Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add filters

Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Vaccine: X ; 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2147145

ABSTRACT

Patients with frailty are considered to be at greater risk to get severe infection from SARS-CoV-2. One of the most effective strategies is vaccination. In our study we evaluated both the humoral immune response elicited by the vaccination at different time points, and the T-cell response in terms of interferon (IFN)-γ production in frail patients and healthy donors. Fifty-seven patients (31 patients undergoing hemodialysis and 26 HIV positive subjects) and 39 healthcare workers were enrolled. All participants received two doses of the mRNA vaccine BNT162b2. Healthcare workers showed a significantly higher antibody titer than patients twenty-one days after the first dose (p<0.001). From the same time point we observed for both groups a decay of the antibody levels with a steeper slope of decline in the patients group. Regarding T-cell response the only significant difference between non-reactive and reactive subjects was found in median antibody levels, higher in the responders group than in non-responders. The healthcare workers seem to better respond to the vaccination in terms of antibodies production;the lack of T-cell response in about 50% of the participants seems to suggest that in our study population both humoral and cell-mediated response decline over time remarking the importance of the booster doses, particularly for frail patients.

2.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(18)2021 09 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1547312

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to assess the effect of contact time, contact distance and the use of personal protective equipment on the determination of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers (HCWs). This study consists of an analysis of data gathered for safety reasons at the Sapienza Teaching Hospital Policlinico Umberto I in Rome through the surveillance system that was put into place after the worsening of the COVID-19 pandemic. The studied subjects consist of HCWs who were put under health surveillance, i.e., all employees who were in contact with subjects who were confirmed to have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The HCWs under surveillance were monitored for a period encompassing ten days after the date of contact, during which they undertook nasopharyngeal swab tests analysed through RT-PCR (RealStar® SARS-CoV-2 Altona Diagnostic-Germany). Descriptive and univariate analyses have been undertaken, considering the following as risk factors: (a) no personal protective equipment use (PPE); (b) Distance < 1 m between the positive and contact persons; (c) contact time > 15'. Finally, a Cox regression and an analysis of the level of synergism between factors, as specified by Rothman, were carried out. We analysed data from 1273 HCWs. Of these HCWs, 799 (62.8%) were females, with a sample average age of 47.8 years. Thirty-nine (3.1%) tested positive during surveillance. The overall incidence rate was 0.4 per 100 person-days. Time elapsed from the last exposure and a positive RT-PCR result ranged from 2 to 17 days (mean = 7, median = 6 days). In the univariate analysis, a distance <1 m and a contact time > 15' proved to be risk factors for the SARS-CoV-2 infection, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.62 (95% CI: 1.11-6.19) and 3.59 (95% IC: 1.57-8.21), respectively. The synergism analysis found the highest synergism between the "no PPE use" x "Contact time". The synergy index S remains strongly positive also in the analysis of the factors "no PPE use" x "Distance" and "Time of contact" x "Distance". This study confirms the absolute need to implement safety protocols during the pandemic and to use the correct PPE within health facilities in order to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. The analysis shows that among the factors considered (contact time and distance, no use of PPE), there is a strong synergistic effect.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Personal Protective Equipment , Contact Tracing , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
J Clin Med ; 9(9)2020 Sep 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-750664

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of symptoms and signs in healthcare workers (HCW) with Sars-CoV-2. METHODS: This was a case-control study. Cases consisted of symptomatic healthcare workers who had a positive SARS-CoV-2 real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, while controls were symptomatic healthcare workers with a negative RT-PCR test. For each symptom, ROCs were plotted. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated using the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. A logistic regression analysis was carried out for calculating the OR (95% CI) for each symptom associated to the SARS-CoV-2 positivity. RESULTS: We recruited 30 cases and 75 controls. Fever had the best sensitivity while dyspnea, anosmia, and ageusia had the highest specificity. The highest PPVs were found again for dyspnea (75%), anosmia (73.7%), and ageusia (66.7%). Lastly, the highest NPVs were related to anosmia (81.4%) and ageusia (79.3%). Anosmia (OR = 14.75; 95% CI: 4.27-50.87), ageusia (OR = 9.18; 95% CI: 2.80-30.15), and headache (OR = 3.92; 95% CI: 1.45-10.56) are significantly associated to SARS-CoV-2 positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Anosmia and ageusia should be considered in addition to the well-established fever, cough, and dyspnea. In a resource-limited setting, this method could save time and money.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL