One Year Facing COVID. Systematic Evaluation of Risk Factors Associated With Mental Distress Among Hospital Workers in Italy.

Introduction: Italy was the first Western country affected by the COVID-19 pandemic that still constitutes a severe challenge for healthcare workers (HCWs), with a deep impact on their mental health. Several studies confirmed that a considerable proportion of HCW developed adverse psychological impairment (PsI). To focus on preventive and rehabilitation measures, it is fundamental to identify individual and occupational risk factors. We systematically assessed possible PsI among all employees in a large university hospital in Italy, using validated psychometric scales in the context of occupational health surveillance. Methods: In the period of July 2020 to July 2021, we enrolled 990 HCWs. For each subject, the psychological wellbeing was screened in two steps. The first-level questionnaire collected gender, age, occupational role, personal and occupational COVID-19 exposure, general psychological discomfort (GHQ-12), post-traumatic stress symptoms (IES-R), and anxiety (GAD-7). Workers showing PsI (i.e., test scores above the cutoff in at least one among GHQ-12, IES-R, and GAD-7) have been further investigated by the second-level questionnaire (psycho-diagnostic) composed by PHQ-9, DES-II, and SCL-90 scales. If the second-level showed clinically relevant symptoms, then we offered individual specialist treatment (third level). Results: Three hundred sixteen workers (32%) presented signs of PsI at the first-level screening questionnaire. Women, nurses, and subjects engaged in the COVID-19 area and with an infected family member showed significantly higher PsI risk. PsI prevalence was strongly associated with the pandemic trend in the region but sensibly decreased after January 2021, when almost all workers received the vaccination. A proportion of subjects with PsI presented clinically relevant symptoms (second-level screening) on PHQ-9 (35%), DES (20%), and SCL-90 (28%). These symptoms were associated neither to direct working experience with patients with COVID-19 nor to COVID-19 experience in the family and seemed not to be influenced by the pandemic waves or workers vaccination. Conclusions: The evaluation of psychological wellbeing of all hospital workers, directly or indirectly exposed to pandemic consequences, constitutes a unique condition to detect individual, occupational, and non-occupational risk factors for PsI in situations of high stress and/or disasters, as well as variables associated with symptom chronicization.

Side effects among healthcare workers from a large Milan university hospital after second dose of BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine.

BACKGROUND: In Italy, healthcare workers (HCWs) were among the first to receive COVID-19 vaccination. Aim of the present study is to evaluate frequency and severity of adverse events (AEs) following the second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine among HCWs of a large university hospital in Milan, Italy. METHODS: One month after having received the second dose of vaccine, HCWs filled-in a form about type, severity, and duration of post-vaccination local and systemic symptoms. We calculated the overall frequency of AEs and used multivariable Poisson regression models (adjusted for sex, age, BMI, smoking, allergy history, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, anti-hypertensive therapy, and occupation) to calculate risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of AEs according to selected variables. RESULTS: We included 3659 HCWs. Overall, 2801 (76.6%) experienced at least one local event, with pain at injection site being the most frequent (2788, 76.2%). Systemic events were reported by 2080 (56.8%) HCWs, with fatigue (52.3%), muscle pain (42.2%), headache (37.7%), joint pain (31.9%), and fever (26.2%) being the most frequent. Risks of systemic events were associated with female gender (RR=1.14, CI: 1.06-1.23), age (strong decrease with increasing age, p-trend<0.001), allergy history (RR=1.13, CI: 1.05-1.20), and current smoking (RR=0.90, CI: 0.84-0.97). HCWs with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (even if symptomatic) were not at increased risk. CONCLUSIONS: Both local and systemic acute effects after second dose of BNT162b2 vaccine were frequently reported. However, symptoms were mostly light/mild and of short duration. Thus, our findings support the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in adults in relatively good health.

Increased Risk of Urticaria/Angioedema after BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine in Health Care Workers Taking ACE Inhibitors.

Urticarial eruptions and angioedema are the most common cutaneous reactions in patients undergoing mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. The vasoactive peptide bradykinin has long been known to be involved in angioedema and recently also in urticaria. Bradykinin is mainly catabolized by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE), which is inhibited by ACE inhibitors, a commonly employed class of antihypertensive drugs. We evaluated the risk of developing urticaria/angioedema after inoculation with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a population of 3586 health care workers. The influences of ACE inhibitors and selected potential confounding variables (sex, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and allergy history) were evaluated by fitting univariate and multivariable Poisson regression models. The overall cumulative incidence of urticaria/angioedema was 1.8% (65 out of 3586; 95% CI: 1.4-2.3%). Symptoms were mild, and no subject consulted a physician. Subjects taking ACE inhibitors had an adjusted three-fold increased risk of urticaria/angioedema (RR 2.98, 95% CI: 1.12-7.96). When we restricted the analysis to those aged 50 years or more, the adjusted RR was 3.98 (95% CI: 1.44-11.0). In conclusion, our data indicate that subjects taking ACE inhibitors have an increased risk of urticaria/angioedema after vaccination with the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Symptoms are mild and self-limited; however, they should be considered to adequately advise subjects undergoing vaccination.

COVID-19: What happened to the healthcare workers of a research and teaching hospital in Milan, Italy?

The paper wants to present the data of infection of the Health Care Workers of a research and teaching hospital in Milan, Italy. The majority (2554, 55.9%) of 4572 HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 8.8% were found positive. Most of the tested workers were women, but we found higher relative frequency of positivity for men, even after adjustment for age, working area, and occupation. The higher frequency of positive tests in the medicine area is probably explained by the higher concentration in that area of COVID-19 patients. Conversely, the low frequency of positive HCWs in intensive care units is  probably explained by the diffuse and continuous use of PPD. Our results show that HCWs in a research and teaching hospital in the most hit Region in Italy had a similar pattern of infection as all other HCWs all over the world. The problem of SARS-CoV-2 infections among the hospital personnel HCWs should remind us  the concerns about hospital acquired infections both for patients and HCWs.