Delayed healthcare seeking and prolonged illness in healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a single-centre observational study

Objectives: To describe a cohort of self-isolating healthcare workers (HCWs) with presumed COVID-19. / Design: A cross-sectional, single-centre study. / Setting: A large, teaching hospital based in Central London with tertiary infection services. / Participants: 236 HCWs completed a survey distributed by internal staff email bulletin. 167 were women and 65 men. / Measures: Information on symptomatology, exposures and health-seeking behaviour were collected from participants by self-report. / Results: The 236 respondents reported illness compatible with COVID-19 and there was an increase in illness reporting during March 2020 Diagnostic swabs were not routinely performed. Cough (n=179, 75.8%), fever (n=138, 58.5%), breathlessness (n=84, 35.6%) were reported. Anosmia was reported in 42.2%. Fever generally settled within 1 week (n=110/138, 88%). Several respondents remained at home and did not seek formal medical attention despite reporting severe breathlessness and measuring hypoxia (n=5/9, 55.6%). 2 patients required hospital admission but recovered following oxygen therapy. 84 respondents (41.2%) required greater than the obligated 7 days off work and 9 required greater than 3 weeks off. / Conclusion: There was a significant increase in staff reporting illness compatible with possible COVID-19 during March 2020. Subsequent serology studies at the same hospital study site have confirmed sero-positivity for COVID-19 up to 45% by the end of April 2020 in frontline HCWs. The study revealed a concerning lack of healthcare seeking in respondents with significant red flag symptoms (severe breathlessness, hypoxia). This study also highlighted anosmia as a key symptom of COVID-19 early in the pandemic, prior to this symptom being more widely recognised as a feature of COVID-19

Demographics and outcomes of initial phase of COVID-19 medicines delivery units across 4 UK centers during peak B1.1.529 Omicron epidemic: a service evaluation

Background COVID-19 medicines delivery units (CMDU) were established in late December 2021 to deliver early antiviral therapy to patients classified as at risk with the aim of preventing hospitalization. Methods We performed a service evaluation at 4 CMDUs in England. We assessed demographics and triage outcomes of CMDU referral, uptake of antiviral therapy, and the rate of subsequent hospitalizations within 2 weeks of CMDU referral. Results Over a 3-week period, 4788 patients were referred and 3989 were ultimately assessed by a CMDU. Overall, 832 of the patients referred (17%) were judged eligible for treatment and 628 (13%) were ultimately prescribed an antiviral agent. The overall rate of admission within 14 days was 1%. Patients who were admitted were significantly older than those who did not require hospitalization. Of patients prescribed molnupiravir and sotrovimab, 1.8% and 3.2%, respectively, were admitted. Conclusions There was a high volume of referrals to CMDU service during the initial surge of the Omicron wave in the United Kingdom. A minority of patients were judged to be eligible for therapy. In a highly vaccinated population, the overall hospitalization rate was low

Neutralising immunity to omicron sublineages BQ.1.1, XBB, and XBB.1.5 in healthy adults is boosted by bivalent BA.1-containing mRNA vaccination and previous Omicron infection

The global COVID-19 landscape is increasingly complex; emerging new variants rapidly cause waves of infection in people with variably induced immunity. Most individuals now have so-called hybrid immunity from both infection and vaccination. However, sequential infecting variants, induction of immunity, and subsequent waning are interlinked, and immune protection against new variants is unclear

Establishing a large prospective clinical cohort in people with head and neck cancer as a biomedical resource: head and neck 5000

BACKGROUND: Head and neck cancer is an important cause of ill health. Survival appears to be improving but the reasons for this are unclear. They could include evolving aetiology, modifications in care, improvements in treatment or changes in lifestyle behaviour. Observational studies are required to explore survival trends and identify outcome predictors. METHODS: We are identifying people with a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer. We obtain consent that includes agreement to collect longitudinal data, store samples and record linkage. Prior to treatment we give participants three questionnaires on health and lifestyle, quality of life and sexual history. We collect blood and saliva samples, complete a clinical data capture form and request a formalin fixed tissue sample. At four and twelve months we complete further data capture forms and send participants further quality of life questionnaires. DISCUSSION: This large clinical cohort of people with head and neck cancer brings together clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biological samples in a single co-ordinated resource for translational and prognostic research

Global wealth disparities drive adherence to COVID-safe pathways in head and neck cancer surgery

Peer reviewe

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients