Impact of Anxiety on Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptoms of Burnout in Multi-Professional Residents in Brazil During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

We aimed to determine the prevalence of anxiety and to identify associated factors among multi-professional residents in Brazil during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional study included a sample of 752 multi-professional residents selected by snowball technique. Symptoms of anxiety were measured by the Beck anxiety inventory scale (≥ 16 cut-off). We used WHOQOL-BREF to access the health-related quality of life and the Maslach Burnout Inventory to measure the burnout syndrome. PR and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the Poisson regression model. The prevalence of anxiety was 41.2% (310/752). Some variables were strongly associated with anxiety: afraid of getting COVID-19; extra work demand during COVID-19 pandemic; sweating/wheezing/increased heart rate during work; feeling safe when using personal protective equipment at work, and psychological support from residence preceptors. Residents with symptoms of anxiety showed high emotional exhaustion at work (36.6 ± 9.6 vs. 24.7 ± 10.7, P = 0.001) and depersonalization (8.9 ± 6.0 vs. 5.6 ± 4.9, P = 0.001). Correlations coefficients between emotional exhaustion versus Physical WHOQOL-BREF and between emotional exhaustion versus Psychological WHOQOL-BREF were significantly lower among residents without anxiety (P = 0.027 and P = 0,03, respectively). The prevalence of anxiety was high and strongly associated with several variables, particularly with being afraid of getting COVID-19, the perception of workload, somatization (sweating, wheezing and increased heart rate during work), feeling unsafe when using personal protective equipment, and lack of psychological support from residence preceptors. Anxiety was associated with increased emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and low health-related quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Low WHOQOL-BREF environment domain, and high emotional exhaustion MBI domain increased the chances of presenting symptoms of anxiety.

Frequent Infection of Cats With SARS-CoV-2 Irrespective of Pre-Existing Enzootic Coronavirus Immunity, Brazil 2020.

Carnivores such as cats and minks are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. Brazil is a global COVID-19 hot spot and several cases of human-to-cat transmission have been documented. We investigated the spread of SARS-CoV-2 by testing 547 domestic cats sampled between July-November 2020 from seven states in southern, southeastern, and northeastern Brazil. Moreover, we investigated whether immune responses elicited by enzootic coronaviruses affect SARS-CoV-2 infection in cats. We found infection with significantly higher neutralizing antibody titers against the Gamma variant of concern, endemic in Brazil during 2020, than against an early SARS-CoV-2 B.1 isolate (p<0.0001), validating the use of Gamma for further testing. The overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Brazilian cats during late 2020 validated by plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT90) was 7.3% (95% CI, 5.3-9.8). There was no significant difference in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in cats between Brazilian states, suggesting homogeneous infection levels ranging from 4.6% (95% CI, 2.2-8.4) to 11.4% (95% CI, 6.7-17.4; p=0.4438). Seroprevalence of the prototypic cat coronavirus Feline coronavirus (FCoV) in a PRNT90 was high at 33.3% (95% CI, 24.9-42.5) and seroprevalence of Bovine coronavirus (BCoV) was low at 1.7% (95% CI, 0.2-5.9) in a PRNT90. Neutralizing antibody titers were significantly lower for FCoV than for SARS-CoV-2 (p=0.0001), consistent with relatively more recent infection of cats with SARS-CoV-2. Neither the magnitude of SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers (p=0.6390), nor SARS-CoV-2 infection status were affected by FCoV serostatus (p=0.8863). Our data suggest that pre-existing immunity against enzootic coronaviruses neither prevents, nor enhances SARS-CoV-2 infection in cats. High SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence already during the first year of the pandemic substantiates frequent infection of domestic cats and raises concerns on potential SARS-CoV-2 mutations escaping human immunity upon spillback.

Anxiety, health-related quality of life, and symptoms of burnout in frontline physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic caused increased workload and stress for health professionals involved in the care of such patients. We aimed to describe the health-related quality of life, and burnout in frontline physicians diagnosed with anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted during the first-wave phase of COVID-19, from September to October 2020. Questionnaires were sent electronically to 450 physicians from State of Bahia, assessing symptoms of anxiety, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and burnout syndrome. For the categorical variables, the Pearson's chi-square test was used and difference between means was compare using the Mann-Whitney test. was Groups with and without anxiety symptoms were compared using prevalence ratios (PR). Pearson's correlation measured the correlation between WHOQOL-BREF and MBI (Maslach Burnout Inventory) domains. The Fisher r-to-z transformation was used to assess the significance of the difference between two correlation coefficients. The significance level was <0.05. RESULTS: Out of the 450 physicians, 223 (49,6%) completely answered the questionnaire and 38 (17%) showed symptoms of anxiety. Physicians with anxiety had higher scores in emotional exhaustion (EE) (38.31 ± 8.59 vs 25.31±0.87; p = 0.0001) and depersonalization (DP) (9.0 ± 5.6 vs 5.9 ± 5.3; p = 0.001) domains, and lower scores in personal accomplishment (PA) (32.1 ± 8.2 vs 36.3 ± 7.6; p = 0.004), than those without anxiety. All correlations between WHOQOL-BREF domains and MBI in physicians without anxiety were significant (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Physicians with anxiety showed more emotional exhaustion, less personal accomplishment, and lower quality of life. All domains of WHOQOL BREF were correlated with all MBI domains among physicians without anxiety. Differences in correlation according to anxiety were remarkable in psychological HOQOL BREF domain and emotional exhaustion and depersonalization MBI domains. The effect of anxiety leading to poorer levels of perceived health needs to be further investigated.

Self-prescribed Ivermectin use is associated with a lower rate of seroconversion in health care workers diagnosed with COVID, in a dose-dependent response.

BACKGROUND: Over-the-counter use of ivermectin amongst other drugs as SARS-CoV-2 treatment has been increasingly common, despite the lack of evidence on its clinical efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ivermectin use on production of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health care workers (HCW) diagnosed with COVID-19 and of Th1/Th2 cytokines by stimulated peripheral blood mononuclear cells of the same cohort (PBMCs). METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated seroconversion and neutralizing antibodies production in HCW at Complexo Hospitalar Universitário Professor Edgard Santos (Salvador, Brazil), diagnosed with COVID-19 from May to July, 2020, as well as in vitro production of antibody against SARS-CoV-2 and Th1/Th2 cytokines. Analyses were performed between December 2020 and February 2021. Participants were stratified according to the use of ivermectin (≤ 1 dose vs. multiple doses) for treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS: 45 HCW were included (62% women). Mean age was 39 years, and disease severity was similar across groups. Neutralizing antibodies were detected less frequently in multiple doses (70%) vs. ≤ 1 dose (97%) groups, p = 0.02). PBMCs of patients in multiple doses group also were less likely to produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 following in vitro stimulation with purified spike protein in comparison with patients in ≤ 1 dose group (p < 0.001). PBMC´s production of Th1/Th2 cytokines levels was similar across groups. Abdominal pain (15% vs 46%, p = 0.04), diarrhea (21% vs. 55%, p = 0.05) and taste perversion (0% vs. 18%, p = 0.05) were more frequently reported by participants that used multiple doses of ivermectin. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was no evidence for differential disease severity upon ivermectin use for treatment of COVID-19 it was associated with more gastro-intestinal side-effects and impairment of anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies production, in a dose dependent manner. This potentially impacts the effectiveness of immune response and the risk of reinfection and warrants additional studies for clarifying the mechanisms and consequences of such immunomodulatory effects.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnant women and newborns in two maternity hospitals in Salvador-Bahia, Brazil.

The outbreak of the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) causing the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has spread globally. As of June 18, 2020, a high maternal mortality rate due to SARS-CoV-2 infections was identified in Brazil, representing most of the world cases at that time. An observational, cross-sectional study was performed with pregnant women admitted in two maternity hospitals located in Salvador/Bahia and their newborns, from May 24th up to July 17th of 2020. Among 329 pregnant women enrolled at hospital admission, a high prevalence (n=28; 8.5%) of pregnant women with COVID-19 was observed, as well as a high proportion of asymptomatic cases (n=19; 67.9%). Two newborns had detectable SARS-CoV-2 but evolved without abnormalities. This data highlight the importance of identifying pregnant women with COVID-19 for proper isolation measures to prevent in-hospital transmission.

Validation of the GeneXpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 PCR assay using saliva as biological specimen.

In the pandemic, rapid and accurate detection of SARS-CoV-2 is crucial in controlling the outbreak. Recent studies have shown a high detection rate using saliva/oral fluids as specimens for laboratory detection of the virus. We intended to evaluate the test performance of the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 cartridge assay in comparison to a conventional qRT-PCR testing, using saliva as biological specimen. Forty saliva samples from symptomatic participants were collected. Conventional qRT-PCR was performed for amplification of E and RdRp genes and the Xpert Xpress SARS-CoV-2 assay amplified E and N2 genes. In the conventional assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 34.9, and of the RdRp gene was 38.3. In the Xpert Xpress assay, the median cycle threshold value of the E gene was 29.7, and of the N2 gene was 31.6. These results can allow a broaden use of molecular tests for management of COVID-19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.

Saliva is a reliable, non-invasive specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection

Background Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) of respiratory specimens is the gold standard test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, collecting nasopharyngeal swabs causes discomfort to patients and may represent considerable risk for healthcare workers. The use of saliva as a diagnostic sample has several advantages. Objectives The aim of this study was to validate the use of saliva as a biological sample for diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods This study was conducted at Infectious Diseases Research Laboratory (LAPI), in Salvador, Brazil. Participants presenting with signs/symptoms suggesting SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS), and saliva collection. Saliva samples were diluted in PBS, followed by RNA isolation and RT-Real Time PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Results of conventional vs saliva samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS) version 18.0. Results One hundred fifty-five participants were recruited and samples pairs of NPS/OPS and saliva were collected. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR using saliva samples were 94.4% (95% CI 86.4-97.8) and 97.62% (95% CI 91.7-99.3), respectively. There was an overall high agreement (96.1%) between the two tests. Conclusions Use of self-collected saliva samples is an easy, convenient, and low-cost alternative to conventional NP swab-based molecular tests. These results may allow a broader use of molecular tests for management of COVID19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.

Saliva is a reliable, non-invasive specimen for SARS-CoV-2 detection.

BACKGROUND: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although Real Time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) of respiratory specimens is the gold standard test for detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection, collecting nasopharyngeal swabs causes discomfort to patients and may represent considerable risk for healthcare workers. The use of saliva as a diagnostic sample has several advantages. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to validate the use of saliva as a biological sample for diagnosis of COVID-19. METHODS: This study was conducted at Infectious Diseases Research Laboratory (LAPI), in Salvador, Brazil. Participants presenting with signs/symptoms suggesting SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) and/or oropharyngeal swab (OPS), and saliva collection. Saliva samples were diluted in PBS, followed by RNA isolation and RT-Real Time PCR for SARS-CoV-2. Results of conventional vs saliva samples testing were compared. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS) version 18.0. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five participants were recruited and samples pairs of NPS/OPS and saliva were collected. The sensitivity and specificity of RT-PCR using saliva samples were 94.4% (95% CI 86.4-97.8) and 97.62% (95% CI 91.7-99.3), respectively. There was an overall high agreement (96.1%) between the two tests. CONCLUSIONS: Use of self-collected saliva samples is an easy, convenient, and low-cost alternative to conventional NP swab-based molecular tests. These results may allow a broader use of molecular tests for management of COVID19 pandemic, especially in resources-limited settings.