Scabies outbreaks in residential and nursing care homes for elderly people are common, subject to diagnostic delay, and hard to control. We studied clinical features, epidemiology, and outcomes of outbreaks in the UK between 2014 and 2015. We did a prospective observational study in residential care homes for elderly people in southeast England that reported scabies outbreaks to Public Health England health protection teams. An outbreak was defined as two or more cases of scabies (in either residents or staff) at a single care home. All patients who provided informed consent were included; patients with dementia were included if a personal or nominated consultee (ie, a family member or nominated staff member) endorsed participation. Dermatology-trained physicians examined residents at initial clinical visits, which were followed by two mass treatments with topical scabicide as per local health protection team guidance. Follow-up clinical visits were held 6 weeks after initial visits. Scabies was diagnosed through pre-defined case definitions as definite, probable, or possible with dermatoscopy and microscopy as appropriate. 230 residents were examined in ten outbreaks between Jan 23, 2014, and April 13, 2015. Median age was 86·9 years (IQR 81·5-92·3), 174 (76%) were female, and 157 (68%) had dementia. 61 (27%) residents were diagnosed with definite, probable, or possible scabies, of whom three had crusted scabies. Physical signs differed substantially from classic presentations. 31 (51%) of the 61 people diagnosed with scabies were asymptomatic, and only 25 (41%) had burrows. Mites were visualised with dermatoscopy in seven (11%) patients, and further confirmed by microscopy in three (5%). 35 (57%) cases had signs of scabies only on areas of the body that would normally be covered. Dementia was the only risk factor for a scabies diagnosis that we identified (odds ratio 2·37 [95% CI 1·38-4·07]). At clinical follow-up, 50 people who were initially diagnosed with scabies were examined. No new cases of scabies were detected, but infestation persisted in ten people. Clinical presentation of scabies in elderly residents of care homes differs from classic descriptions familiar to clinicians. This difference probably contributes to delayed recognition and suboptimal management in this vulnerable group. Dermatoscopy and microscopy were of little value. Health-care workers should be aware of the different presentation of scabies in elderly people, and should do thorough examinations, particularly in people with dementia. Public Health England and British Skin Foundation.

Infectious diseases account for 15 million deaths per year worldwide, and disproportionately affect young people, elderly people, and the poorest sections of society. We aimed to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for infectious disease research. We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from funding institutions and created a comprehensive database of infectious disease research projects for the period 1997-2010. We categorised studies and funding by disease, cross-cutting theme, and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Regression analyses were reported with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to establish the relation between research investment, mortality, and disease burden as measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). We identified 6170 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK£2·6 billion. Studies with a clear global health component represented 35·6% of all funding (£927 million). By disease, HIV received £461 million (17·7%), malaria £346 million (13·3%), tuberculosis £149 million (5·7%), influenza £80 million (3·1%), and hepatitis C £60 million (2·3%). We compared funding with disease burden (DALYs and mortality) to show low levels of investment relative to burden for gastrointestinal infections (£254 million, 9·7%), some neglected tropical diseases (£184 million, 7·1%), and antimicrobial resistance (£96 million, 3·7%). Virology was the highest funded category (£1 billion, 38·4%). Leading funding sources were the Wellcome Trust (£688 million, 26·4%) and the Medical Research Council (£673 million, 25·8%). Research funding has to be aligned with prevailing and projected global infectious disease burden. Funding agencies and industry need to openly document their research investments to redress any inequities in resource allocation. None.

Background: Mass vaccination campaigns have significantly reduced the COVID-19 burden. However, vaccine hesitancy has posed significant global concerns. The purpose of this study was to determine the characteristics that influence perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, acceptability, hesitancy and decision making to take vaccine among general adult populations in a variety of socioeconomic and cultural contexts. Methods: Using a snowball sampling approach, we conducted an online cross-sectional study in 20 countries across four continents from February to May 2021. Results: A total of 10,477 participants were included in the analyses with a mean age of 36±14.3 years. The findings revealed the prevalence of perceptions towards COVID-19 vaccine’s effectiveness (78.8%), acceptance (81.8%), hesitancy (47.2%), and drivers of vaccination decision-making (convenience [73.3%], health providers’ advice [81.8%], and costs [57.0%]). The county-wise distribution included effectiveness (67.8–95.9%; 67.8% in Egypt to 95.9% in Malaysia), acceptance (64.7–96.0%; 64.7% in Australia to 96.0% in Malaysia), hesitancy (31.5–86.0%; 31.5% in Egypt to 86.0% in Vietnam), convenience (49.7–95.7%; 49.7% in Austria to 95.7% in Malaysia), advice (66.1–97.3%; 66.1% in Austria to 97.3% in Malaysia), and costs (16.0–91.3%; 16.0% in Vietnam to 91.3% in Malaysia). In multivariable regression analysis, several socio-demographic characteristics were identified as associated factors of outcome variables including, i) vaccine effectiveness: younger age, male, urban residence, higher education, and higher income; ii) acceptance: younger age, male, urban residence, higher education, married, and higher income; and iii) hesitancy: male, higher education, employed, unmarried, and lower income. Likewise, the factors associated with vaccination decision-making including i) convenience: younger age, urban residence, higher education, married, and lower income; ii) advice: younger age, urban residence, higher education, unemployed/student, married, and medium income; and iii) costs: younger age, higher education, unemployed/student, and lower income. Conclusions: Most participants believed that vaccination would effectively control and prevent COVID-19, and they would take vaccinations upon availability. Determinant factors found in this study are critical and should be considered as essential elements in developing COVID-19 vaccination campaigns to boost vaccination uptake in the populations.

Objectives There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum. Design Systematic comparison. Methods Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. Results 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). Conclusions There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.

Each year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000–17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding. The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data. The final 2000–17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562–770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden. HIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

The latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola-related deaths that have exceeded 11 000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on research funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented. We defined research investment as all funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$). Funding for Ebola and Marburg virus research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre-clinical research dominated research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7-fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5-fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics research. Research funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman's ρ = 0.5232, P = 0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research funding (ρ = 0.1706, P = 0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research output (ρ = 0.3020, P = 0.0616) were poorly correlated. Significant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.