Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 26
Filter
1.
Med Lav ; 114(3): e2023022, 2023 Jun 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239228

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) were on the frontline of the current pandemic. We aimed at identifying determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the effectiveness of personal protection equipment (PPE) worn by HCWs before vaccination. METHODS: We abstracted data on SARS-CoV-2 infection based on positive PCR results and sociodemographic characteristics of 38,793 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from 10 European centers. We fitted cohort-specific multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of infection and combined the results using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of infection before vaccination among HCWs was 9.58%. Infection was associated with the presence of selected symptoms; no association was found between sociodemographic factors and increased risk of infection. The use of PPE and particularly FFP2/FFP3 masks had a different protective effect during the first and second waves of the COVID pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that mask use was the most effective PPE in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Health Personnel , Pandemics
3.
Z Gesundh Wiss ; : 1-7, 2023 Mar 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2307297

ABSTRACT

Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many nonurgent oncologic services were postponed. The aim of the present study was to estimate the impact of the pandemic on visits and hospital admissions for cancer patients worldwide. Methods: In our systematic review and meta-analysis, databases such as Pubmed, Proquest, and Scopus were searched comprehensively for articles published between January 1, 2020, and December 12, 2021. We included articles reporting data comparing the number of visits and hospital admissions for oncologic patients performed before and during the pandemic. Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies. The weighted average of the percentage change was calculated and compared between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. Stratified analysis was performed by geographic area, time interval, and study setting. Findings: We found a mean relative change throughout January-October 2020 of -37.8% (95% CI -42.6; -32.9) and -26.3% (95% CI -31.4; -21.1) compared to pre-pandemic periods for oncologic visits and hospital admission, respectively. The temporal trend showed a U-shaped curve with nadir in April for cancer visits and in May 2020 for hospital admissions. All geographic areas showed a similar pattern and the same was observed when stratifying the studies as clinic-based and population-based. Interpretation: Our results showed a decrease in the number of visits and hospital admission during the January-October 2020 period after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The postponement or cancellation of these oncologic services may negatively affect the patient's outcome and the future burden of disease. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01857-w.

5.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 11(4)2023 Mar 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2303083

ABSTRACT

Given their occupational risk profile, HCWs were the first to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, breakthrough infections remained common, mainly sustained by new SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOCs) that rapidly spread one after another in Italy. Evidence suggests that the measured level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies does not clearly predict the level of protection conferred by either natural infection or vaccine-induced immunization, highlighting the need for further study on the diversity in susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection. The present study aimed to characterize different risk profiles for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs who had recently received the booster dose, and who were classified according to their immunization profile. The very small number of workers infected during the 8 months following the primary-cycle administration represents proof of the vaccine's effectiveness against non-omicron strains. The comparison among different immunization profiles showed that hybrid immunization (vaccine plus natural infection) elicits higher antibody levels. However, hybrid immunization does not always provide better protection against reinfection, thus suggesting that the immunization profile plays a major role as a virus-host interaction modifier. Despite the high resistance to the reinfection, the peri-booster infection had a not-neglectable infection rate (5.6%), this further reinforcing the importance of preventive measures.

6.
Cancers (Basel) ; 15(8)2023 Apr 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2293587

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Exposure to occupational carcinogens is an important and avoidable cause of cancer. We aimed to provide an evidence-based estimate of the burden of occupation-related cancers in Italy. METHODS: The attributable fraction (AF) was calculated based on the counterfactual scenario of no occupational exposure to carcinogens. We included exposures classified as IARC group 1 and with reliable evidence of exposure in Italy. Relative risk estimates for selected cancers and prevalences of exposure were derived from large-scale studies. Except for mesothelioma, a 15-20-year latency period between exposure and cancer was considered. The data on cancer incidence in 2020 and mortality in 2017 in Italy were obtained from the Italian Association of Cancer Registries. RESULTS: The most prevalent exposures were UV radiation (5.8%), diesel exhaust (4.3%), wood dust (2.3%) and silica dust (2.1%). Mesothelioma had the largest AF to occupational carcinogens (86.6%), followed by sinonasal cancer (11.8%) and lung cancer (3.8%). We estimated that 0.9% of cancer cases (N~3500) and 1.6% of cancer deaths (N~2800) were attributable to occupational carcinogens in Italy. Of these, about 60% were attributable to asbestos, 17.5% to diesel exhaust, followed by chromium and silica dust (7% and 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates provide up-to-date quantification of the low, but persistent, burden of occupational cancers in Italy.

7.
Zeitschrift fur Gesundheitswissenschaften = Journal of public health ; : 1-7, 2023.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2249635

ABSTRACT

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, many nonurgent oncologic services were postponed. The aim of the present study was to estimate the impact of the pandemic on visits and hospital admissions for cancer patients worldwide. Methods In our systematic review and meta-analysis, databases such as Pubmed, Proquest, and Scopus were searched comprehensively for articles published between January 1, 2020, and December 12, 2021. We included articles reporting data comparing the number of visits and hospital admissions for oncologic patients performed before and during the pandemic. Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies. The weighted average of the percentage change was calculated and compared between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. Stratified analysis was performed by geographic area, time interval, and study setting. Findings We found a mean relative change throughout January–October 2020 of –37.8% (95% CI –42.6;–32.9) and –26.3% (95% CI –31.4;–21.1) compared to pre-pandemic periods for oncologic visits and hospital admission, respectively. The temporal trend showed a U-shaped curve with nadir in April for cancer visits and in May 2020 for hospital admissions. All geographic areas showed a similar pattern and the same was observed when stratifying the studies as clinic-based and population-based. Interpretation Our results showed a decrease in the number of visits and hospital admission during the January–October 2020 period after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The postponement or cancellation of these oncologic services may negatively affect the patient's outcome and the future burden of disease. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10389-023-01857-w.

8.
Front Immunol ; 13: 986085, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255441

ABSTRACT

Background: The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p<0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels. Conclusions: Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Immunity , Immunoglobulin G , Infant , Vaccination
9.
Front Immunol ; 13: 1079884, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2229034

ABSTRACT

Short summary: We investigated changes in serologic measurements after COVID-19 vaccination in 19,422 subjects. An individual-level analysis was performed on standardized measurements. Age, infection, vaccine doses, time between doses and serologies, and vaccine type were associated with changes in serologic levels within 13 months. Background: Persistence of vaccine immunization is key for COVID-19 prevention. Methods: We investigated the difference between two serologic measurements of anti-COVID-19 S1 antibodies in an individual-level analysis on 19,422 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) from Italy, Spain, Romania, and Slovakia, tested within 13 months from first dose. Differences in serologic levels were divided by the standard error of the cohort-specific distribution, obtaining standardized measurements. We fitted multivariate linear regression models to identify predictors of difference between two measurements. Results: We observed a progressively decreasing difference in serologic levels from <30 days to 210-240 days. Age was associated with an increased difference in serologic levels. There was a greater difference between the two serologic measurements in infected HCW than in HCW who had never been infected; before the first measurement, infected HCW had a relative risk (RR) of 0.81 for one standard deviation in the difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.85]. The RRs for a 30-day increase in time between first dose and first serology, and between the two serologies, were 1.08 (95% CI 1.07-1.10) and 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05), respectively. The first measurement was a strong predictor of subsequent antibody decrease (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.56-1.64). Compared with Comirnaty, Spikevax (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92) and mixed vaccines (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) were smaller decrease in serological level (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.40-0.54). Conclusions: Age, COVID-19 infection, number of doses, time between first dose and first serology, time between serologies, and type of vaccine were associated with differences between the two serologic measurements within a 13-month period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Infant , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies , Health Personnel , Italy
10.
Eur J Epidemiol ; 38(1): 31-38, 2023 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2174535

ABSTRACT

Many health services, including cancer care, have been affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. This study aimed at providing a systematic review of the impact of the epidemic on cancer diagnostic tests and diagnosis worldwide. In our systematic review and meta-analysis, databases such as Pubmed, Proquest and Scopus were searched comprehensively for articles published between January 1st, 2020 and December 12th, 2021. Observational studies and articles that reported data from single clinics and population registries comparing the number of cancer diagnostic tests and/or diagnosis performed before and during the pandemic, were included. Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies. The weighted average of the percentage variation was calculated and compared between pandemic and pre-pandemic periods. Stratified analysis was performed by geographic area, time interval and study setting. The review was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022314314). The review comprised 61 articles, whose results referred to the period January-October 2020. We found an overall decrease of - 37.3% for diagnostic tests and - 27.0% for cancer diagnosis during the pandemic. For both outcomes we identified a U-shaped temporal trend, with an almost complete recovery for the number of cancer diagnosis after May 2020. We also analyzed differences by geographic area and screening setting. We provided a summary estimate of the decrease in cancer diagnosis and diagnostic tests, during the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The delay in cancer diagnosis could lead to an increase in the number of avoidable cancer deaths. Further research is needed to assess the impact of the pandemic measures on cancer treatment and mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Humans , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Neoplasms/diagnosis , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , PubMed , COVID-19 Testing
11.
J Clin Med ; 12(2)2023 Jan 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2200417

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the characteristics, clinical course and outcomes of COVID-19 breakthrough infections (BIs) among healthcare workers (HCWs) of an Italian University Hospital. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on 6111 HCWs, from January 2021 to February 2022. The study population was offered the full vaccination with BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. To allow return to work after BI, the protocol required one negative nasopharyngeal RT-PCR swab followed by a medical examination to assess the HCW's health status. Laboratory tests, instrumental tests and specialist evaluations were carried out if necessary. RESULTS: The cases of BIs observed numbered 582 (9.7%). The frequency of BIs was significantly higher in females than in males (67% vs. 33%; p = 0.03), and in nurses than in all other professional categories (p = 0.001). A total of 88% of the HCWs affected by BI were still symptomatic after the negative swab. None of the instrumental tests carried out showed any new findings of pathological significance. All cases showed progressive disappearance of symptoms, such that no cases of long COVID and no hospitalization or deaths were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that SARS-CoV-2 infections occur even after a full vaccination course; however, the clinical course is favorable and severe outcomes are reduced.

12.
Med Lav ; 113(6): e2022050, 2022 Dec 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2156021

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the association between personal protective equipment (PPE) use and SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We analyzed occupational surveillance contact forms followed by a PCR test notified between March and September 2020 by Italian HCWs. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for positive PCR based on HCWs and contacts characteristics were calculated through multivariable logistic regression models. When multiple contacts were potentially effective for a PCR test, they were weighted by the inverse of their number. RESULTS: Overall, 4,883 contacts reported by 2,952 HCWs were analyzed, and 224 contacts among 144 HCWs had positive PCR. No difference was found according to sex, age, employment, or job title, except for an OR of 0.30 (95%CI 0.11-0.78) for resident physicians, compared to administrative staff. The ORs for use of surgical mask were 0.59 (95%CI=0.40-0.86) for use only by HCW, 0.49 (95%CI=0.22-1.07) only by the infected person, and 0.40 (95%CI=0.27-0.60) by both, compared to use by neither. Use of other PPEs was not associated with infection, while the OR for hand sanitation was 0.61 (95%CI=0.40-0.93). HCWs reporting fever, cough, and asthenia had a higher risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Use of surgical masks was associated with a 40-60% lower risk of infection, especially when both HCWs and infected individuals used them. Our results quantify the role played by mask use and hand sanitation in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in high-risk circumstances.

13.
Viruses ; 14(12)2022 11 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2123884

ABSTRACT

Background: The persistence of antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination has public health relevance. We analyzed the determinants of quantitative serology at 9 months after vaccination in a multicenter cohort. Methods: We analyzed data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody levels at 9 months from the first dose of vaccinated HCW from eight centers in Italy, Germany, Spain, Romania and Slovakia. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of one standard deviation of log antibody level and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Finally, we conducted a trend analysis of 1 to 7 months' serology within one cohort. Results: We included 20,216 HCW with up to two vaccine doses and showed that high antibody levels were associated with female sex (p = 0.01), age (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.86-0.88 per 10-year increase), 10-day increase in time since last vaccine (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.97-0.98), previous infection (3.03, 95% CI = 2.92-3.13), two vaccine doses (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.09-1.36), use of Spikevax (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.39-1.64), Vaxzevria (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.44-0.73) or heterologous vaccination (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.12-1.57), compared to Comirnaty. The trend in the Bologna cohort, based on 3979 measurements, showed a decrease in mean standardized antibody level from 8.17 to 7.06 (1-7 months, p for trend 0.005). Conclusions: Our findings corroborate current knowledge on the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and declining trend with time.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Female , Humans , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Immunity , Vaccination
14.
Cancers (Basel) ; 14(22)2022 Nov 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109947

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic has put a serious strain on health services, including cancer treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the changes in cancer treatment worldwide during the first phase of the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Proquest, and Scopus databases were searched comprehensively for articles published between 1 January 2020 and 12 December 2021, in order to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis conducted following the PRISMA statement. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and articles that reported data on the number of or variation in cancer treatments between the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods, comprising oncological surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic therapies, were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from two pairs of independent reviewers. The weighted average of the percentage variation was calculated between the two periods to assess the change in the number of cancer treatments performed during the pandemic. Stratified analyses were performed by type of treatment, geographic area, time period, study setting, and type of cancer. RESULTS: Among the 47 articles retained, we found an overall reduction of -18.7% (95% CI, -24.1 to -13.3) in the total number of cancer treatments administered during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to the previous periods. Surgical treatment had a larger decrease compared to medical treatment (-33.9% versus -12.6%). For all three types of treatments, we identified a U-shaped temporal trend during the entire period January-October 2020. Significant decreases were also identified for different types of cancer, in particular for skin cancer (-34.7% [95% CI, -46.8 to -22.5]) and for all geographic areas, in particular, Asia (-42.1% [95% CI, -49.6 to -34.7]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The interruption, delay, and modifications to cancer treatment due to the COVID-19 pandemic are expected to alter the quality of care and patient outcomes.

15.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(11)2022 Oct 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2090403

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Following the announcement of the development of COVID-19 vaccines, hesitancy about the safety of vaccinations and their side effects have spread, despite having the approval of international drug agencies. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that concern about side effects may have led people to fill out the COVID-19 anamnestic vaccine questionnaire with greater attention compared to the similar instrument used for the influenza vaccination. METHODS: We analyzed vaccination questionnaires of 218 healthcare workers (HCWs) who underwent both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in 2020/2021. Outcomes included self-reported allergies, chronic pharmacological treatments, and chronic diseases. We tested the difference in prevalence, analyzed differences using the kappa statistics and concordance correlation, and explored factors associated with differences in reporting. RESULTS: HCWs reported more allergies to substances other than drugs and a higher prevalence of chronic drug intake in the COVID-19 questionnaires than in the influenza ones. Technical staff reported more drug allergies than physicians, and other HCWs reported more outcomes than physicians in the COVID-19 questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: We found that this population of HCWs reported higher conditions during the 2020 COVID-19 vaccination campaign compared to that of the influenza vaccine. The identification of socio-demographic characteristics of the less vaccine-confident HCWs could help in planning targeted interventions to enhance vaccine adherence.

16.
Frontiers in immunology ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2072928

ABSTRACT

Background The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p<0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels. Conclusions Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.

17.
JAMA Oncol ; 8(9): 1287-1293, 2022 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1919185

ABSTRACT

Importance: Public health services, including cancer screening tests, have been affected by the onset of the COVID-19 epidemic. Objective: To investigate the pandemic's association with cancer screening worldwide. Data Sources: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, databases such as PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus were searched comprehensively for articles published between January 1, 2020, and December 12, 2021. Study Selection: Observational studies and articles that reported data from cancer registries that compared the number of screening tests performed before and during the pandemic for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two pairs of independent reviewers extracted data from the selected studies. The weighted average of the percentage variation was calculated between the 2 periods to assess the change in the number of cancer screening tests performed during the pandemic. Stratified analysis was performed by geographic area, period, and type of setting. The systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the weighted average percentage variation in the number of screening tests performed between January and October 2020 compared with the previous period. Results: The review comprised 39 publications. There was an overall decrease of -46.7% (95% CI, -55.5% to -37.8%) for breast cancer screening, -44.9% (95% CI, -53.8% to -36.1%) for colorectal cancer screening, and -51.8% (95% CI, -64.7% to -38.9%) for cervical cancer screening during the pandemic. For all 3 cancers, a U-shaped temporal trend was identified; for colorectal cancer, a significant decrease was still apparent after May 2020 (in June to October, the decrease was -23.4% [95% CI, -44.4% to -2.4%]). Differences by geographic area and screening setting were also identified. Conclusions and Relevance: A summary estimate of the downscaling of cancer screening tests since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic is provided in this systematic review and meta-analysis. This could be associated with an increase in the number of avoidable cancer deaths. Effective interventions are required to restore the capacity of screening services to the prepandemic level.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Colorectal Neoplasms , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Colorectal Neoplasms/prevention & control , Early Detection of Cancer , Female , Humans , Pandemics , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/diagnosis , Uterine Cervical Neoplasms/epidemiology
18.
Microorganisms ; 10(5)2022 May 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1855707

ABSTRACT

Previous studies assessing the antibody response (AbR) to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients are limited by short follow-up, hampering the analysis of AbR kinetics. We present the ORCHESTRA SOT recipients cohort assessed for AbR at first dose (t0), second dose (t1), and within 3 ± 1 month (t2) after the first dose. We analyzed 1062 SOT patients (kidney, 63.7%; liver, 17.4%; heart, 16.7%; and lung, 2.5%) and 5045 health care workers (HCWs). The AbR rates in the SOTs and HCWs were 52.3% and 99.4%. The antibody levels were significantly higher in the HCWs than in the SOTs (p < 0.001). The kinetics showed an increase (p < 0.001) in antibody levels up to 76 days and a non-significant decrease after 118 days in the SOT recipients versus a decrease up to 76 days (p = 0.02) and a less pronounced decrease between 76 and 118 days (p = 0.04) in the HCWs. Upon multivariable analysis, liver transplant, ≥3 years from SOT, mRNA-1273, azathioprine, and longer time from t0 were associated with a positive AbR at t2. Older age, other comorbidities, mycophenolate, steroids, and impaired graft function were associated with lower AbR probability. Our results may be useful to optimize strategies of immune monitoring after COVID-19 vaccination and indications regarding timing for booster dosages calibrated on SOT patients' characteristics.

19.
Med Lav ; 113(2): e2022022, 2022 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1818998

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Characterizing immunological response following COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health issue. The objectives of the present analysis were to investigate the proportion, level and the determinants of humoral response from 21 days to three months after the first dose in vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We abstracted data on level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies (IgG) and sociodemographic characteristics of 17,257 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from three centers in Northern Italy who underwent COVID-19 vaccination (average 70.6 days after first dose). We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models and combined them using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A humoral response was elicited in 99.3% of vaccinated HCW. Female sex, young age, and previous COVID-19 infection were predictors of post-vaccination antibody level, and a positive association was also detected with pre-vaccination serology level and with time between pre- and post-vaccination testing, while a decline of antibody level was suggested with time since vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: These results stress the importance of analyzing retrospective data collected via occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the COVID-19 epidemic and following vaccination. They need to be confirmed in larger series based on prospectively collected data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA, Viral , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/methods
20.
Elife ; 112022 02 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1689828

ABSTRACT

Background: Since the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, cancer patients affected by COVID-19 have been reported to experience poor prognosis; however, a detailed quantification of the effect of cancer on outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients has not been performed. Methods: To carry out a systematic review of the studies comparing the outcome of unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with and without cancer, a search string was devised which was used to identify relevant publications in PubMed up to December 31, 2020. We selected three outcomes: mortality, access to ICU, and COVID-19 severity or hospitalization. We considered results for all cancers combined as well as for specific cancers. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses of the results, overall and after stratification by region. We also performed sensitivity analyses according to quality score and assessed publication bias. Results: For all cancer combined, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality was 2.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82-2.94, I2 for heterogeneity 90.1%, 24 studies), that for ICU admission was 2.39 (95% CI 1.90-3.02, I2 0.0%, 5 studies), that for disease severity or hospitalization was 2.08 (95% CI 1.60-2.72, I2 92.1%, 15 studies). The pooled mortality OR for hematologic neoplasms was 2.14 (95% CI 1.87-2.44, I2 20.8%, 8 studies). Data were insufficient to perform a meta-analysis for other cancers. In the mortality meta-analysis for all cancers, the pooled OR was higher for studies conducted in Asia than studies conducted in Europe or North America. There was no evidence of publication bias. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis indicates a twofold increased risk of adverse outcomes (mortality, ICU admission, and severity of COVID-19) in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients with cancer compared to COVID-19 patients without cancer. These results should be compared with studies conducted in vaccinated patients; nonetheless, they argue for special effort to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with cancer. Funding: No external funding was obtained.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization , Humans , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL