HOSTED-England's Household Transmission Evaluation Dataset: preliminary findings from a novel passive surveillance system of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is an important component of the community spread of the pandemic. Little is known about the factors associated with household transmission, at the level of the case, contact or household, or how these have varied over the course of the pandemic.

METHODS

The Household Transmission Evaluation Dataset (HOSTED) is a passive surveillance system linking laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases to individuals living in the same household in England. We explored the risk of household transmission according to: age of case and contact, sex, region, deprivation, month and household composition between April and September 2020, building a multivariate model.

RESULTS

In the period studied, on average, 5.5% of household contacts in England were diagnosed as cases. Household transmission was most common between adult cases and contacts of a similar age. There was some evidence of lower transmission rates to under-16s [adjusted odds ratios (aOR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66-0.74). There were clear regional differences, with higher rates of household transmission in the north of England and the Midlands. Less deprived areas had a lower risk of household transmission. After controlling for region, there was no effect of deprivation, but houses of multiple occupancy had lower rates of household transmission [aOR 0.74 (0.66-0.83)].

CONCLUSIONS

Children are less likely to acquire SARS-CoV-2 via household transmission, and consequently there was no difference in the risk of transmission in households with children. Households in which cases could isolate effectively, such as houses of multiple occupancy, had lower rates of household transmission. Policies to support the effective isolation of cases from their household contacts could lower the level of household transmission.

2012 European guideline for the management of anogenital warts

BACKGROUND

Although new HPV vaccines have been developed and are in the process of implementation, anogenital warts remain a very frequent problem in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

We wished to update previously published European guidelines for the management of anogenital warts.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials for anogenital warts. The primary data were analyzed and collated, and the findings were formulated within the structure of a clinical guideline. The IUSTI Europe Editorial Board reviewed the draft guideline which was also posted on the web for comments which we incorporated into the final version of the guideline.

RESULTS

The data confirm that only surgical therapies have primary clearance rates approaching 100%. Recurrences, including new lesions at previously treated or new sites, occur after all therapies, and rates are often 20-30% or more. All therapies are associated with local skin reactions including itching, burning, erosions and pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians treating patients with genital warts should develop their own treatment algorithms which include local practice and recommendations. Such patient level management protocols should incorporate medical review of cases at least every 4 weeks, with switching of treatments if an inadequate response is observed. First episode patients should be offered sexually transmitted disease screening. Management should include partner notification and health promotion.

The impact of genital warts: loss of quality of life and cost of treatment in eight sexual health clinics in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the loss of quality of life and cost of treatment associated with genital warts seen in sexual health clinics.

METHODS

A cross-sectional questionnaire study and case note review of individuals with genital warts, carried out in eight sexual health clinics in England and Northern Ireland. Individuals with genital warts attending the participating clinics were invited to take part in the questionnaire study. 895 participants were recruited. A separate sample of 370 participants who had attended a participating clinic with a first visit for a first or recurrent episode of genital warts between April and June 2007 was included in the case note review. Quality of life was measured using the EQ-5D questionnaire and the cost of an episode of care was derived from the case note review.

RESULTS

The weighted mean EQ-5D index score was 0.87 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.89). The weighted mean disutility was 0.056 (95% CI 0.038 to 0.074). The estimated mean loss of quality-adjusted life-years associated with an episode of genital warts was 0.018 (95% CI 0.0079 to 0.031), equivalent to 6.6 days of healthy life lost per episode. The weighted mean cost per episode of care was £94 (95% CI £84 to £104), not including the cost of a sexually transmitted infection screen.

CONCLUSIONS

Genital warts have a substantial impact on the health service and the individual. This information can be utilised for economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination.