An algorithm summarising how malaria cases were identified within THIN database.

THIN: The Health Improvement Network, ACT: Artemesinin-based combination therapy. To minimise the effect of miscoding a diagnosis of malaria for a pre-travel malaria advice consultation, those with a prescription for a travel vaccination issued on the same day as a malaria recording were excluded (S1 Table).</p

summarising the characteristics, strengths and limitations of using PHE data and primary care EHR (THIN) data.

summarising the characteristics, strengths and limitations of using PHE data and primary care EHR (THIN) data.</p

Imported malaria in the UK, 2005 to 2016: estimates from primary care electronic health records

Objective To investigate trends in the incidence of imported malaria in the UK between 2005 and 2016. Design Analysis of longitudinal electronic health records (EHRs) in The Health Improvement Network (THIN) primary care database. Setting UK primary care Participants In total, we examined 12,349,003 individuals aged 0 to 99 years. Outcome measure The rate of malaria recordings in THIN was calculated per year between 2005 and 2016. Rate ratios exploring differences by age, sex, location of general practice, socioeconomic status and ethnicity were estimated using multivariable Poisson regression. Results A total of 1,474 individuals with a first diagnosis of malaria were identified in THIN between 2005 and 2016. The incidence of recorded malaria followed a decreasing trend dropping from a rate of 3.33 in 2005 to 1.36 cases per 100,000 person years at risk in 2016. Multivariable Poisson regression showed that adults of working age (20 to 69 years), men, those registered with a general practice in London, higher social deprivation and non-white ethnicity were associated with higher rates of malaria recordings. Conclusion There has been a decrease in the number of malaria recordings in UK primary care over the past decade. This decrease exceeds the rate of decline reported in national surveillance data; however there are similar associations with age, sex and deprivation. Improved geographic information on the distribution of cases and the potential for automation of case identification suggests that EHRs could provide a complementary role for investigating malaria trends over time

Malaria incidence in THIN, 2005 to 2016.

THIN: The Health Improvement Network, PYAR: Person Years at Risk.</p

Comparison of the proportion of total malaria cases identified by PHE and THIN from 2005 to 2016.

(A) Per year, and (B) by UK region.</p

Number of cases identified in THIN from 2005 to 2016.

THIN: The Health Improvement Network, ACT: Artemesinin-based combination therapy.</p

Incidence of malaria recordings in THIN by calendar year, age, sex, region, Townsend score and ethnicity.

Incidence of malaria recordings in THIN by calendar year, age, sex, region, Townsend score and ethnicity.</p

Time delays in the diagnosis and treatment of malaria in non-endemic countries: a systematic review

Background Delays in diagnosis and treatment for malaria are associated with an increased risk for severe disease and mortality. Identifying the extent of patient and health system delay can provide a benchmark against which interventions to reduce delays can be measured. Methods We performed an electronic search in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and LILACS for studies reporting time to diagnosis and treatment after return from travel, onset of symptoms and seeking healthcare in non-endemic countries. Additionally, theses, conference proceedings and nationally reported surveillance data were also searched for information on time delays. There were no language restrictions and all the studies were assessed for methodological quality. Results Data from 69 papers out of 1719 identified records published between 2005 and 2017 were extracted; our findings show that median diagnosis delays of four or more days are common and patient delays accounted for a large proportion of diagnostic delay. There were limited data available on medical diagnostic delay. Conclusion Patient delays accounted for a large proportion of the overall diagnostic delay; however the retrospective nature of the studies could have overestimated patient delay since previous healthcare contacts were not included. Additionally, the high frequency of studies reporting a clinically significant delay is a major concern

Table_1_The Performance of Two Rapid Antigen Tests During Population-Level Screening for SARS-CoV-2 Infection.docx

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays offer a rapid mean to diagnose and isolate infected individuals. However, their utility in population-level screening is unknown.Objectives: The performance of two antigen tests in detecting SARS-CoV-2 was assessed among individuals randomly selected in the community.Study Design: A prospective study that performed head-to-head comparison of two SARS-CoV-2 antigen assays. Individuals were recruited during community SARS-CoV-2 screening over 10 working days. Demographic and clinical data were collected. Standard Q COVID-19 Ag test, a point-of-care chromatographic assay, was conducted immediately, and then the sample was transported to the virology laboratory to perform PCR and the LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag chemiluminesence immunoassay.Results: respiratory samples from 991 individuals were collected, and 62 were positive by PCR. Inconclusive PCR results were observed in 19 samples and were excluded. The median age of participants was 40.2 years (IQR 32.3–47.8), and 932 (94%) were males. Most (77.4%) of infections were asymptomatic. The sensitivity and the specificity of the LIAISON assay were 43.3% (95%CI 30.6–56.8) and 99.9% (95%CI 99.3–100). The Standard Q assay had lower sensitivity (30.6%, 95%CI 19.6–43.7) but similar specificity (98.8%, 95%CI, 97.8–99.4). Similarly, the LIAISON assay had higher positive predictive value (96.3%, 95%CI 81–99.9% vs. 63.3%, 95%CI, 43.9–80.1%). Both assays performed better in symptomatic patients and among samples with a low-cycle threshold (Ct Conclusion: In our setting of random community surveillance, rapid antigen testing of nasopharyngeal swabs by either LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 Ag (DiaSorin) or Standard Q COVID-19 Ag (SD Biosensor) was less sensitive to detecting SARS-CoV-2 than the TaqPath COVID-19 RT-PCR.</p

Facilitators and barriers to chlamydia testing in general practice for young people using a theoretical model (COM-B): a systematic review protocol

Introduction Chlamydia is a key health concern with high economic and social costs. There were over 200 000 chlamydia diagnoses made in England in 2015. The burden of chlamydia is greatest among young people where the highest prevalence rates are found. Annual testing for sexually active young people is recommended; however, many of those at risk do not receive testing. General practice has been identified as an ideal setting for testing, yet efforts to increase testing in this setting have not been effective. One theoretical model which may provide insight into the underpinnings of chlamydia testing is the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B model). The aim of this systematic review is to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing for young people in general practice and (2) use a theoretical model to conduct a behavioural analysis of chlamydia testing behaviour. Methods and analysis Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published after 2000 will be included. Seven databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Informit, PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science) will be searched to identify peer-reviewed publications which examined barriers and facilitators to chlamydia testing in general practice. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Data regarding study design and key findings will be extracted. The data will be analysed using thematic analysis and the resultant factors will be mapped onto the COM-B model components. All findings will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated via submission for publication to a peer-review journal when complete and for presentation at national and international conferences. The review findings will be used to inform the development of interventions to facilitate effective and efficient chlamydia testing in general practice