Postpandemic Sentinel Surveillance of Respiratory Diseases in the Context of the World Health Organization Mosaic Framework: Protocol for a Development and Evaluation Study Involving the English Primary Care Network 2023-2024

BACKGROUND

Prepandemic sentinel surveillance focused on improved management of winter pressures, with influenza-like illness (ILI) being the key clinical indicator. The World Health Organization (WHO) global standards for influenza surveillance include monitoring acute respiratory infection (ARI) and ILI. The WHO's mosaic framework recommends that the surveillance strategies of countries include the virological monitoring of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential such as influenza. The Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioner Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC) in collaboration with the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has provided sentinel surveillance since 1967, including virology since 1993.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to describe the RSC's plans for sentinel surveillance in the 2023-2024 season and evaluate these plans against the WHO mosaic framework.

METHODS

Our approach, which includes patient and public involvement, contributes to surveillance objectives across all 3 domains of the mosaic framework. We will generate an ARI phenotype to enable reporting of this indicator in addition to ILI. These data will support UKHSA's sentinel surveillance, including vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease studies. The panel of virology tests analyzed in UKHSA's reference laboratory will remain unchanged, with additional plans for point-of-care testing, pneumococcus testing, and asymptomatic screening. Our sampling framework for serological surveillance will provide greater representativeness and more samples from younger people. We will create a biomedical resource that enables linkage between clinical data held in the RSC and virology data, including sequencing data, held by the UKHSA. We describe the governance framework for the RSC.

RESULTS

We are co-designing our communication about data sharing and sampling, contextualized by the mosaic framework, with national and general practice patient and public involvement groups. We present our ARI digital phenotype and the key data RSC network members are requested to include in computerized medical records. We will share data with the UKHSA to report vaccine effectiveness for COVID-19 and influenza, assess the disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus, and perform syndromic surveillance. Virological surveillance will include COVID-19, influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, and other common respiratory viruses. We plan to pilot point-of-care testing for group A streptococcus, urine tests for pneumococcus, and asymptomatic testing. We will integrate test requests and results with the laboratory-computerized medical record system. A biomedical resource will enable research linking clinical data to virology data. The legal basis for the RSC's pseudonymized data extract is The Health Service (Control of Patient Information) Regulations 2002, and all nonsurveillance uses require research ethics approval.

CONCLUSIONS

The RSC extended its surveillance activities to meet more but not all of the mosaic framework's objectives. We have introduced an ARI indicator. We seek to expand our surveillance scope and could do more around transmissibility and the benefits and risks of nonvaccine therapies.

Association between COVID-19 Vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Household Contacts of Infected Individuals: A Prospective Household Study in England

BACKGROUND

We investigated whether COVID-19 vaccination reduced SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among adult household contacts of COVID-19 index cases during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron waves in England.

METHODS

Between February 2021 and February 2022, SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR nasal swabs were collected from COVID-19-confirmed index cases aged ≥20 years and their household contacts at enrolment and three and seven days thereafter. Generalized Estimating Equations models were fitted with SARS-CoV-2 positivity as the outcome and household contacts' vaccination status as the main exposure while adjusting for confounders.

RESULTS

SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 238/472 household contacts (50.4%) aged ≥20 years. The adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) of infection in vaccinated versus unvaccinated household contacts was 0.50 (0.35-0.72) and 0.69 (0.53-0.90) for receipt of two doses 8-90 and >90 days ago, respectively, and 0.34 (0.23-0.50) for vaccination with three doses 8-151 days ago. Primary vaccination protected household contacts against infection during the Alpha and Delta waves, but only three doses protected during the Omicron wave. Vaccination with three doses in the index case independently reduced contacts' infection risk: 0.45 (0.23-0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccination of household contacts reduces their risk of infection under conditions of household exposure though, for Omicron, only after a booster dose.

The impact of vaccination and SARS-CoV-2 variants on the virological response to SARS-CoV-2 infections during the Alpha, Delta, and Omicron waves in England

Vaccination status and the SARS-CoV-2 variant individuals are infected with are known to independently impact viral dynamics; however, little is known about the interaction of these two factors and how this impacts viral dynamics. Here we investigated how monovalent vaccination modified the time course and viral load of infections from different variants. Regression analyses were used to investigate the impact of vaccination on cycle threshold values and disease severity, and interval-censored survival analyses were used to investigate the impact of vaccination on duration of positivity. A range of covariates were adjusted for as potential confounders and investigated for their own effects in exploratory analyses. All analyses were done combining all variants and stratified by variant. For those infected with Alpha or Delta, vaccinated individuals were more likely to report mild disease than moderate/severe disease and had significantly shorter duration of positivity and lower viral loads compared to unvaccinated individuals. Vaccination had no impact on self-reported disease severity, viral load, or duration if positivity for those infected with Omicron. Overall, individuals who were immunosuppressed and clinically extremely vulnerable had longer duration of positivity and higher viral loads. This study adds to the evidence base on disease dynamics following COVID-19, demonstrating that vaccination mitigates severity of disease, the amount of detectable virus within infected individuals and reduces the time individuals are positive for. However, these effects have been significantly attenuated since the emergence of Omicron. Therefore, our findings strengthen the argument for using modified or multivalent vaccines that target emerging variants.

Association between occupational exposure to irritant agents and a distinct asthma endotype in adults

AIM

The biological mechanisms of work-related asthma induced by irritants remain unclear. We investigated the associations between occupational exposure to irritants and respiratory endotypes previously identified among never asthmatics (NA) and current asthmatics (CA) integrating clinical characteristics and biomarkers related to oxidative stress and inflammation.

METHODS

We used cross-sectional data from 999 adults (mean 45 years old, 46% men) from the case-control and familial Epidemiological study on the Genetics and Environments of Asthma (EGEA) study. Five respiratory endotypes have been identified using a cluster-based approach: NA1 (n=463) asymptomatic, NA2 (n=169) with respiratory symptoms, CA1 (n=50) with active treated adult-onset asthma, poor lung function, high blood neutrophil counts and high fluorescent oxidation products level, CA2 (n=203) with mild middle-age asthma, rhinitis and low immunoglobulin E level, and CA3 (n=114) with inactive/mild untreated allergic childhood-onset asthma. Occupational exposure to irritants during the current or last held job was assessed by the updated occupational asthma-specific job-exposure matrix (levels of exposure: no/medium/high). Associations between irritants and each respiratory endotype (NA1 asymptomatic as reference) were studied using logistic regressions adjusted for age, sex and smoking status.

RESULTS

Prevalence of high occupational exposure to irritants was 7% in NA1, 6% in NA2, 16% in CA1, 7% in CA2 and 10% in CA3. High exposure to irritants was associated with CA1 (adjusted OR aOR, (95% CI) 2.7 (1.0 to 7.3)). Exposure to irritants was not significantly associated with other endotypes (aOR range: 0.8 to 1.5).

CONCLUSION

Occupational exposure to irritants was associated with a distinct respiratory endotype suggesting oxidative stress and neutrophilic inflammation as potential associated biological mechanisms.

Occupational exposure to disinfectants and asthma incidence in U.S. nurses: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Exposure to disinfectants among healthcare workers has been associated with respiratory health effects, in particular, asthma. However, most studies are cross-sectional and the role of disinfectant exposures in asthma development requires longitudinal studies. We investigated the association between occupational exposure to disinfectants and incident asthma in a large cohort of U.S. female nurses.

METHODS

The Nurses' Health Study II is a prospective cohort of 116 429 female nurses enrolled in 1989. Analyses included 61 539 participants who were still in a nursing job and with no history of asthma in 2009 (baseline; mean age: 55 years). During 277 744 person-years of follow-up (2009-2015), 370 nurses reported incident physician-diagnosed asthma. Occupational exposure was evaluated by questionnaire and a Job-Task-Exposure Matrix (JTEM). We examined the association between disinfectant exposure and subsequent asthma development, adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, smoking status, and body mass index.

RESULTS

Weekly use of disinfectants to clean surfaces only (23% exposed) or to clean medical instruments (19% exposed) was not associated with incident asthma (adjusted hazard ratio [95% confidence interval] for surfaces, 1.12 [0.87-1.43]; for instruments, 1.13 [0.87-1.48]). No association was observed between high-level exposure to specific disinfectants/cleaning products evaluated by the JTEM (formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol quats, or enzymatic cleaners) and asthma incidence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a population of late career nurses, we observed no significant association between exposure to disinfectants and asthma incidence. A potential role of disinfectant exposures in asthma development warrants further study among healthcare workers at earlier career stage to limit the healthy worker effect.

Association of Occupational Exposure to Disinfectants With Incidence of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Among US Female Nurses

IMPORTANCE

Exposure to disinfectants in health care workers has been associated with respiratory health outcomes, including asthma. Despite the biological plausibility of an association between disinfectants (irritant chemicals) and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), available data are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between exposure to disinfectants and COPD incidence in a large cohort of US female nurses.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Nurses' Health Study II is a US prospective cohort study of 116 429 female registered nurses from 14 US states who were enrolled in 1989 and followed up through questionnaires every 2 years since. The present study included women who were still in a nursing job and had no history of COPD in 2009, and used data from the 2009 through 2015 questionnaires. Clean and complete data used for this analysis were available in July 2018, and analyses were conducted from September 2018 through August 2019.

EXPOSURES

Occupational exposure to disinfectants, evaluated by questionnaire and a job-task-exposure matrix (JTEM).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Incident physician-diagnosed COPD evaluated by questionnaire.

RESULTS

Among the 73 262 women included in the analyses, mean (SD) age at baseline was 54.7 (4.6) years and 70 311 (96.0%) were white, 1235 (1.7%) black, and 1716 (2.3%) other; and 1345 (1.8%) Hispanic, and 71 917 (98.2%) non-Hispanic. Based on 368 145 person-years of follow-up, 582 nurses reported incident physician-diagnosed COPD. Weekly use of disinfectants to clean surfaces only (16 786 [22.9%] of participants exposed) and to clean medical instruments (13 899 [19.0%] exposed) was associated with COPD incidence, with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.13-1.68) for cleaning surfaces only and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.07-1.61) for cleaning medical instruments after adjustment for age, smoking (pack-years), race, ethnicity, and body mass index. High-level exposure, evaluated by the JTEM, to several specific disinfectants (ie, glutaraldehyde, bleach, hydrogen peroxide, alcohol, and quaternary ammonium compounds) was significantly associated with COPD incidence, with adjusted hazard ratios ranging from 1.25 (95% CI, 1.04-1.51) to 1.36 (95% CI, 1.13-1.64). Associations were not modified by smoking or asthma status (P for interaction > .15).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These longitudinal results suggest that regular use of chemical disinfectants among nurses may be a risk factor for developing COPD. If future studies confirm these results, exposure-reduction strategies that are compatible with infection control in health care settings should be developed.

Development of a bar code-based exposure assessment method to evaluate occupational exposure to disinfectants and cleaning products: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Healthcare workers are highly exposed to various types of disinfectants and cleaning products. Assessment of exposure to these products remains a challenge. We aimed to investigate the feasibility of a method, based on a smartphone application and bar codes, to improve occupational exposure assessment among hospital/cleaning workers in epidemiological studies.

METHODS

A database of disinfectants and cleaning products used in French hospitals, including their names, bar codes and composition, was developed using several sources: ProdHyBase (a database of disinfectants managed by hospital hygiene experts), and specific regulatory agencies and industrial websites. A smartphone application has been created to scan bar codes of products and fill a short questionnaire. The application was tested in a French hospital. The ease of use and the ability to record information through this new approach were estimated.

RESULTS

The method was tested in a French hospital (7 units, 14 participants). Through the application, 126 records (one record referred to one product entered by one participant/unit) were registered, majority of which were liquids (55.5%) or sprays (23.8%); 20.6% were used to clean surfaces and 15.9% to clean toilets. Workers used mostly products with alcohol and quaternary ammonium compounds (>90% with weekly use), followed by hypochlorite bleach and hydrogen peroxide (28.6%). For most records, information was available on the name (93.7%) and bar code (77.0%). Information on product compounds was available for all products and recorded in the database.

CONCLUSION

This innovative and easy-to-use method could help to improve the assessment of occupational exposure to disinfectants/cleaning products in epidemiological studies.

Association of hand and arm disinfection with asthma control in US nurses

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association between occupational exposure to disinfectants/antiseptics used for hand hygiene and asthma control in nurses.

METHODS

In 2014, we invited female nurses with asthma drawn from the Nurses' Health Study II to complete two supplemental questionnaires on their occupation and asthma (cross-sectional study, response rate: 80%). Among 4055 nurses (mean age: 59 years) with physician-diagnosed asthma and asthma medication use in the past year, we examined asthma control, as defined by the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Nurses were asked about the daily frequency of hand hygiene tasks: 'wash/scrub hands with disinfectants/hand sanitizers' (hand hygiene) and 'wash/scrub arms with disinfecting products' (surrogate of surgical hand/arm antisepsis). Analyses were adjusted for age, race, ethnicity, smoking status and body mass index.

RESULTS

Nurses with partly controlled asthma (ACT: 20-24, 50%) and poorly controlled asthma (ACT ≤19, 18%) were compared with nurses with controlled asthma (ACT=25, 32%). In separate models, both hand and arm hygiene were associated with poorly controlled asthma. After mutual adjustment, only arm hygiene was associated with poorly controlled asthma: OR (95% CI) for <1 time/day, 1.38 (1.06 to 1.80); ≥1 time/day, 1.96 (1.52 to 2.51), versus never. We observed a consistent dose-response relationship between frequency of arm hygiene tasks (never to >10 times/day) and poor asthma control. Associations persisted after further adjustment for surfaces/instruments disinfection tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

Frequency of hand/arm hygiene tasks in nurses was associated with poor asthma control. The results suggest an adverse effect of products used for surgical hand/arm antisepsis. This potential new occupational risk factor for asthma warrants further study.

Occupational exposure to disinfectants and asthma control in US nurses

Disinfectant use has been associated with adverse respiratory effects among healthcare workers. However, the specific harmful agents have not been elucidated. We examined the association between occupational exposure to disinfectants and asthma control in the Nurses' Health Study II, a large cohort of female nurses.Nurses with asthma were invited in 2014 to complete two questionnaires on their current occupation and asthma (response rate 80%). Asthma control was defined by the Asthma Control Test (ACT). Exposure to major disinfectants was evaluated by a job-task-exposure matrix (JTEM).Analyses included 4102 nurses with asthma (mean age 58 years). Asthma control was poor (ACT score 16-19) in 12% of nurses and very poor (ACT score ≤15) in 6% of nurses. Use of disinfectants to clean medical instruments (19% exposed) was associated with poorly (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.05-1.79) and very poorly (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.38-2.56) controlled asthma (p_trend=0.004, after adjustment for potential confounders). Using JTEM estimates, exposure to formaldehyde, glutaraldehyde, hypochlorite bleach, hydrogen peroxide and enzymatic cleaners was associated with poor asthma control (all p_trend<0.05); exposure to quaternary ammonium compounds and alcohol was not.Use of several disinfectants was associated with poor asthma control. Our findings suggest targets for future efforts to prevent worsening of asthma control in healthcare workers.

Development of a job-task-exposure matrix to assess occupational exposure to disinfectants among US nurses

OBJECTIVES

Occupational exposure to disinfectants is associated with work-related asthma, especially in healthcare workers. However, little is known about the specific products involved. To evaluate disinfectant exposures, we designed job-exposure (JEM) and job-task-exposure (JTEM) matrices, which are thought to be less prone to differential misclassification bias than self-reported exposure. We then compared the three assessment methods: self-reported exposure, JEM and JTEM.

METHODS

Disinfectant use was assessed by an occupational questionnaire in 9073 US female registered nurses without asthma, aged 49-68 years, drawn from the Nurses' Health Study II. A JEM was created based on self-reported frequency of use (1-3, 4-7 days/week) of 7 disinfectants and sprays in 8 nursing jobs. We then created a JTEM combining jobs and disinfection tasks to further reduce misclassification. Exposure was evaluated in 3 classes (low, medium, high) using product-specific cut-offs (eg, <30%, 30-49.9%, ≥50%, respectively, for alcohol); the cut-offs were defined from the distribution of self-reported exposure per job/task.

RESULTS

The most frequently reported disinfectants were alcohol (weekly use: 39%), bleach (22%) and sprays (20%). More nurses were classified as highly exposed by JTEM (alcohol 41%, sprays 41%, bleach 34%) than by JEM (21%, 30%, 26%, respectively). Agreement between JEM and JTEM was fair-to-moderate (κ 0.3-0.5) for most disinfectants. JEM and JTEM exposure estimates were heterogeneous in most nursing jobs, except in emergency room and education/administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The JTEM may provide more accurate estimates than the JEM, especially for nursing jobs with heterogeneous tasks. Use of the JTEM is likely to reduce exposure misclassification.