Impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination on the subsequent incidence of COVID-19: a multicentre prospective cohort study among UK healthcare workers - the SIREN (Sarscov2 Immunity & REinfection EvaluatioN) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the effectiveness and durability of protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection conferred by previous infection and COVID-19 is essential to inform ongoing management of the pandemic. This study aims to determine whether prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers protects against future infection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort study design in staff members working in hospitals in the UK. At enrolment, participants are allocated into cohorts, positive or naïve, dependent on their prior SARS-CoV-2 infection status, as measured by standardised SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing on all baseline serum samples and previous SARS-CoV-2 test results. Participants undergo monthly antibody testing and fortnightly viral RNA testing during follow-up and based on these results may move between cohorts. Any results from testing undertaken for other reasons (eg, symptoms, contact tracing) or prior to study entry will also be captured. Individuals complete enrolment and fortnightly questionnaires on exposures, symptoms and vaccination. Follow-up is 12 months from study entry, with an option to extend follow-up to 24 months.The primary outcome of interest is infection with SARS-CoV-2 after previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination during the study period. Secondary outcomes include incidence and prevalence (both RNA and antibody) of SARS-CoV-2, viral genomics, viral culture, symptom history and antibody/neutralising antibody titres. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Berkshire Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority (IRAS ID 284460, REC reference 20/SC/0230) on 22 May 2020; the vaccine amendment was approved on 12 January 2021. Participants gave informed consent before taking part in the study.Regular reports to national and international expert advisory groups and peer-reviewed publications ensure timely dissemination of findings to inform decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11041050.

The demographics and geographic distribution of laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease cases in England and Wales (2013-2016): an ecological study.

OBJECTIVE: Lyme disease is a tick-borne disease of increasing incidence and public concern across the Northern Hemisphere. However, the socio-demographics and geographic distribution of the population affected in England and Wales are poorly understood. Therefore, the proposed study was designed to describe the demographics and distribution of laboratory-confirmed cases of Lyme disease from a national testing laboratory. DESIGN: An ecological study of routinely collected laboratory surveillance data. SETTING: Public Health England's national Lyme disease testing laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: 3986 laboratory-confirmed cases of Lyme disease between 2013 and 2016. RESULTS: In England and Wales, the incidence of laboratory-confirmed Lyme disease rose significantly over the study period from 1.62 cases per 100 000 in 2013 to 1.95 cases per 100 000 in 2016. There was a bimodal age distribution (with peaks at 6-10 and 61-65 years age bands) with a predominance of male patients. A significant clustering of areas with high Lyme disease incidence was located in southern England. An association was found between disease incidence and socioeconomic status, based on the patient's resident postcode, with more cases found in less deprived areas. Cases were disproportionately found in rural areas compared with the national population distribution. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that Lyme disease patients originate from areas with higher socioeconomic status and disproportionately in rural areas. Identification of the Lyme disease hotspots in southern England, alongside the socio-demographics described, will enable a targeted approach to public health interventions and messages.

Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease: Past, Present, and Future.

Laboratory diagnosis of Ebola virus disease plays a critical role in outbreak response efforts; however, establishing safe and expeditious testing strategies for this high-biosafety-level pathogen in resource-poor environments remains extremely challenging. Since the discovery of Ebola virus in 1976 via traditional viral culture techniques and electron microscopy, diagnostic methodologies have trended toward faster, more accurate molecular assays. Importantly, technological advances have been paired with increasing efforts to support decentralized diagnostic testing capacity that can be deployed at or near the point of patient care. The unprecedented scope of the 2014-2015 West Africa Ebola epidemic spurred tremendous innovation in this arena, and a variety of new diagnostic platforms that have the potential both to immediately improve ongoing surveillance efforts in West Africa and to transform future outbreak responses have reached the field. In this review, we describe the evolution of Ebola virus disease diagnostic testing and efforts to deploy field diagnostic laboratories in prior outbreaks. We then explore the diagnostic challenges pervading the 2014-2015 epidemic and provide a comprehensive examination of novel diagnostic tests that are likely to address some of these challenges moving forward.

Performance of the GeneXpert Ebola Assay for Diagnosis of Ebola Virus Disease in Sierra Leone: A Field Evaluation Study.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the Ebola virus disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa, field laboratory testing for EVD has relied on complex, multi-step real-time reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) assays; an accurate sample-to-answer RT-PCR test would reduce time to results and potentially increase access to testing. We evaluated the performance of the Cepheid GeneXpert Ebola assay on clinical venipuncture whole blood (WB) and buccal swab (BS) specimens submitted to a field biocontainment laboratory in Sierra Leone for routine EVD testing by RT-PCR ("Trombley assay"). METHODS AND FINDINGS: This study was conducted in the Public Health England EVD diagnostic laboratory in Port Loko, Sierra Leone, using residual diagnostic specimens remaining after clinical testing. EDTA-WB specimens (n = 218) were collected from suspected or confirmed EVD patients between April 1 and July 20, 2015. BS specimens (n = 71) were collected as part of a national postmortem screening program between March 7 and July 20, 2015. EDTA-WB and BS specimens were tested with Xpert (targets: glycoprotein [GP] and nucleoprotein [NP] genes) and Trombley (target: NP gene) assays in parallel. All WB specimens were fresh; 84/218 were tested in duplicate on Xpert to compare WB sampling methods (pipette versus swab); 43/71 BS specimens had been previously frozen. In all, 7/218 (3.2%) WB and 7/71 (9.9%) BS samples had Xpert results that were reported as "invalid" or "error" and were excluded, leaving 211 WB and 64 BS samples with valid Trombley and Xpert results. For WB, 22/22 Trombley-positive samples were Xpert-positive (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 84.6%-100%), and 181/189 Trombley-negative samples were Xpert-negative (specificity 95.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 91.8%-98.2%). Seven of the eight Trombley-negative, Xpert-positive (Xpert cycle threshold [Ct] range 37.7-43.4) WB samples were confirmed to be follow-up submissions from previously Trombley-positive EVD patients, suggesting a revised Xpert specificity of 99.5% (95% CI 97.0%-100%). For Xpert-positive WB samples (n = 22), Xpert NP Ct values were consistently lower than GP Ct values (mean difference -4.06, 95% limits of agreement -6.09, -2.03); Trombley (NP) Ct values closely matched Xpert NP Ct values (mean difference -0.04, 95% limits of agreement -2.93, 2.84). Xpert results (positive/negative) for WB sampled by pipette versus swab were concordant for 78/79 (98.7%) WB samples, with comparable Ct values for positive results. For BS specimens, 20/20 Trombley-positive samples were Xpert-positive (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 83.2%-100%), and 44/44 Trombley-negative samples were Xpert-negative (specificity 100%, 95% CI 92.0%-100%). This study was limited to testing residual diagnostic samples, some of which had been frozen before use; it was not possible to test the performance of the Xpert Ebola assay at point of care. CONCLUSIONS: The Xpert Ebola assay had excellent performance compared to an established RT-PCR benchmark on WB and BS samples in a field laboratory setting. Future studies should evaluate feasibility and performance outside of a biocontainment laboratory setting to facilitate expanded access to testing.