BACKGROUND: Indoor and ambient air pollution exposure is a major risk to respiratory health worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Interventional trials have mainly focused on alternatives to cooking stoves, with mixed results. Beyond cooking, additional sources of particulate matter also contribute to the burden of air pollution exposure. This review explores evidence from current randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the clinical effectiveness of interventions to reduce particulate matter in LMICs.METHODS: Twelve databases and the grey literature (e.g., Government reports and policy papers) were searched. Eligible studies were RCTs conducted in LMICs aiming to reduce particulate exposure from any source and reporting on at least one clinical respiratory outcome (respiratory symptoms, lung function or clinical diagnoses). Data from relevant studies were systematically extracted, the risk of bias assessed and narrative synthesis provided.RESULTS: Of the 14 included studies, 12 tested ‘improved' cookstoves, most using biomass, but solar and bioethanol cookers were also included. One trial used solar lamps and another was an integrated intervention incorporating behavioural and environmental components for the treatment and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Of the six studies reporting child pneumonia outcomes, none demonstrated significant benefit in intention-to-treat analysis. Ten studies reported respiratory symptom outcomes with some improvements seen, but self-reporting made these outcomes highly vulnerable to bias. Substantial inter-study clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded calculation of pooled effect estimates.CONCLUSION: Evidence from the RCTs performed to date suggests that individual household-level interventions for air pollution exposure reduction have limited benefits for respiratory health. More comprehensive approaches to air pollution exposure reduction must be developed so their potential health benefits can be assessed.

We report results of surveillance between June and mid-September 2022 of pet animals living in households of confirmed human monkeypox (MPX) cases. Since surveillance commenced, 154 animals from 40 households with a confirmed human MPX case were reported to the United Kingdom Animal and Plant Health Agency. No animals with clinical signs of MPX were identified. While a risk of transmission exists to pets from owners with a confirmed MPX virus infection, we assess this risk to be low.

COVID-19 care home outbreaks represent a significant proportion of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in the UK. National testing initially focused on symptomatic care home residents, before extending to asymptomatic cohorts. The aim was to describe the epidemiology and transmission of COVID-19 in outbreak free care homes. A two-point prevalence survey of COVID-19, in 34 Liverpool care homes, was performed in April and May 2020. Changes in prevalence were analysed. Associations between care home characteristics, reported infection, prevention and control interventions, and COVID-19 status were described and analysed. No resident developed COVID-19 symptoms during the study. There was no significant difference between: the number of care homes containing at least one test positive resident between the first (17.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.8-34.5) and second round (14.7%, 95% CI 5.0-31.1) of testing (p>0.99); and the number of residents testing positive between the first (2.1%, 95% CI 1.2-3.4) and second round (1.0%, 95% CI 0.5-2.1) of testing (P=0.11). Care homes providing nursing care (risk ratio (RR) 7.99, 95% CI 1.1-57.3) and employing agency staff (RR 8.4, 95% CI 1.2-60.8) were more likely to contain test positive residents. Closing residents shared space was not associated with residents testing positive (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.4-18.5). Asymptomatic COVID-19 care homes showed no evidence of disease transmission or development of outbreaks; suggesting that current infection prevention and control measures are effective in preventing transmission. Repeat testing at two to three weeks had limited or no public health benefits over regular daily monitoring of staff and residents for symptoms. These results should inform policies calling for regular testing of asymptomatic residents.

Background: High levels of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Ghana require the exploration of new approaches to optimise antimicrobial prescribing. This study aims to establish the feasibility of implementation of different delayed/back-up prescribing models on antimicrobial prescribing for upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs). Methods: This study was part of a quality improvement project at LEKMA Hospital, Ghana, (Dec 2019–Feb 2020). Patients meeting inclusion criteria were assigned to one of four groups (Group 0: No prescription given; Group 1; Patient received post-dated antibiotic prescription; Group 2: Offer of a rapid reassessment of patient by a nurse practitioner after 3 days; and Group 3: Post-dated prescription forwarded to hospital pharmacy). Patients were contacted 10 days afterwards to ascertain wellbeing and actions taken, and patients were asked rate the service on a Likert scale. Post-study informal discussions were conducted with hospital staff. Results: In total, 142 patients met inclusion criteria. Groups 0, 1, 2 and 3 had 61, 16, 44 and 21 patients, respectively. Common diagnosis was sore throat (73%). Only one patient took antibiotics after 3 days. Nearly all (141/142) patients were successfully contacted on day 10, and of these, 102 (72%) rated their experiences as good or very good. Informal discussions with staff revealed improved knowledge of AMR. Conclusions: Delayed/back-up prescribing can reduce antibiotic consumption amongst outpatient department patients with suspected URTIs. Delayed/back-up prescribing can be implemented safely in low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Introduction: Experimental Human Pneumococcal Challenge (EHPC) involves the controlled exposure of adults to a specific antibiotic-sensitive Streptococcus pneumoniae serotype, to induce nasopharyngeal colonisation for the purpose of vaccine research. The aims are to review comprehensively the safety profile of EHPC, explore the association between pneumococcal colonisation and frequency of safety review and describe the medical intervention required to undertake such studies. Methods: A single-centre review of all EHPC studies performed 2011–2021. All recorded serious adverse events (SAE) in eligible studies are reported. An unblinded meta-analysis of collated anonymised individual patient data from eligible EHPC studies was undertaken to assess the association between experimental pneumococcal colonisation and the frequency of safety events following inoculation. Results: In 1416 individuals (median age 21, IQR 20–25), 1663 experimental pneumococcal inoculations were performed. No pneumococcal-related SAE have occurred. 214 safety review events were identified with 182 (12.85%) participants presenting with symptoms potentially in keeping with pneumococcal infection, predominantly in pneumococcal colonised individuals (colonised = 96/658, non-colonised = 86/1005, OR 1.81 (95% CI 1.28–2.56, P = <0.001). The majority were mild (pneumococcal group = 72.7% [120/165 reported symptoms], non-pneumococcal = 86.7% [124/143 reported symptoms]). 1.6% (23/1416) required antibiotics for safety. Discussion: No SAEs were identified directly relating to pneumococcal inoculation. Safety review for symptoms was infrequent but occurred more in experimentally colonised participants. Most symptoms were mild and resolved with conservative management. A small minority required antibiotics, notably those serotype 3 inoculated. Conclusion: Outpatient human pneumococcal challenge can be conducted safely with appropriate levels of safety monitoring procedures in place.

We reviewed environmental public health practice at a local level (roles, responsibilities, interaction with partner agencies) to establish what and how an integrated approach to the service, as found in Cheshire and Merseyside, North West England, should be delivered, if at all, and at what footprint. Mixed methods approach. We triangulated: qualitative interviews with relevant professionals to gain an in-depth understanding of their interest and vision for any health protection input to health risks and outcomes from environmental issues; an electronic questionnaire assessing experience, interest, vision and comfort zones of a wider range of professionals involved in environmental health issues; a half-day workshop to review study findings and agree ways forward. Stakeholders value their local health protection team's input, but environmental public-health knowledge and skills also exist in local authority teams. Regional health protection teams can provide environmental public-health expertise to local partners and agencies. They harness national input and evidence with local frontline professionals practice, enabling locally grounded approaches, integrating science into local contexts, to answer difficult, often incorrigible, problems. Specialist leadership by experienced Consultants in Health Protection is of value to local authority public health and environmental teams and should be based on a footprint that is appropriate to enhance local relationships without compromising available expert knowledge and skills.