Background Increased understanding of whether individuals who have recovered from COVID-19 are protected from future SARS-CoV-2 infection is an urgent requirement. We aimed to investigate whether antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were associated with a decreased risk of symptomatic and asymptomatic reinfection. Methods A large, multicentre, prospective cohort study was done, with participants recruited from publicly funded hospitals in all regions of England. All health-care workers, support staff, and administrative staff working at hospitals who could remain engaged in follow-up for 12 months were eligible to join The SARS-CoV-2 Immunity and Reinfection Evaluation study. Participants were excluded if they had no PCR tests after enrolment, enrolled after Dec 31, 2020, or had insufficient PCR and antibody data for cohort assignment. Participants attended regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing (every 2–4 weeks) and completed questionnaires every 2 weeks on symptoms and exposures. At enrolment, participants were assigned to either the positive cohort (antibody positive, or previous positive PCR or antibody test) or negative cohort (antibody negative, no previous positive PCR or antibody test). The primary outcome was a reinfection in the positive cohort or a primary infection in the negative cohort, determined by PCR tests. Potential reinfections were clinically reviewed and classified according to case definitions (confirmed, probable, or possible) and symptom-status, depending on the hierarchy of evidence. Primary infections in the negative cohort were defined as a first positive PCR test and seroconversions were excluded when not associated with a positive PCR test. A proportional hazards frailty model using a Poisson distribution was used to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRR) to compare infection rates in the two cohorts. Findings From June 18, 2020, to Dec 31, 2020, 30 625 participants were enrolled into the study. 51 participants withdrew from the study, 4913 were excluded, and 25 661 participants (with linked data on antibody and PCR testing) were included in the analysis. Data were extracted from all sources on Feb 5, 2021, and include data up to and including Jan 11, 2021. 155 infections were detected in the baseline positive cohort of 8278 participants, collectively contributing 2 047 113 person-days of follow-up. This compares with 1704 new PCR positive infections in the negative cohort of 17 383 participants, contributing 2 971 436 person-days of follow-up. The incidence density was 7·6 reinfections per 100 000 person-days in the positive cohort, compared with 57·3 primary infections per 100 000 person-days in the negative cohort, between June, 2020, and January, 2021. The adjusted IRR was 0·159 for all reinfections (95% CI 0·13–0·19) compared with PCR-confirmed primary infections. The median interval between primary infection and reinfection was more than 200 days. Interpretation A previous histo...

Background BNT162b2 mRNA and ChAdOx1 nCOV-19 adenoviral vector vaccines have been rapidly rolled out in the UK from December, 2020. We aimed to determine the factors associated with vaccine coverage for both vaccines and documented the vaccine effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in a cohort of health-care workers undergoing regular asymptomatic testing. MethodsThe SIREN study is a prospective cohort study among staff (aged ≥18 years) working in publicly-funded hospitals in the UK. Participants were assigned into either the positive cohort (antibody positive or history of infection [indicated by previous positivity of antibody or PCR tests]) or the negative cohort (antibody negative with no previous positive test) at the beginning of the follow-up period. Baseline risk factors were collected at enrolment, symptom status was collected every 2 weeks, and vaccination status was collected through linkage to the National Immunisations Management System and questionnaires. Participants had fortnightly asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing and monthly antibody testing, and all tests (including symptomatic testing) outside SIREN were captured. Data cutoff for this analysis was Feb 5, 2021. The follow-up period was Dec 7, 2020, to Feb 5, 2021. The primary outcomes were vaccinated participants (binary ever vacinated variable; indicated by at least one vaccine dose recorded by at least one of the two vaccination data sources) for the vaccine coverage analysis and SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by a PCR test for the vaccine effectiveness analysis. We did a mixed-effect logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with vaccine coverage. We used a piecewise exponential hazard mixed-effects model (shared frailty-type model) using a Poisson distribution to calculate hazard ratios to compare time-to-infection in unvaccinated and vaccinated participants and estimate the impact of the BNT162b2 vaccine on all PCR-positive infections (asymptomatic and symptomatic). This study is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN11041050, and is ongoing.Findings 23 324 participants from 104 sites (all in England) met the inclusion criteria for this analysis and were enrolled. Included participants had a median age of 46•1 years (IQR 36•0-54•1) and 19 692 (84%) were female; 8203 (35%) were assigned to the positive cohort at the start of the analysis period, and 15 121 (65%) assigned to the negative cohort. Total follow-up time was 2 calendar months and 1 106 905 person-days (396 318 vaccinated and 710 587 unvaccinated). Vaccine coverage was 89% on Feb 5, 2021, 94% of whom had BNT162b2 vaccine. Significantly lower coverage was associated with previous infection, gender, age, ethnicity, job role, and Index of Multiple Deprivation score. During follow-up, there were 977 new infections in the unvaccinated cohort, an incidence density of 14 infections per 10 000 person-days; the vaccinated cohort had 71 new infections 21 days or more after their first dose (incidence density of eight infections per 10 000 person-days) and nine infecti...

None of the biomarkers evaluated in this review could be evaluated in a meaningful way and there was insufficient or poor-quality evidence. Laparoscopy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of endometriosis and using any non-invasive tests should only be undertaken in a research setting.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Fertility clinics commonly report their success rates online. These can be difficult to interpret as they are influenced by the way the data are presented. To improve transparency, the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee (RTAC) has published guidelines to support fertility clinics with their online reporting of success rates. However, it is unclear whether compliance with these guidelines will allow patients to make fair comparisons between clinics. Aims To illustrate the variability in patient and treatment populations that contribute to fertility clinic published rates. Materials and Methods Fertility clinics offering in vitro fertilisation treatment in Australia or New Zealand were assessed for compliance with six guidelines adapted from RTAC’s code of practice, for reporting success rates in the public domain. All graphs and/or tables reporting clinic success rates were assessed to illustrate the combination of outcome or treatment variables contributing to each dataset. Results Twenty of the 30 fertility clinic websites reported success rates. Of these only 17 reported live births. The median compliance score with RTAC guidelines was 8/8 (interquartile range: 6–8). Of 41 figures published across all websites, five reported clinical pregnancy rates as their only outcome measure. Thirty‐seven figures reported success rates ‘per embryo transfer’, two figures used ‘per egg collection’, and no figures described success rates ‘per cycle started’. Thirty‐two different combinations of reporting variables were observed. Conclusions Websites were broadly compliant with RTAC’s guidelines. However, considering the variability in patient and treatment groups contributing to success rate data, patients cannot be expected to make an informed decision based on clinics’ self‐reported outcomes. RTAC guidelines could be improved by providing a clear definition of success, including the appropriate use of denominators.

Abbreviations: fFN, fetal fibronectin; NPV, negative predictive value; PAMG-1, placental α-microglobulin-1; PPV, positive predictive value. AbstractIntroduction: This study aims to compare the use of qualitative fetal fibronectin, quantitative fetal fibronectin, and placental α-microglobulin-1 in women with symptoms of preterm labor, to evaluate which vaginal biomarker performs the best in clinical practice. Material and methods:This prospective observational study included women who presented with symptoms of preterm labor at 24 +0 to 34 +0 weeks of gestation at a large tertiary maternity hospital in Auckland, New Zealand. Women were managed according to hospital guidelines using qualitative fetal fibronectin. Quantitative fetal fibronectin and placental α-microglobulin-1 tests were also taken, with clinicians blinded to the results. Management and delivery outcomes were collected from clinical records. The primary outcome was the rate of antenatal hospital admission.Analysis was performed according to predefined management protocols for each of the tests. Results:A total of 128 women had all three biomarkers tests taken. Spontaneous preterm birth rates were 7/128 (5.5%) ≤34 +0 weeks and 20/128 (15.6%) <37 +0 weeks of gestation; 5/128 (3.9%) delivered within 7 days of testing. Positive results were recorded in 28 qualitative fetal fibronectin tests, 25 quantitative fetal fibronectin tests with 11 ≥200 ng/mL, and 16 placental α-microglobulin-1 tests. The use of quantitative fetal fibronectin or placental α-microglobulin-1 would have lowered antenatal admission rates: 27/128 (21.1%) for qualitative fetal fibronectin, 11/128 (8.6%) for quantitative fetal fibronectin (admission threshold ≥200 ng/mL), and 15/128 (11.7%) for placental α-microglobulin-1. No additional women with quantitative fetal fibronectin <200 ng/mL delivered within 7 days or missed corticosteroids compared with standard care (qualitative fetal fibronectin); however, an additional 3 cases had a false-negative placental α-microglobulin-1 and clinical care may have been compromised (no antenatal corticosteroids or admission). K E Y W O R D Sfetal fibronectin, obstetric labor, premature, placental α-microglobulin-1, premature birth, preterm birth Key messagePractice change from qualitative to quantitative fetal fibronectin testing for women with symptoms of preterm labor can reduce hospital admissions without compromising the antenatal care of babies that are born preterm.

STUDY QUESTIONS In couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis of natural conception, are four cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) non-inferior to one completed cycle of IVF for the outcome of cumulative live birth? Are four cycles of IUI-OS associated with a lower cost per live birth compared to one completed cycle of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by one complete cycle of IVF result in as many live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF? Will four cycles of IUI-OS followed by two complete cycles of IVF result in more live births at lower cost per live birth, than two complete cycles of IVF alone? WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY IUI is widely used in the USA, the UK and Europe as a low cost, less invasive alternative to IVF for couples with unexplained infertility. Although three to six cycles of IUI were comparable to IVF in the three major studies carried out to date, gonadotrophin ovarian stimulation was used in the majority of cases, and this also resulted in a high multiple pregnancy rate in some studies. Ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate is known to have lower multiple pregnancy rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The FIIX study is a multicentre, open label, parallel, pragmatic non-inferiority randomized controlled trial of 580 couples with unexplained infertility comparing four cycles of IUI-OS with clomiphene citrate and one completed cycle of IVF. Variable block randomization stratified by age and clinic with electronic allocation will be used. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Couples with poor prognosis for natural conception and who are eligible for publicly funded fertility treatment in six fertility clinics in New Zealand. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Auckland Medical Research Fund (3718892/1119003), A+ Trust, Auckland District Health Board (A + 8479), Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust (3718514). No competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12619001003167. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 15 July 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT 02/08/2019