immunopathology, respiratory immune responses are understudied and urgently needed to understand mechanisms underlying COVID-19 disease pathogenesis. We collected paired longitudinal blood and respiratory tract samples (endotracheal aspirate, sputum or pleural fluid) from hospitalized COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 controls. Cellular, humoral and cytokine responses were analysed and correlated with clinical data. SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM, IgG and IgA antibodies were detected using ELISA and multiplex assay in both the respiratory tract and blood of COVID-19 patients, although a higher receptor binding domain (RBD)-specific IgM and IgG seroconversion level was found in respiratory specimens. SARS-CoV-2 neutralization activity in respiratory samples was detected only when high levels of RBD-specific antibodies were present. Strikingly, cytokine/chemokine levels and profiles greatly differed between respiratory samples and plasma, indicating that inflammation needs to be assessed in respiratory specimens for the accurate assessment of SARS-CoV-2 immunopathology. Diverse immune cell subsets were detected in respiratory samples, albeit dominated by neutrophils. Importantly, we also showed that dexamethasone and/or remdesivir treatment did not affect humoral responses in blood of COVID-19 patients. Overall, our study unveils stark differences in innate and adaptive immune responses between respiratory samples and blood and provides important insights into effect of drug therapy on immune responses in COVID-19 patients.

Multi-Site Assessment of Rapid, Point-of-Care Antigen Testing for the Diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Low-Prevalence Setting: A Validation and Implementation Study (preprint)

Background: In Australia, COVID-19 diagnosis relies on RT-PCR testing which is relatively costly and time-consuming. To date, no studies have assessed the performance and implementation of rapid antigen-based SARS-CoV-2 testing in a setting with a low prevalence of COVID-19 infections, such as Australia. Methods: This study recruited participants presenting for COVID-19 testing at three Melbourne metropolitan hospitals during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence. The Abbott PanBioTM COVID-19 Ag point-of-care test was performed alongside RT-PCR. In addition, participants with COVID-19 notified to the Victorian Government were invited to provide additional swabs to aid validation. Implementation challenges were also documented. Findings: The specificity of the Abbott PanBioTM COVID-19 Ag test was 99.96% (95% CI 99.73 - 100%). Sensitivity amongst participants with RT-PCR-confirmed infection was dependent upon the duration of symptoms reported, ranging from 78.9% (duration 1 to 33 days) to 100% in those within 7 days of symptom onset. A range of implementation challenges were identified which may inform future COVID-19 testing strategies in a low prevalence setting. Interpretation: Given the high specificity, antigen-based tests may be most useful in rapidly triaging public health and hospital resources while expediting confirmatory RT-PCR testing. Considering the limitations in test sensitivity and the potential for rapid transmission in susceptible populations, particularly in hospital settings, careful consideration is required for implementation of antigen testing in a low prevalence setting. Funding: This work was funded by the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services. The funder was not involved in data analysis or manuscript preparation.Declaration of Interests: All authors: no conflicts.Ethics Approval Statement: Ethics review and study approval was provided by Monash Health Human Research and Ethics Committee (RES-20-0000-678A) and local Governance approval was provided by Melbourne Health and Austin Health Offices for Research.