West Nile Virus Infection: A Cross-Sectional Study on Italian Medical Professionals during Summer Season 2022.

West Nile virus (WNV) has progressively endemized in large areas of continental Europe, and particularly in Northern Italy, in the Po River Valley. During summer season 2022, Italy experienced an unprecedented surge in incidence cases of WNV infections, including its main complications (West Nile fever (WNF) and West Nile neuroinvasive disease (WNND)). As knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of medical professionals may be instrumental in guaranteeing a prompt diagnosis and an accurate management of incident cases, we performed a cross-sectional study specifically on a sample of Italian medical professionals (1 August 2022-10 September 2022; around 8800 potential recipients). From a total of 332 questionnaires (response rate of 3.8%), 254 participating medical professionals were eventually included in the analyses. Knowledge status of participants was unsatisfying, as most of them exhibited knowledge gaps on the actual epidemiology of WNV, with similar uncertainties on the clinical features of WNF and WNND. Moreover, most of participants substantially overlooked WNV as a human pathogen when compared to SARS-CoV-2, TB, and even HIV. Interestingly, only 65.4% of respondents were either favorable or highly favorable towards a hypothetical WNV vaccine. Overall, acknowledging a higher risk perception on WNV was associated with individual factors such as reporting a seniority ≥ 10 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.39, 95% Confidence interval [95%CI] 1.34 to 4.28), reporting a better knowledge score (aOR 2.92, 95%CI 1.60 to 5.30), having previously managed cases of WNV infections (aOR 3.65, 95%CI 1.14 to 14.20), being favorable towards a hypothetic vaccine (aOR 2.16, 95%CI 1.15 to 4.04), and perceiving WNV infections as potentially affecting daily activities (aOR 2.57, 95%CI 1.22 to 5.42). In summary, substantial knowledge gaps and the erratic risk perception collectively enlighten the importance and the urgency for appropriate information campaigns among medical professionals, and particularly among frontline personnel.

Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices towards SARS-CoV-2 vaccination among morbid obese individuals: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Vaccinations have dramatically impacted on the ongoing pandemic of COVID-19, the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). As morbid obese (MO) individuals are at high risk for severe complications, their acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is of certain public health interest. METHODS: We investigated the knowledge, attitudes and eventual acceptance of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination among MO individuals either in waiting list, or recipients of bariatric surgery from a reference center (Parma University Hospital) shortly before the inception of the Italian mass vaccination campaign (March 2021). Data were collected through a web-based questionnaire. Association of individual factors with acceptance of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was assessed by means of a logistic regression analysis with eventual calculation of adjusted Odds Ratios (aOR) and corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: Adequate, general knowledge of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 was found in the majority of MO patients. High perception of SARS-CoV-2 risk was found in around 80% of participants (79.2% regarding its occurrence, 73.6% regarding its potential severity). Acceptance of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination was reported by 65.3% of participants, and was more likely endorsed by MO patients who were likely to accept some sort of payment/copayment (aOR 5.783; 1.426; 23.456), or who were more likely towards a vaccination mandate (aOR 7.920; 1.995; 31.444). CONCLUSIONS: Around one third of the MO individuals among potential recipient of bariatric surgery exhibited some significant hesitancy towards SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, and a rational approach may fail to capture and address specific barriers/motivators in this subset of individuals, stressing the importance for alternative interventions. (www.actabiomedica.it).

Respiratory Syncytial Virus: Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs of General Practitioners from North-Eastern Italy (2021).

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a lead cause of morbidity and hospitalizations in infants. RSV vaccines are currently under development, and preventive options are limited to monoclonal antibodies (mAb). We assessed the knowledge, attitudes and practices for RSV in a sample of general practitioners (GPs) from north-eastern Italy (2021), focusing on the risk perception for infants (age < 8 years) and its potential effectors. We administered an internet survey to 543 GPs, with a response rate of 28.9%. Knowledge status was unsatisfactory, with substantial knowledge gaps found on the epidemiology of RSV and its prevention through mAb. The main effectors of risk perception were identified as having a background in pediatrics (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 55.398 and 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 6.796-451.604), being favorable towards RSV vaccines when available (aOR: 4.728, 95% CI: 1.999-11.187), while having previously managed an RSV case (aOR: 0.114, 95% CI: 0.024-0.552) and previously recommended hospitalization for cases (aOR: 0.240, 95% CI: 0.066-0.869) were identified as negative effectors. In summary, the significant extent of knowledge gaps and the erratic risk perception, associated with the increasing occurrence in RSV infections, collectively stress the importance of appropriate information campaigns among primary care providers.

Excess Mortality on Italian Small Islands during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An Ecological Study.

Small islands have been considered at an advantage when dealing with infectious diseases, including COVID-19, but the evidence is still lacking. Crude mortality rates (CMRs) and excess mortality rates (EMRs) were calculated for 35 municipalities on the Italian small islands for 2020 and 2021, and the corresponding estimates were compared to those of the parent provinces and the national estimates. Notification rates for COVID-19 were retrieved, but detailed data at the municipality level were not available. A relatively low CMR (1.069 per 100 per year, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.983-1.164) was identified in 2020, compared to 1.180, 95% CI 1.098-1.269 for 2021. EMRs of small islands ranged between -25.6% and +15.6% in 2020, and between -13.0% and +20.9% in 2021, with an average gain of +0.3% (95% CI -5.3 to +5.8) for the entirety of the assessed timeframe, and no substantial differences between 2020 and 2021 (pooled estimates of -4.1%, 95% CI -12.3 to 4.1 vs. 4.6%, 95% CI -3.1 to 12.4; p = 0.143). When dealing with COVID-19 notification rates, during the first wave, parent provinces of Italian small islands exhibited substantially lower estimates than those at the national level. Even though subsequent stages of the pandemic (i.e., second, third, and fourth waves) saw a drastic increase in the number of confirmed cases and CMR, estimates from small islands remained generally lower than those from parent provinces and the national level. In regression analysis, notification rates and mortality in the parent provinces were the main effectors of EMRs in the small islands (ß = 0.469 and ß = 22.768, p < 0.001 and p = 0.007, respectively). Contrarily, the management of incident cases in hospital infrastructures and ICUs was characterized as a negative predictor for EMR (ß = -11.208, p = 0.008, and -59.700, p = 0.003, respectively). In summary, the study suggests a potential role of small geographical and population size in strengthening the effect of restrictive measures toward countering the spread and mortality rate of COVID-19.

Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis on real world data.

Background and aim Rapid antigen detection (RAD) tests on nasopharyngeal specimens have been recently made available for SARS-CoV-2 infections, and early studies suggested their potential utilization as rapid screening and diagnostic testing. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was aimed to assess available evidence and to explore the reliability of antigenic tests in the management of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to November 5th, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis. RESULTS: Based on 25 studies, we computed a pooled sensitivity of 72.8% (95%CI 62.4-81.3), a specificity of 99.4% (95%CI 99.0-99.7), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. More precisely, RAD tests exhibited higher sensitivity on samples with high viral load (i.e. <25 Cycle Threshold; 97.6%; 95%CI 94.1-99.0), compared to those with low viral load (≥25 Cycle Threshold; 43.6%; 95% 27.6-61.1). DISCUSSION: As the majority of collected reports were either cohort or case-control studies, deprived of preventive power analysis and often oversampling positive tests, overall performances may have been overestimated. Therefore, the massive referral to antigenic tests in place of RT-qPCR is currently questionable, and also their deployment as mass screening test may lead to intolerable share of missing diagnoses. On the other hand, RAD tests may find a significant role in primary care and in front-line settings (e.g. Emergency Departments). (www.actabiomedica.it).

SARS-CoV-2-Legionella Co-Infections: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (2020-2021).

Legionnaires' Disease (LD) is a severe, sometimes fatal interstitial pneumonia due to Legionella pneumophila. Since the inception of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, some contradictory reports about the effects of lockdown measures on its epidemiology have been published, but no summary evidence has been collected to date. Therefore, we searched two different databases (PubMed and EMBASE) focusing on studies that reported the occurrence of LD among SARS-CoV-2 cases. Data were extracted using a standardized assessment form, and the results of such analyses were systematically reported, summarized, and compared. We identified a total of 38 articles, including 27 observational studies (either prospective or retrospective ones), 10 case reports, and 1 case series. Overall, data on 10,936 SARS-CoV-2 cases were included in the analyses. Of them, 5035 (46.0%) were tested for Legionella either through urinary antigen test or PCR, with 18 positive cases (0.4%). A pooled prevalence of 0.288% (95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 0.129-0.641), was eventually calculated. Moreover, detailed data on 19 co-infections LD + SARS-CoV-2 were obtained (males: 84.2%; mean age: 61.9 years, range 35 to 83; 78.9% with 1 or more underlying comorbidities), including 16 (84.2%) admissions to the ICU, with a Case Fatality Ratio of 26.3%. In summary, our analyses suggest that the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2-Legionella infections may represent a relatively rare but not irrelevant event, and incident cases are characterized by a dismal prognosis.

Occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel: results from an early systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 infection has become a global public health concern globally. Even though Healthcare Workers (HCWs) are supposedly at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to date no pooled evidence has been collected. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched online electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, medRxiv.org for pre-prints) for all available contribution (up to May 20, 2019). Two Authors independently screened articles and extracted the data. The pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was analyzed using the random-effects model. The possible sources of heterogeneity were analyzed through subgroup analysis, and meta-regression. RESULTS: The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 3.5% (95%CI 1.8-6.6) for studies based on molecular assays, 5.5% (95%CI 2.1-14.1) for studies based on serological assays, and 6.5% (95%CI 2.5-15.6) for point-of-care capillary blood tests. Among subgroups, serological tests identified higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in physicians than in nurses (OR 1.436, 95%CI 1.026 to 2.008). Regression analysis indicated the possible presence of publication bias only for molecular tests (t -3.3526, p-value 0.002648). CONCLUSIONS: The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was lower than previously expected, but available studies were affected by significant heterogeneity, and the molecular studies by significant publication bias. Therefore, further high-quality research in the field is warranted.

RT-qPCR assays based on saliva rather than on nasopharyngeal swabs are possible but should be interpreted with caution: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: The ongoing pandemic has elicited an increasing interest regarding the SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection in saliva specimens rather than through nasopharyngeal swabs. Our aim was to conduct a meta-analysis on the sensitivity and specificity of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA detection through RT-qPCR based on salivary specimens compared to conventional nasopharyngeal swabs. METHODS: We reported our meta-analysis according to the PRISMA statement. We searched Pubmed, Embase, and pre-print archive medRxiv.og for eligible studies published up to June 1st, 2020. Raw data included true/false positive and negative tests, and the total number of tests. Sensitivity and specificity data were calculated for every study, and then pooled in a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 measure. Reporting bias was assessed by means of funnel plots and regression analysis. RESULTS: The systematic review eventually retrieved 14 studies including a total of 15 estimates, the were included in quantitative synthesis. We found a pooled specificity of 97.7% (95%CI 93.8-99.2) and a pooled sensitivity of 83.4% (95%CI 73.1-90.4), with an overall agreement assessed by means of Cohen's kappa equals to 0.750, 95%CI 0.62-0.88 (i.e. moderate agreement), with high heterogeneity and risk of reporting bias. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, diagnostic tests based on salivary specimens are somewhat reliable, but relatively few studies have been carried out. Moreover, such studies are characterized by low numbers and low sample power. Therefore, the of salivary samples is currently questionable for clinical purposes and cannot substitute other more conventional RT-qPCR based on nasopharyngeal swabs.

Mandate or Not Mandate: Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Italian Occupational Physicians towards SARS-CoV-2 Immunization at the Beginning of Vaccination Campaign.

Vaccinations used to prevent coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-are critical in order to contain the ongoing pandemic. However, SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination rates have only slowly increased since the beginning of the vaccination campaign, even with at-risk workers (e.g., HCWs), presumptively because of vaccine hesitancy. Vaccination mandates are considered instrumental in order to rapidly improve immunization rates (but they minimize the impact of vaccination campaigns). In this study, we investigated the acceptance (i.e., knowledge, attitudes, and practices) from occupational physicians (OPs)) in regard to SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination mandates. A total of 166 OPs participated in an internet-based survey by completing structured questionnaires. Adequate, general knowledge of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 was found in the majority of OPs. High perception of SARS-CoV-2 risk was found in around 80% of participants (79.5% regarding its occurrence, 81.9% regarding its potential severity). SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination was endorsed by 90.4% of respondents, acceptance for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine was quite larger for mRNA formulates (89.8%) over adenoviral ones (59.8%). Endorsement of vaccination mandates was reported by 60.2% of respondents, and was more likely endorsed by OPs who exhibited higher concern for SARS-CoV-2 infection occurrence (odds ratio 3.462, 95% confidence intervals 1.060-11.310), who were likely to accept some sort of payment/copayment for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccination (3.896; 1.607; 9.449), or who were more likely to believe HCWs not vaccinates against SARS-CoV-2 as unfit for work (4.562; 1.935; 10.753). In conclusion, OPs exhibited wide acceptance of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccinations, and the majority endorsed vaccination mandates for HCWs, which may help improve vaccination rates in occupational settings.