Do antibody positive healthcare workers have lower SARS-CoV-2 infection rates than antibody negative healthcare workers? Large multi-centre prospective cohort study (the SIREN study), England: June to November 2020

BackgroundThere is an urgent need to better understand whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection. MethodsA large multi-centre prospective cohort was recruited from publicly funded hospital staff in the UK. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2-4 weeks) and completed fortnightly questionnaires on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive or prior PCR/antibody test positive) or negative cohort (antibody negative, not previously known to be PCR/antibody positive). Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, possible (subdivided by symptom-status)) depending on hierarchy of evidence. Individuals in the primary infection were excluded from this analysis if infection was confirmed by antibody only. Reinfection rates in the positive cohort were compared against new PCR positives in the negative cohort using a mixed effective multivariable logistic regression analysis. FindingsBetween 18 June and 09 November 2020, 44 reinfections (2 probable, 42 possible) were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 6,614 participants, collectively contributing 1,339,078 days of follow-up. This compares with 318 new PCR positive infections and 94 antibody seroconversions in the negative cohort of 14,173 participants, contributing 1,868,646 days of follow-up. The incidence density per 100,000 person days between June and November 2020 was 3.3 reinfections in the positive cohort, compared with 22.4 new PCR confirmed infections in the negative cohort. The adjusted odds ratio was 0.17 for all reinfections (95% CI 0.13-0.24) compared to PCR confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was over 160 days. InterpretationA prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with an 83% lower risk of infection, with median protective effect observed five months following primary infection. This is the minimum likely effect as seroconversions were not included. FundingDepartment of Health and Social Care and Public Health England, with contributions from the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.

SIREN protocol: Impact of detectable anti-SARS-CoV-2 on the subsequent incidence of COVID-19 in 100,000 healthcare workers: do antibody positive healthcare workers have less reinfection than antibody negative healthcare workers?

BackgroundThe overall risk of reinfection in individuals who have previously had COVID-19 is unknown. To determine if prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (as determined by at least one positive commercial antibody test performed in a laboratory) in healthcare workers confers future immunity to reinfection, we are undertaking a large-scale prospective longitudinal cohort study of healthcare staff across the United Kingdom. MethodsPopulation and Setting: staff members of healthcare organisations working in hospitals in the UK At recruitment, participants will have their serum tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 at baseline and using these results will be initially allocated to either antibody positive or antibody negative cohorts. Participants will undergo antibody and viral RNA testing at 1-4 weekly intervals throughout the study period, and based on these results may move between cohorts. Any results from testing undertaken for other reasons (e.g. symptoms, contact tracing etc.) or prior to study entry will also be included. Individuals will complete enrolment and fortnightly questionnaires on exposures and symptoms. Follow-up will be for at least 12 months from study entry. OutcomeThe primary outcome of interest is a reinfection with SARS -CoV-2 during the study period. Secondary outcomes will include incidence and prevalence (both RNA and antibody) of SARS-CoV-2, viral genomics, viral culture, symptom history and antibody/neutralising antibody titres. ConclusionThis large study will help us to understand the impact of the presence of antibodies on the risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2; the results will have substantial implications in terms of national and international policy, as well as for risk management of contacts of COVID-19 cases. Trial RegistrationIRAS ID 284460, HRA and Health and Care Research Wales approval granted 22 May 2020.

Bridging the Gap: Identifying Global Trends in Gender Disparity Among the Radiology Physician Workforce.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Women make up half of American medical school graduates, but remain underrepresented among radiologists. This study sought to determine whether workforce gender disparities exist in other countries, and to identify any country-specific indices associated with increased female representation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 95 professional radiology organizations in 75 countries were contacted via email to provide membership statistics, including proportion of female members, female members aged 35 or under, and women in society leadership positions. Country-specific metrics collected included gross domestic product, Gini index, percent female medical school enrollment, and Gender Development Index for the purposes of univariate multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine organizations provided data on 184,888 radiologists, representing 26 countries from Europe (n = 12), North America (n = 2), Central/South America (n = 6), Oceania (n = 2), Asia (n = 3), and Africa (n = 1) for a response rate of 34.7% (26/75). Globally, 33.5% of radiologists are female. Women constitute a higher proportion of younger radiologists, with 48.5% of radiologists aged 35 or under being female. Female representation in radiology is lowest in the United States (27.2%), highest in Thailand (85.0%), and most variable in Europe (mean 40.1%, range 28.8%-68.9%). The proportion of female radiologists was positively associated with a country's Gender Development Index (P = .006), percent female medical student enrollment (P = .001), and Gini index (P = .002), and negatively associated with gross domestic product (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Women are underrepresented in radiology globally, most notably in the United States. Countries with greater representation of women had higher gender equality and percent female medical school enrollment, suggesting these factors may play a role in the gender gap.

Factors Influencing the Gender Breakdown of Academic Radiology Residency Programs.

PURPOSE: To determine the gender distribution of radiology residency programs and identify associations with radiology departmental factors. METHODS: The residency programs affiliated with the top 50 research medical school from US News and World Report were identified. The gender of all radiology residency graduates from each program from 2011 to 2015 were collected. Radiology departmental factors were collected: gender of chairperson, gender of program director, gender of faculty, geographic location, and city population of the residency program. The median percentage of female radiology faculty and residents were calculated and classified as above or below the median. Comparisons were made between residency programs and departmental factors via a Pearson χ2 univariate test or logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 618 (27.9%) female and 1,598 (72.1%) male residents in our study, with a median female representation of 26.4% in each program. Programs with a female residency program director were significantly more likely to have an above-median percentage of female residents versus a male program director (68.4% versus 38.7%, P = .04). Programs in the Northeast (70.6%) and West (70.0%) had higher above-median female representation than the South (10.0%) and Midwest (38.5%, P < .01). There was no association with city population size (P = .40), gender of faculty (P = .40), residency size (P = .91), or faculty size (P = .15). CONCLUSION: Radiology residency programs with a female residency program director and those in the Northeast or West have a greater concentration of female residents. Residency programs that aim to increase female representation should investigate modifiable factors that can improve their recruitment practices.

Adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in philadelphia from 2008-2012: An epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Wide variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survival has been reported, with low survival in urban settings. We sought to describe the epidemiology of OHCA in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the fifth largest U.S. city, and identify potential areas for targeted interventions to improve survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective chart review of adult, non-traumatic, OHCA occurring in Philadelphia between 2008 and 2012. We determined incidence and epidemiological factors including: demographics, initial cardiac rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, automated external defibrillator use, return of spontaneous circulation and 30-day survival. 5198 cases of adult, non-traumatic OHCA were identified. The incidence was 81.5/100,000. The majority of cases occurred in a residence (76.2%); 30.4% were witnessed events; the initial cardiac rhythm was pulseless ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation in 6.2% of cases, pulseless electrical activity in 21.0%, asystole in 38.3% and was unknown or undocumented in the remaining 34.5%. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated increased 30-day survival with younger age, shockable cardiac rhythms, and daytime arrest. 30-day survival was 8.1% for EMS-assessed patients and 8.6% for EMS-transported patients. CONCLUSIONS: Philadelphia's reported incidence is consistent with urban settings although the survival rate is higher than other urban centers.

A prospective cohort study of medication reconciliation using pharmacy technicians in the emergency department to reduce medication errors among admitted patients.

BACKGROUND: The collection of a complete, verified medication history is essential to patient safety. The involvement of clinical pharmacists has been shown to improve the completeness and accuracy of medication histories; however, to our knowledge, involvement of pharmacy technicians has not been studied. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine whether verification of medication histories by pharmacy technicians in the emergency department (ED) would result in fewer errors in inpatient medication regimens compared to verification by the admitting physician team. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study of adult ED patients admitted for continuing care. In the intervention group, medication reconciliation was performed by pharmacy technicians in the ED before the creation of physician admitting orders. In the control group, pharmacy technicians conducted their history taking later, after admission. Initial admitting orders were then compared to the pharmacy technicians' medication reconciliation taken before admission (intervention group) or after admission (control group). Medication discrepancies were classified and determined to be justified or unjustified. Unjustified discrepancies were rated for harm potential. RESULTS: In our cohort of 113 intervention and 75 control subjects, the mean age was 55 years (standard deviation [SD] 16 years); 96 patients (51%) were male. In the intervention group, 566 changes to home medications were observed on admission; 352 (62%) were unjustified. Among controls, 406 changes to home medications were observed; 228 (56%) were unjustified. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.0586). The rate of unjustified medication changes per patient was likewise not significantly different (3.14 [SD 2.98] in interventions vs. 3.17 [SD 2.81] in controls; p = 0.9570). The rate of medical errors did not differ between study groups, nor did severity ratings of unjustified changes. CONCLUSIONS: Medication reconciliation by pharmacy technicians in the ED did not lead to a significant reduction in unjustified medication discrepancies.