On the 24 th November 2021 the sequence of a new SARS CoV-2 viral isolate Omicron-B.1.1.529 was announced, containing far more mutations in Spike (S) than previously reported variants. Neutralization titres of Omicron by sera from vaccinees and convalescent subjects infected with early pandemic as well as Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta are substantially reduced or fail to neutralize. Titres against Omicron are boosted by third vaccine doses and are high in cases both vaccinated and infected by Delta. Mutations in Omicron knock out or substantially reduce neutralization by most of a large panel of potent monoclonal antibodies and antibodies under commercial development. Omicron S has structural changes from earlier viruses, combining mutations conferring tight binding to ACE2 to unleash evolution driven by immune escape, leading to a large number of mutations in the ACE2 binding site which rebalance receptor affinity to that of early pandemic viruses.

There is a clear requirement for an accurate SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, both as a complement to existing diagnostic capabilities and for determining community seroprevalence. We therefore evaluated the performance of a variety of antibody testing technologies and their potential use as diagnostic tools. Highly specific in-house ELISAs were developed for the detection of anti-spike (S),-receptor binding domain (RBD) and-nucleocapsid (N) antibodies and used for the cross-comparison of ten commercial serological assays-a chemiluminescence-based platform, two ELISAs and seven colloidal gold lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs)-on an identical panel of 110 SARS-CoV-2-positive samples and 50 pre-pandemic negatives. There was a wide variation in the performance of the different platforms, with specificity ranging from 82% to 100%, and overall sensitivity from 60.9% to 87.3%. However, the head-to-head comparison of multiple sero-diagnostic assays on identical sample sets revealed that performance is highly dependent on the time of sampling, with sensitivities of over 95% seen in several tests when assessing samples from more than 20 days post onset of symptoms. Furthermore, these analyses identified clear outlying samples that

Therapies that halt progression of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) and achieve a cure for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) have encouraged development of innovative strategies to diagnose and link patients to care. We describe the prevalence and risk factors for HBV and HCV infections and use of an opt-out hepatitis testing and integrated linkage to care pathway in a London Emergency Department (ED). ED patients aged ≥16 years having routine blood tests from 15 February-28 March 2016 were tested for hepatitis, unless opted out. Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis C antibody tests (HCV-Ab, including a confirmatory hepatitis C antigen test (HCV-Ag)) were pre-selected on electronic blood test requests. Linkage to care (attending one clinic appointment) was offered to HBsAg and HCV-Ag patients (new or known-disengaged with care diagnoses). Weighted prevalence estimates and risk factors for seropositivity adjusted by demographics and survey weights were calculated using logistic regression. Hepatitis testing uptake was 56% (3,290/5,865). Overall, 26 HBsAg (10 new diagnoses) and 63 HCV-Ab patients were identified of which 32 were HCV-Ag positive (10 new diagnoses). Weighted seroprevalence of HBsAg was 0.50% (95% CI 0.3–0.8%); HCV-Ab 2.0% (95% CI 1.5–2.7%) and HCV-Ag 1.2% (95% CI 0.8–1.7%). Risk factors for infection were being male (HBsAg: aOR 4.1, 95% CI 1.5–11.3), of non-White British ethnicity (HBsAg: aOR>11) or being homeless (HCV-Ag: aOR 18.9, 95% CI 6.9–51.4). We achieved a high linkage to care uptake for HBsAg (93%) and HCV-Ag (78%) among patients who were contacted and required linkage. A pre-selected hepatitis testing ordering system facilitated a high testing uptake. New and disengaged with care diagnoses and a high HCV prevalence were identified demonstrating the potential to identify and link patients to care in this setting. Strategies connecting clinical care with community outreach services are key for improving patient linkage to care.

Background A cost effective and efficient diagnostic tool for COVID-19 as near to the point of care (PoC) as possible would be a game changer in the current pandemic. We tested reverse transcription loop mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP), a method which can produce results in under 30 min, alongside standard methods in a real-life clinical setting. Methods This prospective service improvement project piloted an RT-LAMP method on nasal and pharyngeal swabs on 21 residents of a high dependency care home, with two index COVID-19 cases, and compared it to multiplex tandem reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). We recorded vital signs of patients to correlate clinical and laboratory information and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of a single swab using RT-LAMP compared with the current standard, RT-PCR, as per Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) guidelines. Results The novel method accurately detected 8/10 RT-PCR positive cases and identified a further 3 positive cases. Eight further cases were negative using both methods. Using repeated RT-PCR as a “gold standard”, the sensitivity and specificity of a single novel test were 80 and 73% respectively. PPV was 73% and NPV was 83%. Incorporating retesting of low signal RT-LAMP positives improved the specificity to 100%. We also speculate that hypothermia may be a significant early clinical sign of COVID-19. Conclusions RT-LAMP testing for SARS-CoV-2 was found to be promising, fast and to work equivalently to RT-PCR methods. RT-LAMP has the potential to transform COVID-19 detection, bringing rapid and accurate testing to the PoC. RT-LAMP could be deployed in mobile community testing units, care homes and hospitals to detect disease early and prevent spread.

The prevalence of hepatitis is high in emergency department (ED) attendees in the United Kingdom, with a prevalence of up to 2% for hepatitis B (HBV) HBsAg, and 2.9% for hepatitis C (HCV) RNA. The aim of this paper is to perform an economic evaluation of opt-out ED-based HCV and HBV testing.Methods: A Markov model was developed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of opt-out HCV and HBV testing in EDs in the UK. The model used data from UK studies of ED testing to parameterize the HCV and HBV prevalence (1.4% HCV RNA, 0.84% HBsAg), test costs, and intervention effects (contact rates and linkage to care). For HCV, we used an antibody test cost of £3.64 and RNA test cost of £68.38, and assumed direct-acting antiviral treatment costs of £10 000. For HBV, we used a combined HBsAg and confirmatory test cost of £5.79. We also modeled the minimum prevalence of HCV (RNA-positive) and HBV (HBsAg) required to make ED testing cost-effective at a £20 000 willingness to pay per quality-adjusted life-year threshold.Results: In the base case, ED testing was highly cost-effective, with HCV and HBV testing costing £8019 and £9858 per qualityadjusted life-year gained, respectively. HCV and HBV ED testing remained cost-effective at 0.25% HCV RNA or HBsAg prevalence or higher.Conclusions: Emergency department testing for HCV and HBV is highly likely to be cost-effective in many areas across the UK depending on their prevalence. Ongoing studies will help evaluate ED testing across different regions to inform testing guidelines.