Structured summaryBackgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of infection with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). There are limited data exploring the relative impact of geographical and socioeconomic factors on risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.AimTo estimate and explore SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody seroprevalence in HCWs and support staff at a hospital in South West England.MethodsWe conducted a nested cross-sectional study from May-July 2020. Inverse probability weighted regression was used to estimate seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and associations with demographic and socioeconomic risk factors that were robust to selection into testing.FindingsAttendance for testing varied by demographic and socioeconomic factors. The overall rate of SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence among tested staff was 9.3% (638/6858). The highest seroprevalence was found in wards associated with SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks and among junior staff with patient-facing roles. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) staff had increased odds of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (adjusted OR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.69, 2.34; p<0.001) relative to White staff, except for those categorised as Medical/Dental. We found a significant association between neighbourhood deprivation and seroprevalence (p<0.01). Seroprevalence ranged from 12% in staff residing in areas with the greatest relative deprivation to 8.4% in the least deprived.ConclusionTransmission between staff groups is evident within the healthcare setting. BAME individuals were at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Work role, area of residence, and neighbourhood deprivation all contribute to SARS-CoV-2 infection risk. As hospitals introduce routine staff SARS-CoV-2 testing they should consider differential uptake of testing among staff groups.

Background: The world health organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy. Methods: A total of 202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment. Results: All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01). Conclusions: Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy. ISRCTN Registration: 37915093 (11/04/2016).

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified the need for a better understanding of which patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) can be cured with ultrashort course HCV therapy. Methods: A total of 202 individuals with chronic HCV were randomised to fixed-duration shortened therapy (8 weeks) vs variable-duration ultrashort strategies (VUS1/2). Participants not cured following first-line treatment were retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin. The primary outcome was sustained virological response 12 weeks (SVR12) after first-line treatment and retreatment. Participants were factorially randomised to receive ribavirin with first-line treatment. Results: All evaluable participants achieved SVR12 overall (197/197, 100% [95% CI 98-100]) demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed-duration and variable-duration strategies (difference 0% [95% CI -3.8%, +3.7%], 4% pre-specified non-inferiority margin). First-line SVR12 was 91% [86%-97%] (92/101) for fixed-duration vs 48% [39%-57%] (47/98) for variable-duration, but was significantly higher for VUS2 (72% [56%-87%] (23/32)) than VUS1 (36% [25%-48%] (24/66)). Overall, first-line SVR12 was 72% [65%-78%] (70/101) without ribavirin and 68% [61%-76%] (69/98) with ribavirin (p=0.48). At treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin (12% [2%-30%] (3/26)) than without (38% [21%-58%] (11/29), p=0.01). Conclusions: Unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy did not compromise retreatment with sofosbuvir/ledipasvir/ribavirin (100% SVR12). SVR12 rates were significantly increased when ultrashort treatment varied between 4-7 weeks rather than 4-6 weeks. Ribavirin significantly reduced resistance emergence in those failing first-line therapy. ISRCTN Registration: 37915093 (11/04/2016).

. Background
. High cure rates with licensed durations of therapy for chronic hepatitis C virus suggest that many patients are overtreated. New strategies in individuals who find it challenging to adhere to standard treatment courses could significantly contribute to the elimination agenda.
.
.
. Objectives
. To compare cure rates using variable ultrashort first-line treatment stratified by baseline viral load followed by retreatment, with a fixed 8-week first-line treatment with retreatment with or without adjunctive ribavirin.
.
.
. Design
. An open-label, multicentre, factorial randomised controlled trial.
.
.
. Randomisation
. Randomisation was computer generated, with patients allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio using a factorial design to each of biomarker-stratified variable ultrashort strategy or fixed duration and adjunctive ribavirin (or not), using a minimisation algorithm with a probabilistic element.
.
.
. Setting
. NHS.
.
.
. Participants
. A total of 202 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) infected with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1a/1b or 4 for ≥ 6 months, with a detectable plasma hepatitis C viral load and no significant fibrosis [FibroScan® (Echosens, Paris, France) score F0–F1 or biopsy-proven minimal fibrosis], a hepatitis C virus viral load < 10,000,000 IU/ml, no previous exposure to direct-acting antiviral therapy for this infection and not pregnant. Patients co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus were eligible if human immunodeficiency virus viral load had been < 50 copies/ml for > 24 weeks on anti-human immunodeficiency virus drugs.
.
.
. Interventions
. Fixed-duration 8-week first-line therapy compared with variable ultrashort first-line therapy, initially for 4–6 weeks (continuous scale) stratified by screening viral load (variable ultrashort strategy 1, mean 32 days of treatment) and then, subsequently, for 4–7 weeks (variable ultrashort strategy 2 mean 39 days of duration), predominantly with ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir (Viekirax®; AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA), and dasabuvir (Exviera®; AbbVie, Chicago, IL, USA) or ritonavir. All patients in whom first-line treatment was unsuccessful were immediately retreated with 12 weeks’ sofosbuvir, ledipasvir (Harvoni®, Gilead Sciences, Inc. Foster City, CA, USA) and ribavirin.
.
.
. Main outcome measure
. The primary outcome was overall sustained virological response (persistently undetectable) 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12).
.
.
. Results
. A total of 202 patients were analysed. All patients in whom the primary outcome was evaluable achieved SVR12 overall [100% (197/197), 95% confidence interval 86% to 100%], demonstrating non-inferiority between fixed- and variable-duration strategies (difference 0%, 95% confidence interval –3.8% to 3.7%, prespecified non-inferiority margin 4%). A SVR12 following first-line treatment was achieved in 91% (92/101; 95% confidence interval 86% to 97%) of participants randomised to the fixed-duration strategy and by 48% (47/98; 95% confidence interval 39% to 57%) allocated to the variable-duration strategy. However, the proportion achieving SVR12 was significantly higher among those allocated to variable ultrashort strategy 2 [72% (23/32), 95% confidence interval 56% to 87%] than among those allocated to variable ultrashort strategy 1 [36% (24/66), 95% confidence interval 25% to 48%]. Overall, a SVR12 following first-line treatment was achieved by 72% (70/101) (95% confidence interval 65% to 78%) of patients treated with ribavirin and by 68% (69/98) (95% confidence interval 61% to 76%) of those not treated with ribavirin. A SVR12 with variable ultrashort strategies 1 and 2 was 52% (25/48) (95% confidence interval 38% to 65%) with ribavirin, compared with 44% (22/50) (95% confidence interval 31% to 56) without. However, at treatment failure, the emergence of viral resistance was lower with ribavirin [12% (3/26), 95% confidence interval 2% to 30%] than without [38% (11/29), 95% confidence interval 21% to 58%; p = 0.01]. All 10 individuals who became undetectable at day 3 of treatment achieved first-line SVR12 regardless of treatment duration. Five participants in the variable-duration arm and five in the fixed-duration arm experienced serious adverse events (p = 0.69), as did five participants receiving ribavirin and five participants receiving no ribavirin.
.
.
. Conclusions
. SVR12 rates were significantly higher when ultrashort treatment varied between 4 and 7 weeks, rather than between 4 and 6 weeks. We found no evidence of ribavirin significantly affecting first-line SVR12, with unsuccessful first-line short-course therapy also not compromising subsequent retreatment with sofosbuvir, ledipasvir and ribavirin.
.
.
. Future work
. A priority for future work needs to be the development and evaluation of robust predictive measures to identify those patients who can be cured with ultrashort courses of therapy.
.
.
. Trial registration
. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37915093, EudraCT 2015-005004-28 and CTA 19174/0370/001-0001.
.
.
. Funding
. This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 8, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
.

ObjectiveThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Informatics Collaborative (HIC) is a programme of infrastructure development across NIHR Biomedical Research Centres. The aim of the NIHR HIC is to improve the quality and availability of routinely collected data for collaborative, cross-centre research. This is demonstrated through research collaborations in selected therapeutic areas, one of which is viral hepatitis.DesignThe collaboration in viral hepatitis identified a rich set of datapoints, including information on clinical assessment, antiviral treatment, laboratory test results and health outcomes. Clinical data from different centres were standardised and combined to produce a research-ready dataset; this was used to generate insights regarding disease prevalence and treatment response.ResultsA comprehensive database has been developed for potential viral hepatitis research interests, with a corresponding data dictionary for researchers across the centres. An initial cohort of 960 patients with chronic hepatitis B infections and 1404 patients with chronic hepatitis C infections has been collected.ConclusionFor the first time, large prospective cohorts are being formed within National Health Service (NHS) secondary care services that will allow research questions to be rapidly addressed using real-world data. Interactions with industry partners will help to shape future research and will inform patient-stratified clinical practice. An emphasis on NHS-wide systems interoperability, and the increased utilisation of structured data solutions for electronic patient records, is improving access to data for research, service improvement and the reduction of clinical data gaps.

Viral hepatitis is a major public health threat and a leading cause of death worldwide. Annual mortality from viral hepatitis is similar to that of other major infectious diseases such as HIV and tuberculosis. Highly effective prevention measures and treatments have made the global elimination of viral hepatitis a realistic goal, endorsed by all WHO member states. Ambitious targets call for a global reduction in hepatitis-related mortality of 65% and a 90% reduction in new infections by 2030. This Commission draws together a wide range of expertise to appraise the current global situation and to identify priorities globally, regionally, and nationally needed to accelerate progress. We identify 20 heavily burdened countries that account for over 75% of the global burden of viral hepatitis. Key recommendations include a greater focus on national progress towards elimination with support given, if necessary, through innovative financing measures to ensure elimination programmes are fully funded by 2020. In addition to further measures to improve access to vaccination and treatment, greater attention needs to be paid to access to affordable, high-quality diagnostics if testing is to reach the levels needed to achieve elimination goals. Simplified, decentralised models of care removing requirements for specialised prescribing will be required to reach those in need, together with sustained efforts to tackle stigma and discrimination. We identify key examples of the progress that has already been made in many countries throughout the world, demonstrating that sustained and coordinated efforts can be successful in achieving the WHO elimination goals.

Background: Prior to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, personalised medicine played an important role in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV). Whilst simplified treatment strategies are central to treatment scale-up, some patients will benefit from treatment optimisation. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores treatment optimisation strategies in the DAA era. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for studies that adopted a stratified or personalised strategy using a licensed combination DAA regimen, alone or with additional agents. We performed a thematic analysis to classify optimisation strategies and a meta-analysis of sustained virologic response rates (SVR), exploring heterogeneity with subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Results: We included 64 studies (9450 participants). Thematic analysis found evidence of three approaches: duration, combination, and/or dose optimisation. We separated strategies into those aiming to maintain SVR in the absence of predictors of failure, and those aiming to improve SVR in the presence of predictors of failure. Shortened duration regimens achieve pooled SVR rates of 94.2% (92.3-95.9%) for 8 weeks, 81.1% (75.1-86.6%) for 6 weeks, and 63.1% (39.9-83.7%) for ≤4 weeks. Personalised strategies (100% vs 87.6%; p<0.001) and therapy shortened according to ≥3 host/viral factors (92.9% vs 81.4% or 87.2% for 1 or 2 host/viral factors, respectively; p=0.008) offer higher SVR rates when shortening therapy. Hard-to-treat HCV genotype 3 patients suffer lower SVR rates despite treatment optimisation (92.6% vs 98.2%; p=0.001). Conclusions: Treatment optimisation for individuals with multiple predictors of treatment failure can offer high SVR rates. More evidence is needed to identify with confidence those individuals in whom SVR can be achieved with shortened duration treatment.

Background: Prior to direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy, personalised medicine played an important role in the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV). Whilst simplified treatment strategies are central to treatment scale-up, some patients will benefit from treatment optimisation. This systematic review and meta-analysis explores treatment optimisation strategies in the DAA era. Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for studies that adopted a stratified or personalised strategy using a licensed combination DAA regimen, alone or with additional agents. We performed a thematic analysis to classify optimisation strategies and a meta-analysis of sustained virologic response rates (SVR), exploring heterogeneity with subgroup analyses and meta-regression. Results: We included 64 studies (9450 participants). Thematic analysis found evidence of three approaches: duration, combination, and/or dose optimisation. We separated strategies into those aiming to maintain SVR in the absence of predictors of failure, and those aiming to improve SVR in the presence of predictors of failure. Shortened duration regimens achieve pooled SVR rates of 94.2% (92.3-95.9%) for 8 weeks, 81.1% (75.1-86.6%) for 6 weeks, and 63.1% (39.9-83.7%) for ≤4 weeks. Personalised strategies (100% vs 87.6%; p

A recent international workshop, organized by the authors, analyzed the obstacles facing the ambitious goal of eliminating viral hepatitis globally. We identified several policy areas critical to reaching elimination targets. These include providing hepatitis B birth-dose vaccination to all infants within 24 hours of birth, preventing the transmission of blood-borne viruses through the expansion of national hemovigilance schemes, implementing the lessons learned from the HIV epidemic regarding safe medical practices to eliminate iatrogenic infection, adopting point-of-care testing to improve coverage of diagnosis, and providing free or affordable hepatitis C treatment to all. We introduce Egypt as a case study for rapid testing and treatment scale-up: this country offers valuable insights to policy makers internationally, not only regarding how hepatitis C interventions can be expeditiously scaled-up, but also as a guide for how to tackle the problems encountered with such ambitious testing and treatment programs.

PurposeReducing inequity in accessing healthcare among rural and remote populations remains a problem. Internationally, eHealth is now touted as a potential solution, with a range of diverse approaches and impacts. Yet, the equity gains of implementing eHealth are often not realized due to a lack of effective strategies for citizen participation. The purpose of this paper is to present the background to, and results of, a multidisciplinary eHealth assistance project in a remote region of the Brazilian Amazon, highlighting the importance of citizen participation within planning processes.Design/methodology/approachThe project was conducted in three phases – pre‐mission, mission, and post‐mission. Discussions were held between health teams and local community leaders, and were coordinated by government health organizations in partnership with the Amazon State University. A multidisciplinary team visited five remote communities in the Brazilian Amazon, where participants underwent clinical assessment using eHealth technologies within pharmacy, cardiology, dermatology, and/or odontology. Analysis and second opinion were provided by relevant specialists and the results were delivered electronically to local healthcare teams.FindingsA total of 111 patients were evaluated with an average age of 54 years. There were several important findings following specialist second opinion, which improved the quality of care they received. These comprise identifying drug interactions and patients requiring further investigation for cardiological and dermatological complaints, including suspected malignancy.Research limitations/implicationsDue to a breakdown in communication, data from the post‐mission phase are lacking, particularly regarding treatment outcomes. Furthermore, the authors did not perform an analysis of cost‐effectiveness. If eHealth technologies are to become part of routine clinical practice it is important that the financial implications are acceptable.Originality/valueThis project demonstrates how equity can be designed for with a multidisciplinary approach to eHealth activities in rural and remote environments within Brazil. Such activities typically focus on one particular area, yet primary healthcare facilities see patients with a variety of problems.