Search

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody measurements can be used to estimate the proportion of a population exposed or infected and may be informative about the risk of future infection. Previous estimates of the duration of antibody responses vary. Methods We present 6 months of data from a longitudinal seroprevalence study of 3276 UK healthcare workers (HCWs). Serial measurements of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike IgG were obtained. Interval censored survival analysis was used to investigate the duration of detectable responses. Additionally, Bayesian mixed linear models were used to investigate anti-nucleocapsid waning. Results Anti-spike IgG levels remained stably detected after a positive result, for example, in 94% (95% credibility interval [CrI] 91–96%) of HCWs at 180 days. Anti-nucleocapsid IgG levels rose to a peak at 24 (95% CrI 19–31) days post first polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-positive test, before beginning to fall. Considering 452 anti-nucleocapsid seropositive HCWs over a median of 121 days from their maximum positive IgG titer, the mean estimated antibody half-life was 85 (95% CrI 81–90) days. Higher maximum observed anti-nucleocapsid titers were associated with longer estimated antibody half-lives. Increasing age, Asian ethnicity, and prior self-reported symptoms were independently associated with higher maximum anti-nucleocapsid levels and increasing age and a positive PCR test undertaken for symptoms with longer anti-nucleocapsid half-lives. Conclusions SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies wane within months and fall faster in younger adults and those without symptoms. However, anti-spike IgG remains stably detected. Ongoing longitudinal studies are required to track the long-term duration of antibody levels and their association with immunity to SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.

Additional file 2. Screenshots displaying elements of the ThrIVe-B App.

Additional file 3. Table displaying administration schedule for study measures.

Additional file 6. Table displaying unit cost of services.

Additional file 1. Logic model for ThrIVe-B programme.

Additional file 1. E-resource: Topic guide for qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers.

Additional file 4. Table of themes relating to the intervention, arising from qualitative analysis of interview transcripts (n = 8) and feedback surveys (n = 8).

Additional file 7. Table displaying cost of services by participant (average number of contacts).

Additional file 5. Table displaying intervention costing.

International audience; Systolic interarm differences in blood pressure have been associated with all-cause mortality and cardiovascular disease. We undertook individual participant data meta-analyses to (1) quantify independent associations of systolic interarm difference with mortality and cardiovascular events; (2) develop and validate prognostic models incorporating interarm difference, and (3) determine whether interarm difference remains associated with risk after adjustment for common cardiovascular risk scores. We searched for studies recording bilateral blood pressure and outcomes, established agreements with collaborating authors, and created a single international dataset: the Inter-arm Blood Pressure Difference - Individual Participant Data (INTERPRESS-IPD) Collaboration. Data were merged from 24 studies (53 827 participants). Systolic interarm difference was associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality: continuous hazard ratios 1.05 (95% CI, 1.02-1.08) and 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.11), respectively, per 5 mm Hg systolic interarm difference. Hazard ratios for all-cause mortality increased with interarm difference magnitude from a ≥5 mm Hg threshold (hazard ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.01-1.14]). Systolic interarm differences per 5 mm Hg were associated with cardiovascular events in people without preexisting disease, after adjustment for Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.08]), Framingham (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.08]), or QRISK cardiovascular disease risk algorithm version 2 (QRISK2) (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.06-1.18]) cardiovascular risk scores. Our findings confirm that systolic interarm difference is associated with increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. Blood pressure should be measured in both arms during cardiovascular assessment. A systolic interarm difference of 10 mm Hg is proposed as the upper limit of normal. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015031227.

BackgroundPersonal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing are designed to mitigate risk of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitals. Why healthcare workers nevertheless remain at increased risk is uncertain.MethodsWe conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using nasopharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. A positive result by either modality determined a composite outcome. Risk-factors for Covid-19 were investigated using multivariable logistic regression.Results1083/9809(11.0%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time and provided data on potential risk-factors. Staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.63 [95%CI 3.30-6.50]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (21.2% vs. 8.2% elsewhere) (aOR 2.49 [2.00-3.12]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.50 [1.05-2.15]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit (ICU) staff were relatively protected (0.46 [0.29-0.72]). Positive results were more likely in Black (1.61 [1.20-2.16]) and Asian (1.58 [1.34-1.86]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (1.93 [1.25-2.97]). Contact tracing around asymptomatic staff did not lead to enhanced case identification. 24% of staff/patients remained PCR-positive at ≥6 weeks post-diagnosis.ConclusionsIncreased Covid-19 risk was seen in acute medicine, among Black and Asian staff, and porters and cleaners. A bundle of PPE-related interventions protected staff in ICU.

Additional file 1: Appendix 1. Data management plan and data privacy impact assessment.

Background:\ud Caregivers frequently provide support to people living with long-term conditions. However, there is paucity of evidence of interventions that support caregivers in their role. Rehabilitation EnAblement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) is a novel home-based, health-professional-facilitated, self-management programme for patients with heart failure (HF) and their caregivers.\ud \ud Methods:\ud Based on the random allocation of individual adult patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left ventricular ejection fraction

OBJECTIVE: To identify and explore change processes explaining the effects of the Rehabilitation Enablement in Chronic Heart Failure (REACH-HF) intervention taking account of reach, amount of intervention received, delivery fidelity and patient and caregiver perspectives. DESIGN: Mixed methods process evaluation parallel to a randomised controlled trial using data from the intervention group (REACH-HF plus usual care). SETTING: Four centres in the UK (Birmingham, Cornwall, Gwent and York). PARTICIPANTS: People with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and their caregivers. METHODS: The REACH-HF intervention consisted of a self-help manual for patients with HFrEF and caregivers facilitated over 12 weeks by trained healthcare professionals. The process evaluation used multimodal mixed methods analysis. Data consisted of audio recorded intervention sessions; demographic data; intervention fidelity scores for intervention group participants (107 patients and 53 caregivers); qualitative interviews at 4 and 12 months with a sample of 19 patients and 17 caregivers. OUTCOME MEASURES: Quantitative data: intervention fidelity and number, frequency and duration of intervention sessions received. Qualitative data: experiences and perspectives of intervention participants and caregivers. RESULTS: Intervention session attendance with facilitators was high. Fidelity scores were indicative of adequate quality of REACH-HF intervention delivery, although indicating scope for improvement in several areas. Intervention effectiveness was contingent on matching the intervention implementation to the concerns, beliefs and goals of participants. Behaviour change was sustained when shared meaning was established. Respondents' comorbidities, socio-economic circumstances and existing networks of support also affected changes in health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: By combining longitudinal mixed methods data, the essential ingredients of complex interventions can be better identified, interrogated and tested. This can maximise the clinical application of research findings and enhance the capacity of multidisciplinary and multisite teams to implement the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN25032672; Pre-results.

Background: Previous systematic reviews have indicated that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for patients with heart failure (HF) has a beneficial effect on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and exercise capacity. However, there is uncertainty regarding potential differential effects of ExCR across HF patient subgroups.\ud \ud Objectives: The authors sought to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to: 1) assess the impact of ExCR on HRQoL and exercise capacity in patients with HF; and 2) investigate differential effects of ExCR according to a range of patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischemic etiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity.\ud \ud Methods: A single dataset was produced, comprising randomized trials where ExCR (delivered for 3 weeks or more) was compared with a no exercise control group. Each trial provided IPD on HRQoL or exercise capacity (or both), with follow-up of 6 months or more. One- and 2-stage meta-analysis models were used to investigate the effect of ExCR overall and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics.\ud \ud Results: IPD was obtained from 13 trials for 3,990 patients, predominantly (97%) with reduced ejection fraction HF. Compared with the control group, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of ExCR for HRQoL and exercise capacity. At 12-month follow-up, improvements were seen in 6-min walk test (mean 21.0 m; 95% confidence interval: 1.57 to 40.4 m; p = 0.034) and Minnesota Living With HF score (mean improvement 5.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 10.9; p = 0.018). No consistent evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient subgroups.\ud \ud Conclusions: These results, based on an IPD meta-analysis of randomized trials, confirm the benefit of ExCR on HRQoL and exercise capacity and support the Class I recommendation of current international clinical guidelines that ExCR should be offered to all HF patients. (Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure [ExTraMATCH II]: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis; PROSPERO: international database of systematic reviews CRD42014007170)

Background The REACH-HF (Rehabilitation EnAblement in CHronic Heart Failure) trial found that the REACH-HF home-based intervention resulted in a clinically meaningful improvement in disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with reduced ejection fraction heart failure (HFrEF). The aim of this study was to assess the longterm cost-effectiveness of the addition of REACH-HF intervention or home-based CR to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with HFrEF. Design and methods A Markov model was developed using a patient lifetime horizon and integrating evidence from the REACH-HF trial, a systematic review/meta-analysis of randomised trials, estimates of mortality and hospital admission and UK costs at 2015/6 prices. Taking a UK National Health and Personal Social Services perspective we report the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, assessing uncertainty using probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses. Results In base case analysis, the REACH-HF intervention was associated with per patient mean QALY gain of 0.30 and an increased mean cost of £126 compared with usual care, resulting in a cost per QALY of £415. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated a 77% probability that REACH-HF is cost effective versus usual care at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Results were similar for home-based CR versus usual care. Sensitivity analyses indicate the findings to be robust to changes in model assumptions and parameters Conclusions Our analyses indicate that the addition of the REACH-HF intervention and home-based CR programmes are likely to be cost-effective treatment options versus usual care alone in patients with HFrEF.