Effect of the 2020/21 season influenza vaccine on SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of Italian healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a priority group for seasonal influenza vaccination (SIV). The 2020/21 SIV campaign was conducted during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccines, including SIV, may exert non-specific protective effects on other infectious diseases which may be ascribable to the concept of trained immunity. The aim of this study was to explore the association between 2020/21 SIV and SARS-CoV-2 positivity in a cohort of Italian HCWs. METHODS: In this observational study, a cohort of HCWs employed by a large (ca 5000 employees) referral tertiary acute-care university hospital was followed up retrospectively until the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. The independent variable of interest was the 2020/21 SIV uptake. Both egg-based and cell culture-derived quadrivalent SIVs were available. The study outcome was the incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 infections, as determined by RT-PCR. Multivariable Cox regression was applied in order to discern the association of interest. RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 2561 HCWs who underwent ≥1 RT-PCR test and accounted for a total of 94,445 person-days of observation. SIV uptake was 35.6%. During the study period, a total of 290 new SARS-CoV-2 infections occurred. The incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 was 1.62 (95% CI: 1.22-2.10) and 3.91 (95% CI: 3.43-4.45) per 1000 person-days in vaccinated and non-vaccinated HCWs, respectively, with an adjusted non-proportional hazard ratio of 0.37 (95% CI: 0.22-0.62). E-values suggested that unmeasured confounding was unlikely to explain the association. CONCLUSIONS: A lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection was observed among SIV recipients.

Investigating SARS-CoV-2 transmission among co-workers in a University of Northern Italy during COVID-19 pandemic: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate SARS-CoV-2 transmission among co-workers at the University of Genoa, Italy, during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in October 2020 - March 2021: RT-PCR confirmed cases of COVID-19 notified to the Occupational Health Service were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Among the n = 201 notified cases, contact tracing of n = 53 individuals identified n = 346 close contacts. The household setting (IRR = 36.8; 95% CI: 4.9-276.8; p < 0.001) and sharing eating areas (IRR = 19.5; 95% CI: 2.5-153.9; p = 0.005) showed the highest Secondary Attack Rates (SARs) compared to the office setting. Fatigue (IRR= 17.1; 95% CI: 5.2-55.8; p < 0.001), gastrointestinal symptoms (IRR= 6.6; 95% CI: 2.9-15.2; p< 0.001) and cough (IRR= 8.2; 95% CI: 3.7-18.2; p= p< 0.001) were associated with transmission of infection. Polysymptomatic cases (IRR= 23.1; 95% CI: 3.1-169.2; p = 0.02) were more likely to transmit the infection. Among COVID-19 index cases aged >60 years (OR = 7.7; 95% CI: 1.9-31.9; p = 0.0046) SARs were higher than in other age groups. Wearing respiratory protections by both the case and the close contact resulted an effective measure compared with no use (IRR = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.03-0.2; p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Accurate infection monitoring and contact tracing was useful to identify the main situations Conclusions: Accurate infection monitoring and contact tracing was useful to identify the main situations of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the workplace, and hence for risk assessment and prevention programs.

Comparative Diagnostic Performance of a Novel Reverse Transcription Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP) Kit for the Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2.

Although the reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is considered a standard-of-care assay for the laboratory diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, several limitations of this method have been described. Reverse transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) is an alternative molecular assay and is potentially able to overcome some intrinsic shortcomings of RT-PCR. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of the novel HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP assay. In this retrospective analysis, a total of 400 routinely collected leftover nasopharyngeal samples with a known RT-PCR result were tested by means of the HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP assay. The overall sensitivity and specificity values of HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP versus RT-PCR were 97.0% (95% CI: 93.6-98.9%) and 98.5% (95% CI: 95.7-99.7%), respectively. Inter-assay agreement was almost perfect (κ = 0.96). Concordance was perfect in samples with high viral loads (cycle threshold < 30). The average time to a positive result on RT-LAMP was 17 min. HG COVID-19 RT-LAMP is a reliable molecular diagnostic kit for detecting SARS-CoV-2, and its performance is comparable to that of RT-PCR. Shorter turnaround times and the possibility of performing molecular diagnostics in the point-of-care setting make it a valuable option for facilities without sophisticated laboratory equipment.

Comparative diagnostic performance of rapid antigen detection tests for COVID-19 in a hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: The availability of accurate and rapid diagnostic tools for COVID-19 is essential for tackling the ongoing pandemic. Our study aimed to quantify the performance of available antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) in a real-world hospital setting. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, the diagnostic performance of 7 Ag-RDTs was compared with real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay in terms of sensitivity, specificity and expected predictive values. RESULTS: A total of 321 matched Ag-RDTreal-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction samples were analyzed retrospectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the Ag-RDTs was 78.7% and 100%, respectively. However, a wide range of sensitivity estimates by brand (66.0%-93.8%) and cycle threshold (Ct) cut-off values (Ct <25: 96.2%; Ct 30-35: 31.1%) was observed. The optimal Ct cut-off value that maximized sensitivity was 29. CONCLUSIONS: The routine use of Ag-RDTs may be convenient in moderate-to-high intensity settings when high volumes of specimens are tested every day. However, the diagnostic performance of the commercially available tests may differ substantially.