SummaryBackgroundScabies 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.MethodsWe 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.Findings230 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.InterpretationClinical 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.FundingPublic Health England and British Skin Foundation.

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.

SummaryBackgroundTotal domestic and international funding for malaria is inadequate to achieve WHO global targets in burden reduction by 2030. We describe the trends of investments in malaria-related research in sub-Saharan Africa and compare investment with national disease burden to identify areas of funding strength and potentially neglected populations. We also considered funding for malaria control.MethodsResearch funding data related to malaria for 1997–2013 were sourced from existing datasets, from 13 major public and philanthropic global health funders, and from funding databases. Investments (reported in US$) were considered by geographical area and compared with data on parasite prevalence and populations at risk in sub-Saharan Africa. 45 sub-Saharan African countries were ranked by amount of research funding received.FindingsWe found 333 research awards totalling US$814·4 million. Public health research covered $308·1 million (37·8%) and clinical trials covered $275·2 million (33·8%). Tanzania ($107·8 million [13·2%]), Uganda ($97·9 million [12·0%]), and Kenya ($92·9 million [11·4%]) received the highest sum of research investment and the most research awards. Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda remained highly ranked after adjusting for national gross domestic product. Countries with a reasonably high malaria burden that received little research investment or funding for malaria control included Central African Republic (ranked 40th) and Sierra Leone (ranked 35th). Congo (Brazzaville) and Guinea had reasonably high malaria mortality, yet Congo (Brazzaville) ranked 38th and Guinea ranked 25th, thus receiving little investment.InterpretationSome countries receive reasonably large investments in malaria-related research (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda), whereas others receive little or no investments (Sierra Leone, Central African Republic). Research investments are typically highest in countries where funding for malaria control is also high. Investment strategies should consider more equitable research and operational investments across countries to include currently neglected and susceptible populations.FundingRoyal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

ObjectivesThere 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.DesignSystematic comparison.MethodsData 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.Results6052 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).ConclusionsThere 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.

Background Pregnant women are at high risk for severe influenza. However, maternal influenza vaccination uptake in most World Health Organization (WHO) European Region countries remains low, despite the presence of widespread national recommendations. An influenza vaccination reduces influenza-associated morbidity and mortality in pregnancy, as well as providing newborns with protection in their first months. Potential determinants of vaccine hesitancy need to be identified to develop strategies that can increase vaccine acceptance and uptake among pregnant women. The primary objective of the systematic review is to identify the individual determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe, and how to overcome the hesitancy. Methods Databases were searched for peer-reviewed qualitative and quantitative studies published between 2009 and 2019 inclusive. Databases included PubMed via MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, SAGE Journals, Taylor and Francis and Springer nature. These covered themes including psychology, medicine, and public health. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, 11 studies were eligible and analyzed for significant determinants of influenza vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women in Europe. Results The most commonly reported factors were psychological aspects, for example concerns about safety and risks to mother and child, or general low risk perception of becoming ill from influenza. Doubts about the effectiveness of the vaccine and a lack of knowledge about this topic were further factors. There was also influence of contextual factors, such as healthcare workers not providing adequate knowledge about the influenza vaccine or the pregnant lady stating their antivaccine sentiment. Conclusion Health promotion that specifically increases knowledge among pregnant women about influenza and vaccination is important, supporting a valid risk judgment by the pregnant lady. The development of new information strategies for dialogue between healthcare providers and pregnant women should form part of this strategy.

BackgroundInfectious diseases account for a significant global burden of disease and substantial investment in research and development. This paper presents a systematic assessment of research investments awarded to UK institutions and global health metrics assessing disease burden.MethodsWe systematically sourced research funding data awarded from public and philanthropic organisations between 1997 and 2013. We screened awards for relevance to infection and categorised data by type of science, disease area and specific pathogen. Investments were compared with mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLD) across three time points.FindingsBetween 1997–2013, there were 7398 awards with a total investment of £3.7 billion. An increase in research funding across 2011–2013 was observed for most disease areas, with notable exceptions being sexually transmitted infections and sepsis research where funding decreased. Most funding remains for pre-clinical research (£2.2 billion, 59.4%). Relative to global mortality, DALYs and YLDs, acute hepatitis C, leishmaniasis and African trypanosomiasis received comparatively high levels of funding. Pneumonia, shigellosis, pertussis, cholera and syphilis were poorly funded across all health metrics. Tuberculosis (TB) consistently attracts relatively less funding than HIV and malaria.InterpretationMost infections have received increases in research investment, alongside decreases in global burden of disease in 2013. The UK demonstrates research strengths in some neglected tropical diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis, but syphilis, cholera, shigellosis and pneumonia remain poorly funded relative to their global burden. Acute hepatitis C appears well funded but the figures do not adequately take into account projected future chronic burdens for this condition. These findings can help to inform global policymakers on resource allocation for research investment.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsWe 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$).ResultsFunding for Ebola and Marburg virus research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 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.ConclusionSignificant 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.