Search

Background: Hospital infection control policies protect patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) and limit the spread of pathogens, but adherence to COVID-19 guidance varies. We examined hospital HCWs' enactment of social distancing and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during the COVID-19 pandemic, factors influencing these behaviours, and acceptability and feasibility of strategies to increase social distancing., Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey (n = 86) and semi-structured interviews (n = 22) with HCWs in two English hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (May-December 2020). The Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour change underpinned survey and topic guide questions. Spearman Rho correlations examined associations between COM-B domains and behaviours. Interviews were analysed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis. Potential strategies to improve social distancing were selected using the Behaviour Change Wheel and discussed in a stakeholder workshop (n = 8 participants)., Results: Social distancing enactment was low, with 85% of participants reporting very frequently or always being in close contact with others in communal areas. PPE use was high (88% very frequently or always using PPE in typical working day). Social distancing was associated with Physical Opportunity (e.g., size of physical space), Psychological Capability (e.g., clarity of guidance), and Social Opportunity (e.g., support from managers). Use of PPE was associated with Psychological Capability (e.g., training), Physical Opportunity (e.g., availability), Social Opportunity (e.g., impact on interactions with patients), and Reflective Motivation (e.g., beliefs that PPE is effective). Local champions and team competition were viewed as feasible strategies to improve social distancing., Conclusions: It is valuable to understand and compare the drivers of individual protective behaviours; when faced with the same level of perceived threat, PPE use was high whereas social distancing was rarely enacted. Identified influences represent targets for intervention strategies in response to future infectious disease outbreaks., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Meyer et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Major protease mutations are rarely observed following failure with protease inhibitors (PI), and other viral determinants of failure to PI are poorly understood. We therefore characterized Gag-Protease phenotypic susceptibility in subtype A and D viruses circulating in East Africa following viral rebound on PIs., Methods: Samples from baseline and treatment failure in patients enrolled in the second line LPV/r trial SARA underwent phenotypic susceptibility testing. Data were expressed as fold-change in susceptibility relative to a LPV-susceptible reference strain., Results: We cloned 48 Gag-Protease containing sequences from seven individuals and performed drug resistance phenotyping from pre-PI and treatment failure timepoints in seven patients. For the six patients where major protease inhibitor resistance mutations did not emerge, mean fold-change EC50 to LPV was 4.07 fold (95% CI, 2.08-6.07) at the pre-PI timepoint. Following viral failure the mean fold-change in EC50 to LPV was 4.25 fold (95% CI, 1.39-7.11, p = 0.91). All viruses remained susceptible to DRV. In our assay system, the major PI resistance mutation I84V, which emerged in one individual, conferred a 10.5-fold reduction in LPV susceptibility. One of the six patients exhibited a significant reduction in susceptibility between pre-PI and failure timepoints (from 4.7 fold to 9.6 fold) in the absence of known major mutations in protease, but associated with changes in Gag: V7I, G49D, R69Q, A120D, Q127K, N375S and I462S. Phylogenetic analysis provided evidence of the emergence of genetically distinct viruses at the time of treatment failure, indicating ongoing viral evolution in Gag-protease under PI pressure., Conclusions: Here we observe in one patient the development of significantly reduced susceptibility conferred by changes in Gag which may have contributed to treatment failure on a protease inhibitor containing regimen. Further phenotype-genotype studies are required to elucidate genetic determinants of protease inhibitor failure in those who fail without traditional resistance mutations whilst PI use is being scaled up globally.