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

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
J Clin Med ; 12(11)2023 Jun 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20238348

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 has been rapidly increased with the circulation of concerns about variants. So, the aim of our study was to evaluate the factors that increase the risk of this reinfection in healthcare workers compared to those who have never been positive and those who have had only one positivity. METHODS: A case-control study was carried out at the Teaching Hospital Policlinico Umberto I in Rome, Sapienza University of Rome, in the period between 6 March 2020 and 3 June 2022. Cases are healthcare workers who have developed a reinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while controls were either healthcare workers who tested positive once or those who have never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: 134 cases and 267 controls were recruited. Female gender is associated with a higher odds of developing reinfection (OR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.38-4.25). Moreover, moderate or high alcohol consumption is associated with higher odds of reinfection (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.19-1.87). Diabetes is also associated with higher odds of reinfection (OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 1.41-8.46). Finally, subjects with increased red blood cell counts have higher odds of reinfection (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.25). CONCLUSION: From the prevention point of view, these findings indicate that particular attention should be paid to subjects with diabetes mellitus, women and alcoholic drinkers. These results could also suggest that contact tracing represents a fundamental approach model against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, together with the health information of participants.

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