Search

We aimed to benchmark the quality of care and describe characteristics of patients newly attending the HIV clinic at differing time points over the past 10 years, against the Infectious Disease Society of America HIV/AIDS performance measures. We performed a retrospective analysis of records for patients newly attending the HIV clinic in 2011, 2016 and 2018. There was an increase in male attendees in 2018 and 2016 compared to 2011 (88%, 88% vs. 59% p < .001), viral suppression rates were 97%, 83% and 99% ( p < .001), respectively. We observed an increase in patients of South American origin over time. Acquisition risk changed, with increased proportion of MSM (24% in 2011 vs 78% in 2018, p < .001), lower rates of heterosexual (20% in 2018 vs 48% in 2011, p < .001) and IDU transmission (1.5% in 2018 vs 24% in 2011, p < .001). There were lower rates of Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae testing in 2018 (72%, p < .001), compared to 2016 (84%) and 2011 (83%). Hepatitis B virus vaccination and pneumococcal vaccine rates are declining ( p < .001). We demonstrate the changes in both ethnicity and risk of acquisition over time, high rates of antiretroviral therapy prescription and viral suppression, and highlight the importance of health prevention with sexual health screening and vaccination in this population.

Introduction Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays have an important role in guiding the pandemic response. This research aimed to compare the performance of 2 antinucleocapsid assays. Methods Serum from 49 HCWs was analysed at baseline and 6 months using the Abbott diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay and the Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay. Results At baseline, 14/49 participants (29%) demonstrated antibody reactivity using the Abbott assay. At 6 months, 4/14 participants (29%) continued to demonstrate reactivity. A total of 14/49 (29%) participants had detectable antibodies at baseline using the Roche assay. In total, 13/14 (93%) of participants demonstrated antibody reactivity at 6 months. The Abbott assay showed a statistically significant difference in the signal-to-threshold values of baseline reactive samples when repeated at 6 months (p = 0.001). This was not seen with the Roche assay (p = 0.51). Conclusion In this small study, the Roche Diagnostics Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay appears superior in performance to the Abbott diagnostics SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay in accurately detecting participants with a history of confirmed COVID-19 disease at 6 months follow-up. This finding should be born in mind in the planning of future seroprevalence studies, especially when considering the use of anti-nucleocapsid assays.

BackgroundIn October 2020 SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital healthcare workers (HCW) of two Irish hospitals was 15 and 4. 1%, respectively. We compare seroprevalence in the same HCW population 6 months later, assess changes in risk factors for seropositivity with progression of the pandemic and serological response to vaccination.MethodsAll staff of both hospitals (N = 9,038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in April 2021. We measured anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were calculated and adjusted relative risks for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis.ResultsFive thousand and eighty-five HCW participated. Seroprevalence increased to 21 and 13%, respectively; 26% of infections were previously undiagnosed. Black ethnicity (aRR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.2, p < 0.001), lower level of education (aRR 1.4 for secondary level education, 95% CI 1.1–1.8, p = 0.002), living with other HCW (aRR 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.4, p = 0.007) were significantly associated with seropositivity. Having direct patient contact also carried a significant risk being a healthcare assistant (aRR 1.8, 95% CI 1.3–2.3, p < 0.001), being a nurse (aRR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0–1.8, p = 0.022), daily contact with COVID-19 patients (aRR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.7, p = 0.002), daily contact with patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 (aRR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5, p = 0.013). Breakthrough infection occurred in 23/4,111(0.6%) of fully vaccinated participants; all had anti-S antibodies.ConclusionThe increase in seroprevalence reflects the magnitude of the third wave of the pandemic in Ireland. Genomic sequencing is needed to apportion risk to the workplace vs. the household/community. Concerted efforts are needed to mitigate risk factors due to ethnicity and lower level of education, even at this stage of the pandemic. The undiagnosed and breakthrough infections call for ongoing infection prevention and control measures and testing of HCW in the setting of close contact. Vaccinated HCW with confirmed infection should be actively assessed, including SARS-CoV-2 whole genome sequencing (WGS), serology testing and assessment of host determinants, to advance understanding of the reasons for breakthrough infection.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies are an excellent indicator of past COVID-19 infection. As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies. We compared 5,788 health care worker (HCW) serum samples by using two serological assays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid immunoglobulin G (IgG) and Roche anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid total antibody) and a subset of samples (all Abbott assay positive or grayzone, n = 485) on Wantai SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike antibody enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). For 367 samples from HCW with a previous PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, we correlated the timing of infection with assay results. Overall, seroprevalence was 4.2% on Abbott and 9.5% on Roche. Of those with previously confirmed infection, 41% (150/367) and 95% (348/367) tested positive on Abbott and Roche, respectively. At 21 weeks (150 days) after confirmed infection, positivity on Abbott started to decline. Roche positivity was retained for the entire study period (33 weeks). Factors associated (P ≤ 0.050) with Abbott seronegativity in those with previous PCR-confirmed infection included sex (odds ratio [OR], 0.30 male ; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.15 to 0.60), symptom severity (OR 0.19 severe symptoms; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.61), ethnicity (OR, 0.28 Asian ethnicity; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.60), and time since PCR diagnosis (OR, 2.06 for infection 6 months previously; 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.30). Wantai detected all previously confirmed infections. In our population, Roche detected antibodies up to at least 7 months after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2. This finding indicates that the Roche total antibody assay is better suited than Abbott IgG assay to population-based studies. Wantai demonstrated high sensitivity, but sample selection was biased. The relationship between serological response and functional immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be delineated. IMPORTANCE As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies. There is a relative paucity of published literature in this field to help guide public health specialists when planning seroprevalence studies. In this study, we compared results of 5,788 health care worker blood samples tested by using two assays (Roche and Elecsys, anti-nucleocapsid antibody) and by testing a subset on a third assay (Wantai enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA] anti-spike antibody). We found significant differences in the performance of these assays, especially with distance in time from PCR-confirmed COVID-19 infection, and we feel these results may significantly impact the choice of assay for others conducting similar studies.

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are an excellent indicator of past COVID-19 infection. As the COVID-19 pandemic progresses, retained sensitivity over time is an important quality in an antibody assay that is to be used for the purpose of population seroprevalence studies.We compared 5788 healthcare worker (HCW) serum samples on two serological assays (Abbott SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid IgG and Roche Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid Total Antibody) and a subset of samples (all Abbott assay positive or grayzone, n=485) on Wantai SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike Antibody ELISA. For 367 samples from HCW with previous PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection we correlated the timing of infection with assay results.Overall seroprevalence was 4.2% on Abbott, 9.5% on Roche. Of those with previously confirmed infection, 41% (150/367) and 95% (348/367) tested positive on Abbott and Roche respectively. At 21 weeks (150 days) after confirmed infection, positivity on Abbott started to decline. Roche positivity was retained for the entire study period (33 weeks). Factors associated (P≤ 0.050) with Abbott seronegativity in those with previous PCR-confirmed infection included sex (male OR0.30;95%CI0.15-0.60), symptom severity (OR0.19 severe symptoms;95%CI0.05-0.61), ethnicity (OR0.28 Asian ethnicity;95%CI0.12-0.60) and time since PCR diagnosis (OR2.06 for infection 6 months previously;95%CI1.01-4.30. Wantai detected all previously confirmed infections.In our population, Roche detected antibodies up to at least seven months after natural infection with SARS-CoV-2. This may indicate that Roche is better suited than Abbott to population-based studies. Wantai demonstrated high sensitivity but sample selection was biased. The relationship between serological response and functional immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection needs to be delineated.

Hospital healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of contracting COVID-19 infection. We aimed to determine the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies in HCWs in Ireland. Two tertiary referral hospitals in Irish cities with diverging community incidence and seroprevalence were identified; COVID-19 had been diagnosed in 10.2% and 1.8% of staff respectively by the time of the study (October 2020). All staff of both hospitals (N = 9038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and blood sampling for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibody were calculated and adjusted relative risks (aRR) for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis. In total, 5788 HCWs participated (64% response rate). Seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was 15% and 4.1% in hospitals 1 and 2, respectively. Thirty-nine percent of infections were previously undiagnosed. Risk for seropositivity was higher for healthcare assistants (aRR 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–3.0), nurses (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.1–2.2), daily exposure to patients with COVID-19 (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI 1.2–2.1), age 18–29 years (aRR: 1.4, 95% CI 1.1–1.9), living with other HCWs (aRR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.1–1.5), Asian background (aRR: 1.3, 95% CI 1.0–1.6) and male sex (aRR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0–1.4). The HCW seroprevalence was six times higher than community seroprevalence. Risk was higher for those with close patient contact. The proportion of undiagnosed infections call for robust infection control guidance, easy access to testing and consideration of screening in asymptomatic HCWs. With emerging evidence of reduction in transmission from vaccinated individuals, the authors strongly endorse rapid vaccination of all HCWs.

Background In October 2020 SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among hospital healthcare workers (HCW) of two Irish hospitals was 15% and 4.1% respectively. We compare seroprevalence in the same HCW population six months later, assess changes in risk factors for seropositivity with progression of the pandemic and serological response to vaccination. Methods All staff of both hospitals (N=9038) were invited to participate in an online questionnaire and SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in April 2021. We measured anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies. Frequencies and percentages for positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were calculated and adjusted relative risks for participant characteristics were calculated using multivariable regression analysis. Results 5085 HCW participated. Seroprevalence increased to 21% and 13% respectively; 26% of infections were previously undiagnosed. Black ethnicity (aRR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.2, p

ObjectiveRecent treatment developments for HIV, hepatitis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) have greatly improved prognoses. Current screening practices are mainly risk based and are suboptimal. Improved efforts are critically needed to identify persons with these viruses. The aims of this study were to assess the feasibility of an opt-out bloodborne virus (BBV) screening programme in an acute medical unit (AMU) and to describe the prevalence of HIV, HBV and HCV in this population.Design and settingThis was a cross-sectional observational study in the AMU of a tertiary referral hospital in Galway, a city in the west of Ireland.Participants1936 patients entered the study; 54% were male, mean age was 53.1 years (SD 19.6). During the study period, all patients attending the AMU aged ≧16 years who were having bloods drawn and who had the ability to verbally consent for an additional blood sample met the inclusion criteria for the study.ResultsOver 44 weeks, 1936/4793 (40.4%) patients consented to BBV panel testing. Diagnosed prevalence rates for HIV, HBV and HCV were 0.5/1000, 2/1000 and 1.5/1000, respectively. There was one HIV-positive result; the patient was already engaged in care. Four patients tested positive for HBV surface antigen; one new diagnosis, one previously lost to follow-up and two already engaged in care. Three patients had active HCV infection; two had been lost to follow-up and are now linked back into services.ConclusionBBV testing uptake of 40.4% is higher than previous studies in AMU settings that used opt-in strategies, but lower than expected, possibly due to not incorporating testing into routine practice. The diagnosed prevalence of HBV is notable as little data currently exist about its prevalence in Ireland. These data are valuable in order to inform further prevention strategies for these infections in low-prevalence settings.

Background There were 266 new attendees to the HIV clinic of St. James’ Hospital in 2016. HIV care is expensive. The modelled lifetime cost of treating one HIV-positive patient in the UK is estimated at £360,800, with ARVs accounting for 68% of the cost. This audit aims to assess potential savings in ARV spend if a cost-based prescribing approach was adopted for suitable treatment-naïve patients of the clinic. Methods A retrospective analysis of newly attending HIV-positive patients attending the HIV Clinic in 2016 was undertaken. Treatment-naïve patients were identified. 2016 ARV drug acquisition costs were obtained from the St. James’ Hospital Finance department. The cost of first-line ARV regimens were calculated. Patients were evaluated for their suitability for the lowest-cost, first-line ARV regimen by analysing baseline viral loads, CD4 counts, resistance patterns, renal function, bone health and HLA B5701 status. The price difference between their prescribed regimens and the most cost-effective first-line regimen was calculated. Results From January to December 2016, there were 266 new attendances. One hundered fifty-four of these patients (58%) were treatment naïve. The treatment regimens were ascertained for 145/154 (94%). A cost difference of approx. €390 per month existed between the most expensive and least expensive first-line ARV regimens. The monthly cost of ARV regimens prescribed came to €152,949.09, equating to an annual spend of €1,835,389.08. The predicted monthly ARV cost of the cost-based prescribing approach has been calculated at €139,186.27 with an annual cost of €1,670,235.24. This would lead to an annual saving of €165.153.84, equating to 9% of the 2016 ARV spend for this population. Conclusion This audit outlines the potential cost-effectiveness of a cost-based prescribing approach for suitable treatment-naïve patients that also adheres to best clinical practice guidelines. It demonstrates that significant cost savings (9%) can be made by simple analysis of ARV costs. These data can be used to support future options in ARV procurement and tender-processing for the department and nationally. It can also serve as a template in the construction of a pathway for the safe and cost-effective switching of ARV regimens of patients already on established regimens when generic ARV medications become available in Ireland. Disclosures All authors: No reported disclosures.