ABSTRACT
Introduction Adherence to digital proximity tracing apps and preventive measures leading up to and following widespread SARS-CoV-2 vaccine rollout remains unclear. Our study aims to evaluate the relative effect of digital proximity tracing app use, SARS-CoV-2 vaccine uptake and adherence to additional preventive measures in a localized context of the pandemic.Methods We report findings from two population-based longitudinal cohorts in Switzerland, the Corona Immunitas Digital Follow-up eCohort (CI-DFU) and the COVID-19 Social Monitor (CSM) studies in 2021. Failure time analyses were conducted for each study cohort, stratified by age group. Cox proportional hazards regression models with time-varying covariates were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR). The analyses assessed vaccine uptake and SwissCovid app uninstalling outcomes, with the outcomes interchanging as the exposures in two separate substudies.Results We observed a dichotomy of individuals who did not use the app during the study period and did not get vaccinated, and who used the SwissCovid app during the study period and got vaccinated during the study period. We found an increased uptake of the vaccine associated with SwissCovid app use (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI: 1.40–1.62 [CI-DFU]; aHR, 1.79; 95% CI: 1.62–1.99 [CSM]) or adherence to preventive measures (aHR, 1.44; 95% CI: 1.28–1.62 [CI-DFU]; aHR, 1.82; 95% CI: 1.52–2.18 [CSM]). Decreased SwissCovid uninstallation risk was observed for participants who received their first vaccine dose throughout the study period (aHR, 0.55; 95% CI: 0.38–0.81 [CI-DFU]; aHR, 0.45; 95% CI: 0.27–0.78 [CSM]).Conclusion In evolving pandemic contexts, these findings can assist public health authorities in designing evidence-based communication strategies to enable adoption of preventive measures and novel health technologies across all population groups.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Background There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) vs . surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW). Methods Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled patient-facing HCWs from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferred mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). For those performing AGPs, we asked whether they used FFP2 irrespective of the patient’s COVID-19 status (i.e. universal use). The impact of FFP2 on i) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and ii) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed. Results We enrolled 3’259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2 respirators. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users (median follow-up 242 days); seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with a decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·8, 95% CI 0·6-1·0, p=0·052) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·7, 95% CI 0·5-1·0, p=0·053); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR for positive swab 10·1, p<0·001; aOR for seroconversion 5·0, p<0·001). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (>20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0·7, p<0·001; aOR 0·6, p=0·035). Universal FFP2 use during AGPs showed no protective effect (aHR 1·1, p=0·7; aOR 0·9, p=0·53). Conclusion Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients. Funding Swiss National Sciences Foundation, Federal Office of Public Health, Cantonal Health Department St.Gallen
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Background: Recent evidence suggests that pregnant women might be at higher risk of severe disease associated with the emerging pandemic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), while exposed fetuses/newborns could suffer from preterm birth, growth restriction and neonatal infections. The magnitude of this increased risk and specific risk factors for severity remains unclear.Methods: We performed a case control study comparing pregnant women with severe coronavirus disease 19 (case) to pregnant women with a milder form (controls) enrolled in COVI-Preg international registry cohort between from March 24 to July 26, 2020. Risk factors for severity, obstetrical, fetal and neonatal outcomes were assessed.Findings: A total of 926 pregnant women with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 were included, among which 92 (9.9%) presented a severe COVID-19 disease. Risk factors for severe maternal outcomes were pulmonary comorbidities [aOR 4.3, 95% CI 1.9-9.5], hypertensive disorders [aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.0-7.0] and diabetes [aOR2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.5]. Pregnant women with severe maternal outcomes were at higher risk of cesarean sections [70.7% (n=53/75)], preterm deliveries [62.7% (n= 32/51)] and newborns requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit [41.3% (n=31/75)].Interpretation: Pregnant women, particularly those with associated comorbidities, seem to be at higher risk of severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Obstetrical and neonatal outcomes appear to be influenced by the severity of maternal disease; complications include cesarean sections, prematurity and neonatal admission to the intensive care unit.Funding Statement: None.Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by both the Swiss Ethical Board (CER-VD- 2020-00548) and the local ethics boards at each participating center.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections , Diabetes Mellitus , HypertensionABSTRACT
Background: Pregnant women represent a vulnerable population at higher risk of complications of infectious diseases. Data regarding the consequences of the emerging pandemic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during pregnancy are scarce. Recent evidence suggests that pregnant women might be at higher risk of severe disease, while exposed fetuses and newborns could suffer from preterm birth, growth restriction and neonatal infections.Methods: We developed an international web registry to allow structured data collection. Pregnant women at any stage during gestation tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled. Maternal, obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were recorded.Findings: 1033 pregnant women tested for SARS-CoV-2 were included, among which 926 tested positive and 107 tested negative. Positive pregnant women were at higher risk of severe maternal outcomes compared to negative women [aRR 5.6, 95% CI 1.4-22.7]. Risk factors for severe maternal outcomes among positive women were pulmonary comorbidities [aOR 4.3, 95% CI 1.9-9.5], hypertensive disorders [aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.0-7.0] and diabetes [aOR2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.5]. No difference in term of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were observed between positive and negative women. Positive pregnant women with severe maternal outcomes were at higher risk of cesarean sections [70.7% (n=53/75)], preterm deliveries [62.7% (n= 32/51)] and newborns requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit [41.3% (n=31/75)]. A positive neonatal SARS-CoV-2 test was observed in 2.9% (n=11/384) of newborns with an available test at birth.Interpretation: Pregnant women, particularly those with associated comorbidities, seem to be at higher risk of severe complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Preliminary data regarding obstetrical and neonatal outcomes among women with a mild disease are reassuring.Funding Statement: None.Declaration of Interests: The authors declare that we have no conflicts of interest.Ethics Approval Statement: The study was approved by both the Swiss Ethical Board (CER-VD-2020-00548) and the local ethics boards at each participating center.