Mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in vulnerable patients: implementation of a clinical pathway for early treatment.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest 47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.

[Mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in vulnerable patients: implementation of a clinical pathway for early treatment]. / Infección leve por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes vulnerables: implantación de una vía clínica de tratamiento precoz.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.

Infección leve por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes vulnerables: implantación de una vía clínica de tratamiento precoz Mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in vulnerable patients: implementation of a clinical pathway for early treatment

Introducción: El objetivo del manuscrito es describir la vía clínica de tratamiento precoz de pacientes con infección aguda por SARS-CoV-2 y evaluar los primeros resultados de su implementación Métodos: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de la implementación de una vía clínica de tratamiento en pacientes no-hospitalizados, (1 de enero al 30 de junio 2022). Elaboración de vía clínica: sistemas detección y derivación desde Atención Primaria, servicio de Urgencias, especialidades médicas y sistema de detección automatizada;evaluación clínica y administración de tratamiento en hospital de día COVID-19, y seguimiento clínico posterior. Variables explicativas: demográficas, comorbilidad, estado vacunal, vías de derivación y administración de tratamiento. Variables de resultado: hospitalización y muerte a los 30 días, toxicidad grado 2-3 relacionada con el tratamiento. Resultados: Se administró tratamiento a 262 pacientes (53,4% mujeres, mediana de edad 60 años). Criterio indicación tratamiento: inmunosupresión (68,3%) y la combinación de edad, estado vacunal y comorbilidad en el resto. El 47,3% de los pacientes recibieron remdesivir, el 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, el 13,4% sotrovimab y el 2,4% tratamiento combinado, con una mediana de 4 días tras inicio de síntomas. El 6.1% de los pacientes precisó ingreso hospitalario, 3,8% por progresión COVID-19. Ningún paciente falleció. El 18,7% presentaron toxicidad grado 2-3: 89,8% disgeusia y sabor metálico relacionado con nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Siete pacientes interrumpieron tratamiento por toxicidad. Conclusión: La creación e implementación de una vía clínica para pacientes no-hospitalizados con infección por SARS-CoV-2 es efectiva y permite la accesibilidad temprana y la equidad de los tratamientos actualmente disponibles.

Early carbohydrate antigen 125 as a mortality predictor in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Background: Carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) is an indicator of inflammation, immune response, and impaired cardiac function. The aim was to investigate whether CA125 behaves as a biomarker of severity and poor clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Serum CA125 [Elecsys CA125 II assay-(Roche Diagnostics GmbH)] was measured in stored biobank samples from COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 01 March 2020 and 17 October 2021. Multiple logistic regression models were built to explore the association between CA125 and clinical outcomes [in-hospital all-cause mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or non-invasive respiratory support (non-IRS)], estimating odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI). The gradient of risk of CA125 was evaluated by fractional polynomials. Results: A total of 691 patients were included, median age of 63 years (50-76), men (57.2%), with high comorbidity. At admission, 85.8% had pneumonia. Median CA125 was 10.33 U/ml (7.48-15.50). The in-hospital mortality rate was 7.2%. After adjusting for confounding factors, CA125 ≥ 15.5 U/ml (75th percentile) showed an increased risk of death [OR 2.85(1.21-6.71)], as age ≥ 65 years, diabetes, and immunosuppression. Furthermore, CA125 as a continuous variable was positive and significantly associated with the risk of death after multivariate adjustment. The mean hospital stay of the patients with CA125 ≥ 15.5 U/ml was longer than the rest of the study population. Conclusion: CA125 in the first 72 h of hospital admission seems a useful biomarker of mortality in hospitalized patients with moderate-severe COVID-19. If our findings are confirmed, the wide availability of this biomarker would make easy its widespread implementation in clinical practice.

The Waning of BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Prevention over Time: A Test-Negative Study in Health Care Professionals of a Health Department from January 2021 to December 2021.

The duration of protection of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection has been evaluated in previous studies, but uncertainty remains about the persistence of effectiveness over time and the ideal timing for booster doses. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers (HCWs) at a tertiary hospital depending on time elapsed since the completion of a two-dose vaccination regimen. We conducted a case-control with negative test study between 25 January and 12 December 2021 that included 1404 HCWs who underwent an active infection diagnostic test (AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection due to COVID-19 suspicion or prior close contact with patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccination regimen was 91.9%. Then, aVE decreased to 63.7% between 121 to 240 days after completing the full two-dose regimen and to 37.2% after 241 days since the second dose. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs remains highly effective after 12 to 120 days have elapsed since the administration of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine; however, effectiveness decreases as time elapses since its administration.

The effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 according to the time elapsed since their administration in health professionals in the Valencian Autonomous Community (Spain).

The objective was to understand the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in health professionals(HPs) in the Valencian Autonomous Community(Spain) who had completed a full vaccination regimen, both in terms of preventing infections and avoiding hospitalisations, according to the time elapsed since the vaccine administration. Case-controlled study with negative test results. HPs who had undergone at least one PCR or antigen(Ag) active infection diagnostic test(AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection between 25 January and 18 July 2021 were included. HPs with positive AIDT result were considered as cases and those with a negative result controls. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness(VEa) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its 95% confidence interval(95% CI) were calculated using the formula VEa = (1 - OR) × 100. The VEa for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccine regimen was 91.6%(95%CI[89.6%,93.2%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 95.2%(95%CI[88.3%,98.1%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. After 120 days the VEa was 71.5%(95%CI[67.0%,75.5%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 88.3%(95%CI[75.7,94.4%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The VEa for prevention of hospitalisation for COVID-19 for the complete two-dose regimen of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) was 96.8%(95%CI[76.1%,99.6%]). The administration of the complete regimen of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was highly effective for the prevention of COVID-19 cases in HPs when 12 to 120 days had elapsed since the second dose. However, said effectiveness decreased as time from the vaccine administration elapsed, although it was maintained for the prevention of hospitalisation of HPs.

Hospitalized patients with breakthrough COVID-19: Clinical features and poor outcome predictors.

OBJECTIVES: To describe breakthrough COVID-19 infection in patients who needed hospitalization and the factors associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between December 27, 2020, and October 17, 2021, with either a complete vaccination (CV) scheme (diagnosed 2 weeks after the second dose of the Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca or first dose of the Janssen vaccine was administered) or a partial vaccination (PV) scheme. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The baseline factors associated with the outcomes were analyzed by multiple logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]). RESULTS: A total of 145 (101 CV) patients were included. The CV subgroup was mainly composed of older males with high comorbidity (Charlson Index ≥3, 72%; immunosuppression, 20%) and with bilateral pneumonia in 63.4%. Limited therapeutic effort (LTE) was agreed upon for 28% of the patients. In the CV subgroup, endotracheal intubation was required in 10.9% of patients, reaching 15.3% when excluding LTE patients; the global mortality was 22.8%, reaching 41.4% in the subgroup with LTE. Although the patients with PV were younger and had fewer comorbidities, the main outcomes did not differ significantly between the CV and PV groups. The predictors of poor outcomes were age ≥ 65 years, confusion, ferritin > 500 mg/L, extensive lung infiltrates, and a Charlson Index ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CV hospitalized because of breakthrough COVID-19 infection tend to be older persons, with comorbidities, and have a high mortality.

Coronavirus Disease Transmission Prevented in an Endoscopy Unit with Universal Protective Measures and No Systematic Preprocedural Testing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Even after two years of pandemic, there are still uncertainties on how to proceed when we schedule endoscopic procedures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some scientific societies recommended universal preprocedural testing for all patients. However, other societies recommended against and considered enough to maintain strict infection control strategies. Our aim was to evaluate this approach in order to see if it was safe for both patients and healthcare workers to proceed with the endoscopies without performing a systematic PCR on all patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing endoscopy without preprocedural COVID testing at our center from March 2020 to May 2021. PCR tests performed in the patients receiving an endoscopic procedure were analyzed, and patients who tested positive between 14 days before and after the endoscopic procedure were selected. The registry of the endoscopy unit members participating in these procedures was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 10,132 procedures were performed in the unit with 26 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nineteen of these procedures were performed in patients with unknown SARS-CoV-2 carrier status. In 23 (88.5%) cases, transmission occurred through social or familial contact, and in 3 (11.5%), transmission occurred in the hospital. Four health care workers became infected during this period and none of them were related to the endoscopic procedures performed in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 positive testing in asymptomatic ambulatory patients is rare and the adequate use of individual protective measures emerges as the main way to control the spread of COVID-19 infection in endoscopy centers.

[Valproic Acid Could Help in the Fight Against COVID-19: a case-control study]. / El ácido valproico podría ayudar en la lucha contra el COVID-19: un estudio de casos y controles.

OBJECTIVE: There is early evidence about Valproic acid (VPA) antiviral effect. Our aim was to investigate the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in VPA users as compared with the general population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study nested within a cohort, carried out between March 1 and December 17, 2020. Retrospectively, we identified confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection patients exposed to VPA in our health department (defined as case). We ascertained VPA regimen (all the time (AT)(292 days) or at least 20% of the study period (notAT)(≥58 days) and if VPA levels were in therapeutic range (ATR) (50-100 mcg/mL) in the last 24 months. We calculated the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission in the cases, comparing it with the general unexposed VPA population (controls). RESULTS: During the study period, 6183 PCR+ were detected among 281035 inhabitants, of these, 746 were hospitalized. 691 patients were on VPA notAT and 628 (90.1%) AT. The indication for VPA use was epilepsy in 54.9%. The incidence of PCR+ was 1.736 % (OR 0.785 (95%CI 0.443-1.390) and 1.910 % (OR 0.865 (95%CI 0.488-1.533), on VPA notAT and VPA AT patients, respectively vs. 2.201% in people without VPA regimen. Those patients with VPA ATR had a lower risk of PCR + (OR 0.233 (95%CI 0.057-0.951) notAT; OR 0.218 (95%CI 0.053-0.890) AT). Hospital admission incidence was lower in patient on VPA (OR was 0.543 (95% CI 0.076 to 3.871). CONCLUSION: Patients with VPA within the therapeutic range had a reduction of SARS-Cov-2 infection incidence greater than 75%. There is a downward trend in the risk of COVID-19 admission by SARS-CoV-2 in patients on VPA therapy. These findings warrant further investigation.

El ácido valproico podría ayudar en la lucha contra el COVID-19: un estudio de casos y controles Valproic Acid Could Help in the Fight Against COVID-19: a case-control study

Objetivo: Existe evidencia preliminar sobre el efecto antiviral del ácido valproico (VPA). Nuestro objetivo fue investigar la incidencia y la gravedad de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en usuarios de VPA en comparación con la población general. Material y métodos: Estudio de casos – controles anidado en una cohorte, realizado entre el 1 de marzo y el 17 de diciembre de 2020. De forma retrospectiva, identificamos en nuestro departamento de salud a las personas con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2 usuarias de VPA (definido como caso). Comprobamos el régimen de VPA (todo el tiempo (TT) (292 días) o al menos el 20% del período de estudio (no-TT) (≥58 días) y si los niveles de VPA estaban en rango terapéutico (RT) (50-100 mcg / mL) en los últimos 24 meses. Calculamos la incidencia acumulada de infección por SARS-CoV-2 e ingreso en los casos, comparándola con la población general no expuesta a VPA (controles). Resultados: Durante el período de estudio se detectaron 6183 PCR + entre 281 035 habitantes, de estos, 746 fueron hospitalizados. 691 pacientes estaban en VPA no-TT y 628 (90,1%) TT. La indicación para el uso de VPA fue la epilepsia en el 54,9%. La incidencia de PCR + fue 1,736% (OR 0,785 (IC 95% 0,443-1,390) y 1,910% (OR 0,865 (IC 95% 0,488-1,533), en pacientes con VPA no-TT y VPA TT, respectivamente, frente a 2,201% en personas sin indicación de VPA. Los pacientes con VPA en RT tenían un riesgo menor de PCR + (OR 0,233 (IC del 95%: 0,057-0,951) no-TT;OR 0,218 (IC del 95%: 0,053-0,890) TT). La incidencia de ingreso hospitalario fue menor en pacientes con VPA (OR 0,543 (IC del 95%: 0,076 a 3,871). Conclusión: Los pacientes con VPA dentro del rango terapéutico tuvieron una reducción de la incidencia de infección por SARS-Cov-2 superior al 75%. Existe una tendencia a la baja en el riesgo de admisión por COVID-19 por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes en terapia con VPA. Estos hallazgos justifican una mayor investigación.

[Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine to preventing COVID-19 in healthcare personnel]. / Efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 para prevenir la COVID-19 en personal sanitario.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (BNT162b2) in healthcare personnel of a health department. METHOD: Test-negative case̶control study. Healthcare personnel with suspected COVID-19 and healthcare personnel close contacts of COVID-19 cases were included between January 27th and June 6th, 2021. They were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2; those with positive PCR were considered cases and those with negative PCR were considered controls. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) to prevent COVID-19 cases and their 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated using the formula VE=(1-odds ratio)×100. RESULTS: 624 healthcare personnel were included, of which 43 (6.9%) were considered cases and 581 (93.8%) controls. The aVE of the complete regimen was 96.3% (95%CI: 82.5̶99.2). The aVE of the incomplete pattern was 68.0% (95%CI: 30.0̶85.4). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of the complete pattern of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 is effective for the prevention of cases of COVID-19 in healthcare personnel.

Efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 para prevenir la COVID-19 en personal sanitario Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine to preventing COVID-19 in healthcare personnel

Objetivo: Conocer la efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 en personal sanitario de un departamento de salud. Método: Estudio de casos y controles con prueba negativa. Se incluyó personal sanitario con sospecha de COVID-19 y personal sanitario que fue contacto estrecho de casos de COVID-19 entre el 25 de enero y el 6 de junio de 2021. Se les realizó prueba de reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para SARS-CoV-2;aquellos con PCR positiva fueron considerados casos y aquellos con PCR negativa fueron considerados controles. Se calculó la efectividad vacunal ajustada (EVa) para prevenir casos de COVID-19 y su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%), mediante la fórmula EV = (1 − odds ratio) × 100. Resultados: Se incluyeron 624 profesionales sanitarios;de ellos, 43 (6,9%) casos y 581 (93,1%) controles. La EVa de la pauta completa fue del 96,3% (IC95%: 82,5-99,2) y la de la pauta incompleta del 68,0% (IC95%: 30,0-85,4). Conclusiones: La administración de la pauta completa de vacuna es efectiva para la prevención de casos de COVID-19 en el personal sanitario.

Latin American Origin Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in a Public Healthcare System.

Exploring differences in clinical outcomes based on race and origin among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is a controversial issue. The ALC COVID-19 Registry includes all confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital from 3 March 2020 to 17 December 2020. The data were obtained from electronic health records in order to evaluate the differences in the clinical features and outcomes among European and Latin American patients. The follow-ups occurred after 156 days. A propensity score weighting (PSW) logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR, 95% CI) for Latin American origin and outcome associations. Of the 696 patients included, 46.7% were women, with a median age of 65 (IQR 53-67) years, 614 (88.2%) were European, and 82 (11.8%) were Latin American. Latin American patients were younger, with fewer comorbidities, and a higher incidence of extensive pneumonia. After adjusting for residual confounders, Latin American origin was not associated with an increased risk of death (PSW OR 0.85 (0.23-3.14)) or with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (PSW OR 0.35 (0.12-1.03)). Latin American origin was associated with a shorter hospital stay, but without differences in how long the patient remained on mechanical ventilation. In a public healthcare system, the rates of death or mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 cases were found to be comparable between patients of European and Latin American origins.

Sero-epidemiological study of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel in a healthcare department.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate IgG antibody prevalence against SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare personnel (HCP) of a healthcare department (HD). METHOD: Prevalence study. The presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was determined in HCP of the HD. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) tests were used. Field work took place from April 24, 2020 to May 8, 2020. The age, sex, occupation (physician, nurse, etc.) and the work area (Primary Care, Emergency Room, etc.) were gathered. The IgG antibody prevalence was then calculated with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). To study the association between HCP characteristics and the presence IgG the Chi Square test was used, and to study the magnitude of association, the Odds Ratio (95% CI) was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 4813 HCP in the HD, 4179 (87,1%) participated. Of these, 73,3% (3065) were women and 26,7% (1114) men. The global prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was 6,6% (95% CI: 5,8-7,3). There were statistically significant differences depending on the occupation, from 8,7% (95% CI: 6,9-10,6) on medics down to 3,2% (95% CI: 1,0-8,0) on personnel not associated with health care. The other characteristics did not associate significantly to antibody presence against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 infection frequency in HCP is similar to the estimated in the general population for big cities in Spain. This highlights the effectiveness of the infection control and prevention programme in this healthcare department targeted at healthcare personnel.

Effectivity of a Program for the Control and Prevention of COVID-19 Healthcare-Associated Infections in a Spanish Academic Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although recommendations to prevent COVID-19 healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have been proposed, data on their effectivity are currently limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effectivity of a program of control and prevention of COVID-19 in an academic general hospital in Spain. METHODS: We captured the number of COVID-19 cases and the type of contact that occurred in hospitalized patients and healthcare personnel (HCP). To evaluate the impact of the continuous use of a surgical mask among HCP, the number of patients with COVID-19 HAIs and accumulated incidence of HCP with COVID-19 was compared between the preintervention and intervention periods. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two patients with COVID-19 have been admitted to the hospital. Seven of them had an HAI origin (6 in the preintervention period and 1 in the intervention period). One hundred forty-two HCP were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 22 (15.5%) were attributed to healthcare (2 in the emergency department and none in the critical care departments), and 120 (84.5%) were attributed to social relations in the workplace or during their non-work-related personal interactions. The accumulated incidence during the preintervention period was 22.3 for every 1000 HCP and 8.2 for every 1000 HCP during the intervention period. The relative risk was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.55) and the attributable risk was -0.014 (95% confidence interval, -0.020 to -0.009). CONCLUSIONS: A program of control and prevention of HAIs complemented with the recommendation for the continuous use of a surgical mask in the workplace and social environments of HCP effectively decreased the risk of COVID-19 HAIs in admitted patients and HCP.

[Sero-epidemiological study of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel in a healthcare department]. / Estudio de sero-epidemiología de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en profesionales sanitarios de un departamento sanitario.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate IgG antibody prevalence against SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare personnel (HCP) of a healthcare department (HD). METHOD: Prevalence study. The presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was determined in HCP of the HD. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) tests were used. Field work took place from April 24, 2020 to May 8, 2020. The age, sex, occupation (physician, nurse, etc.) and the work area (Primary Care, Emergency Room, etc.) were gathered. The IgG antibody prevalence was then calculated with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). To study the association between HCP characteristics and the presence IgG the Chi Square test was used, and to study the magnitude of association, the Odds Ratio (95% CI) was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 4813 HCP in the HD, 4179 (87,1%) participated. Of these, 73,3% (3065) were women and 26,7% (1114) men. The global prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was 6,6% (95% CI: 5,8-7,3). There were statistically significant differences depending on the occupation, from 8,7% (95% CI: 6,9-10,6) on medics down to 3,2% (95% CI: 1,0-8,0) on personnel not associated with health care. The other characteristics did not associate significantly to antibody presence against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 infection frequency in HCP is similar to the estimated in the general population for big cities in Spain. This highlights the effectiveness of the infection control and prevention programme in this healthcare department targeted at healthcare personnel.

Frequency, Associated Risk Factors, and Characteristics of COVID-19 Among Healthcare Personnel in a Spanish Health Department.

INTRODUCTION: This study examines the frequency, associated factors, and characteristics of healthcare personnel coronavirus disease 2019 cases in a healthcare department that comprises a tertiary hospital and its associated 12 primary healthcare centers. METHODS: This study included healthcare personnel that showed symptoms or were in contact with a coronavirus disease 2019 case patient from March 2, 2020 to April 19, 2020. Their evolution and characteristics (age, sex, professional category, type of contact) were recorded. Correlations between the different characteristics and risk of developing coronavirus disease 2019 and severe coronavirus disease 2019 were analyzed using chi-square tests. Their magnitudes were quantified with ORs, AORs, and their 95% CIs using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of the 3,900 healthcare professionals in the department, 1,791 (45.9%) showed symptoms or were part of a contact tracing study. The prevalence of those with symptoms was 20.1% (784/3,900; 95% CI=18.8, 21.4), with coronavirus disease 2019 was 4.0% (156/3,900; 95% CI=3.4, 4.6), and with severe coronavirus disease 2019 was 0.5% (18/3,900; 95% CI=0.2, 0.7). The frequency of coronavirus disease 2019 in symptomatic healthcare personnel with a nonprotected exposure was 22.8% (112/491) and 13.7% (40/293) in those with a protected exposure (AOR=2.2, 95% CI=1.2, 3.9). The service in which the healthcare personnel performed their activity was not significantly associated with being diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. A total of 26.3% (10/38) of male healthcare personnel with coronavirus disease 2019 required hospitalization, compared with 6.8% (8/118) among female healthcare personnel (OR=4.9, 95% CI=1.8, 13.6). CONCLUSIONS: A surveillance and monitoring program centred on healthcare personnel enables an understanding of the risk factors that lead to coronavirus disease 2019 among this population. This knowledge allows the refinement of the strategies for disease control and prevention in healthcare personnel during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in a tertiary care hospital emergency department. / Impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en los trabajadores sanitarios del servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention and control program for health care workers in a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We recorded the number of confirmed COVID-19 workers in the ED on March 2, 2020, and April 12, 2020. Workers were screened if they had symptoms or were traced as contacts. Variables recorded were age, sex, staff position, work area, and reason for contact. We used the χ2 test to compare ED workers to workers in other areas of the health care system. RESULTS: Of the 3900 health care workers (279 in the ED), 1744 cases (92 in the ED) were included for analysis. A total of 736 workers (52 in the ED) had symptoms, and 151 had positive test results (9 from the ED). Two of the infections in the ED workers (22.2%) were attributed to patient contact and 7 (77.8%) to nonwork-related contact either in the workplace or in the community. The prevalence of COVID-19 among ED workers was 3.2% (9/279). The prevalence among other health system workers was 3.9% (142/3621). The differences in COVID-19 prevalence between the 2 groups was not significant. Nor was there a significant difference in the reasons for contact with the virus between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Based on the prevalence of COVID-19 among ED workers and other health care workers, the reasons for risk of contact with the virus, and the time frame for gathering the data, we conclude that the prevention and control measures in the ED have been effective.

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la efectividad de un programa de prevención y control de infecciones (PCI) por COVID-19 en los trabajadores sanitarios (TS) del servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario. METODO: Se recogió el número de casos confirmados de COVID-19 en TS del 2 de marzo al 12 de abril de 2020. Los TS fueron evaluados si presentaban síntomas o en el marco de estudios de contactos. Se recogió: edad, sexo, estamento, área trabajo y motivo contacto. Se comparó si existían diferencias entre los TS del SU y los del resto del Departamento de Salud (DS). RESULTADOS: De los 3.900 TS del DS (279 adscritos al SU), se evaluaron 1.744 TS (92 del SU). Presentaron síntomas 736 (52 del SU); 151 fueron confirmados COVID-19 (9 del SU). Dos casos del SU (22,2%) se atribuyeron a la asistencia sanitaria, y 7 (77,8%) a relaciones sociales en el lugar de trabajo o fuera de este. La prevalencia de TS con COVID-19 en el SU fue de un 3,2% (9/279), y en el resto de TS del 3,9% (142/3621). Entre los TS del SU y del resto del DS no hubo diferencias significativas en la prevalencia de afectados, ni entre los motivos de contacto. CONCLUSIONES: Teniendo en cuenta la prevalencia de TS con COVID-19 del SU respecto al resto del DS, el motivo del contacto de riesgo y su distribución en el tiempo, se puede considerar que el PCI orientado al SU fue efectivo.

Impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en los trabajadores sanitarios del servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la efectividad de un programa de prevención y control de infecciones (PCI) por COVID-19 en los trabajadores sanitarios (TS) del servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario. MÉTODO: Se recogió el número de casos confirmados de COVID-19 en TS del 2 de marzo al 12 de abril de 2020. Los TS fueron evaluados si presentaban síntomas o en el marco de estudios de contactos. Se recogió: edad, sexo, estamento, área trabajo y motivo contacto. Se comparó si existían diferencias entre los TS del SU y los del resto del Departamento de Salud (DS). RESULTADOS: De los 3.900 TS del DS (279 adscritos al SU), se evaluaron 1.744 TS (92 del SU). Presentaron síntomas 736 (52 del SU);151 fueron confirmados COVID-19 (9 del SU). Dos casos del SU (22,2%) se atribuyeron a la asistencia sanitaria, y 7 (77,8%) a relaciones sociales en el lugar de trabajo o fuera de este. La prevalencia de TS con COVID-19 en el SU fue de un 3,2% (9/279), y en el resto de TS del 3,9% (142/3621). Entre los TS del SU y del resto del DS no hubo diferencias significativas en la prevalencia de afectados, ni entre los motivos de contacto. CONCLUSIONES: Teniendo en cuenta la prevalencia de TS con COVID-19 del SU respecto al resto del DS, el motivo del contacto de riesgo y su distribución en el tiempo, se puede considerar que el PCI orientado al SU fue efectivo OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) prevention and control program for health care workers in a tertiary care hospital emergency department (ED). METHODS: We recorded the number of confirmed COVID-19 workers in the ED on March 2, 2020, and April 12, 2020. Workers were screened if they had symptoms or were traced as contacts. Variables recorded were age, sex, staff position, work area, and reason for contact. We used the χ2 test to compare ED workers to workers in other areas of the health care system. RESULTS: Of the 3900 health care workers (279 in the ED), 1744 cases (92 in the ED) were included for analysis. A total of 736 workers (52 in the ED) had symptoms, and 151 had positive test results (9 from the ED). Two of the infections in the ED workers (22.2%) were attributed to patient contact and 7 (77.8%) to nonwork-related contact either in the workplace or in the community. The prevalence of COVID-19 among ED workers was 3.2% (9/279). The prevalence among other health system workers was 3.9% (142/3621). The differences in COVID-19 prevalencebetween the 2 groups was not significant. Nor was there a significant difference in the reasons for contact with the virus between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Based on the prevalence of COVID-19 among ED workers and other health care workers, the reasons for risk of contact with the virus, and the time frame for gathering the data, we conclude that the prevention and control measures in the ED have been effective