ABSTRACT
Introduction The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic led to the implementation of several non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), from closings of bars and restaurants to curfews and lockdowns. Vaccination campaigns started hoping it could efficiently alleviate NPI. The primary objective of the “Indoor Transmission of COVID-19” (ITOC) study is to determine among a fully vaccinated population the relative risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during one indoor clubbing event. Secondary objectives are to assess the transmission of other respiratory viruses, risk exposure, and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination, health pass, and psychological impact of indoor club closing. Methods and analysis Four thousand four hundred healthy volunteers aged 18–49 years and fully vaccinated will be included in Paris region. The intervention is an 8-hour indoor clubbing event with no masks, no social distance, maximum room capacity, and ventilation. A reservation group of up to 10 people will recruit participants, who will be randomized 1:1 to either the experimental group (2,200 volunteers in two venues with capacities of 1,000 people each) or the control group (2,200 volunteers asked not to go to the club). All participants will provide a salivary sample on the day of the experiment and 7 days later. They also will answer several questionnaires. Virological analyses include polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of salivary samples and air of the venue, investigating SARS-CoV-2 and 18 respiratory viruses. Ethics and dissemination Ethical clearance was first obtained in France from the institutional review board (Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France VII - CPP), and the trial received clearance from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products (Agence National de Sécurité du Médicament - ANSM). The trial is supported and approved by The Agence Nationale Recherche sur le SIDA, les hépatites et maladies émergences (ANRS-MIE). Positive, negative, and inconclusive results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Trial registration number IDR-CB 2021-A01473-38. Clinicaltrial.gov, identifier: NCT05311865.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Depuis décembre 2019, et l’apparition de l’épidémie par SARS-CoV-2, de nombreux soignants ont été contaminés par ce virus au cours de leur exercice professionnel. La transmission du virus peut en effet se faire par voie cutanée, par voie respiratoire, en particulier par les gouttelettes émises par les malades lors de toux, et enfin par aérosol. Toutefois, les circonstances exactes ne sont pas connues avec précision, alors même que ces éléments sont indispensables à la prévention. L’objectif de cette étude est de rechercher l’existence de gestes professionnels à risque associés à une plus grande prévalence de contamination par ce virus. Méthodes Entre le 29 mai et le 10 juillet 2020, l’ensemble du personnel du CHU de Rennes a été convié à participer à une enquête séro-épidémiologique. Dix équipes de 3 personnes sont ainsi passées systématiquement dans tous les services du CHU à plusieurs reprises. Tous les personnels volontaires ont rempli un questionnaire standardisé sur la présence de symptômes compatibles avec la COVID-19 et leurs activités durant l’épidémie (février à juin 2020). Ils bénéficiaient dans le même temps d’un test rapide (TDR) de Ng Biotech®, approuvé par le CNR. Un échantillon de sujets tirés au sort selon leurs activités dans un service ayant accueilli ou non des patients COVID-19 positifs a rempli un questionnaire complémentaire sur les gestes réalisés ainsi que l’utilisation d’équipements de protection individuelle (masques, gants, charlottes, blouses, …). Les sujets ayant eu une RT-PCR durant l’épidémie ont également été inclus dans cet échantillon. Les TDR positifs ont fait l’objet d’une confirmation sérologique par au moins un test ELISA sur la base du volontariat. Résultats Plus de 7000 personnels du CHU ont participé au dépistage, dont 3500 à l’étude ancillaire. Le taux de positivité du TDR ou de la sérologie est de 3,78 %. L’analyse préliminaire montre que le risque d’un TDR ou d’une sérologie positive associé à la prise en charge d’un patient COVID-19 positif est de 1,15 (0,74–1,78), de 2,00 (1,33–3,01) lors du contact avec un professionnel lui-même positif et de 2,06 (1,31–3,26) lors de la présence dans la vie personnelle d’un sujet identifié comme COVID-19 certain ou possible. En analyse univariée, certains gestes paraissent plus à risque de contamination chez les soignants (examen clinique, ophtalmologique, respiratoire). Les résultats plus complets seront présentés au Congrès. Conclusion Le risque de contamination professionnelle par le SARS-CoV-2 semble être surtout lié aux contacts entre professionnels, à l’environnement privé et à certains gestes professionnels. Le respect des mesures de prévention doit être systématisé dans toutes les circonstances professionnelles, y compris hors soins.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs), at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were among the primary targets for vaccination, which became mandatory for them on September 15th, 2021 in France. In November they were confronted to the fifth COVID-19 wave despite excellent vaccine coverage. We aimed to estimate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection after complete vaccination among HCWs with different vaccination schemes, and its determinants. METHODS: We enrolled all HCWs in the university hospital of Rennes, France who had received complete vaccination (two doses of COVID-19 vaccine). The delay from last vaccination dose to SARS-CoV-2 infection was computed.Fitted mixed Cox survival model with a random effect applied to exposure risk periods to account for epidemic variation was used to estimate the determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection after complete vaccination. RESULTS: Of the 6674 (82%) HCWs who received complete vaccination (36% BNT162b2, 29% mRNA-1273, and 34% mixed with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) and were prospectively followed-up for a median of 7.0 [6.3-8.0] months, 160 (2.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Incidence density of SARS-CoV-2 infection after complete vaccination was 3.39 [2.89-3.96] infections per 1000 person-month. Median time from vaccine completion to SARS-CoV-2 infection was 5.5 [3.2-6.6] months. Using fitted mixed Cox regression with the delay as a time-dependent variable and random effect applied to exposure risk periods, age (P < 0.001) was independently associated with the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccine schemes were not associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (P = 0.068). A period effect was significantly associated with the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection increases with time in fully vaccinated HCWs with no differences according to the vaccination scheme. The short delay between complete vaccination and incident SARS-CoV-2 infection highlights the need for sustained barrier measures even in fully vaccinated HCWs.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , VaccinationABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) are on the front line for COVID-19. Better knowledge of risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection is crucial for their protection. We aimed to identify these risk factors with a focus on care activities. METHODS: We conducted a seroprevalence survey among HCWs in a French referral hospital. Data on COVID-19 exposures, care activities, and protective equipment were collected on a standardized questionnaire. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 IgG adjusted on potential confounding. FINDINGS: Among the 3,234 HCWs enrolled, the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG was 3.8%. Risk factors included contact with relatives or HCWs with COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 2.20 [1.40-3.45] and 2.16 [1.46-3.18], respectively), but not contact with COVID-19 patients. In multivariate analyses, suboptimal use of protective equipment during nasopharyngeal sampling (OR 3.46 [1.15-10.40]), mobilisation of patients in bed (OR 3.30 [1.51-7.25]), clinical examination (OR 2.51 [1.16-5.43]), and eye examination (OR 2.90 [1.01-8.35]) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients washing and dressing and aerosol-generating procedures were additional risk factors, with or without appropriate use of protective equipment (OR 1.37 [1.04-1.81] and 1.74 [1.05-2.88]). CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs are (1) contact with relatives or HCWs with COVID-19, (2) close or prolonged contact with patients, (3) aerosol-generating procedures. Enhanced protective measures during the two latter care-activities may be warranted.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Humans , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers (HCWs) at increased risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were among the primary targets for vaccine campaigns. We aimed to estimate the protective efficacy of the first three COVID-19 vaccines available in Western Europe. METHODS: We merged two prospective databases that systematically recorded, in our institution: (a) HCWs positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal samples, and (b) HCWs who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. We excluded HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection during the 6 months prior to the study. HCWs were categorized as non-vaccinated if they received no vaccine and until the first injection +13 days, partially vaccinated from the first injection +14 days to the second injection +13 days, and fully vaccinated thereafter. RESULTS: Of the 8165 HCWs employed in our institution, 360 (4.4%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR during the study period (4th January to 17th May 2021). Incidence was 9.1% (8.2-10.0) in non-vaccinated HCWs, 1.2% (0.7-1.9) after one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, 1.4% (0.6-2.3) and 0.5% (0.1-1.0) after one and two doses of mRNA BNT162b2, 0.7% (0.1-1.9) and 0% after one and two doses of mRNA-1273 (p < 0.0001). Vaccine effectiveness (Cox model) was estimated at, respectively, 86.2% (76.5-91.0), 38.2% (6.3-59.2), and 49.2% (19.1-68.1) 14 days after the first dose for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, mRNA-1273, and mRNA-BNT162b2, and 100% (ND) and 94.6% (61.0-99.2) 14 days after the second dose for mRNA-1273 and mRNA-BNT162b2. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world study, the observed effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in HCWs was in line with the efficacy reported in pivotal randomized trials.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Health Personnel , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 , Humans , Vaccines, SyntheticABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To characterize healthcare workers' (HCWs) intention to receive the COVID-19 vaccine by the beginning of the vaccine campaign in France. METHODS: Data were collected on a self-administered questionnaire through the website of a tertiary care center (February 9-18, 2021). RESULTS: Among 1,965 respondents, 1,436 (73.1%), 453 (23.1%), and 76 (3.9%) declared themselves in favor, hesitant, or against the COVID-19 vaccine: <60% of auxiliary nurses and technicians intended to be vaccinated, as compared to 60-79% of nurses and support staff, and>80% of medical staff. On multivariate analysis, age, occupation, flu vaccine history, and controversy over the AstraZeneca vaccine tolerability were independently associated with COVID-19 vaccine intention. CONCLUSIONS: Patterns of vaccine hesitancy related to the COVID-19 and influenza vaccines are similar among HCWs. Media communication on vaccine side effects have a dramatic effect on vaccine hesitancy. Efforts are requested to inform HCWs about the risk/benefit balance of COVID-19 vaccines.
Subject(s)
Attitude to Health , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Personnel , Intention , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Vaccination Refusal , Adult , Aged , Humans , Middle AgedABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of NG-Test® when used as a finger-prick test on healthcare workers and to compare it to the ELISA Wantai Immunoassay. Fifty-one healthcare workers who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 positive and 59 who were RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 negative accepted to participate in this study. They were subjected to an NG-Test® finger-prick test and collection of a blood sample on the same day. A second NG-Test® on another finger was performed for the first 30 cases and controls and read blinded to the first. Sera obtained from blood samples were used to perform the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 ELISA. The interobserver agreement for the NG-Test® test was perfect (kappa coefficient = 100% [98%-100%]). The sensitivity of NG-Test® was estimated to be 85% [71.9%-92.3%] and the specificity 98.3% [95.0%-100.0%]) for both IgG and IgM. The percentage of agreement between the Wantai immunoassay and NG-Test® was 92.73% for IgG (Kappa = 0.85 [0.75-0.95]) and 65.45% (Kappa = 0.42 [0.26-0.58]) for IgM. Our study highlights the need to validate rapid immunoassay tests under real-life conditions. If NG-Test® is used in seroprevalence surveys, we recommend that its diagnostic performance be taken into consideration to obtain a reliable estimation.