Attitudes of University Students towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Rome, Italy.

Mandatory vaccination (MV) against COVID-19 is a contentious topic. In this study, we used logistic regression models to identify attitudes among Sapienza University students towards MV for COVID-19. We considered three different scenarios: mandatory COVID-19 vaccination (MCV) for healthcare workers (HCWs) (Model 1), for all people aged ≥ 12 years (Model 2), and for admission to schools and universities (Model 3). We collected 5287 questionnaires over a six-month period and divided these into three groups (September-October 2021, November-December 2021, and January-February 2022). MCV for HCWs was the most strongly supported policy (69.8% in favour), followed by MCV for admission to schools and universities (58.3%), and MCV for the general population (54.6%). In a multivariable analysis, the models showed both similarities and differences. There was no association of socio-demographic characteristics with the outcomes, apart from being enrolled in non-healthcare courses, which negatively affected Models 2 and 3. A greater COVID-19 risk perception was generally associated with a more positive attitude towards MCV, although heterogeneously across models. Vaccination status was a predictor of being in favour of MCV for HCWs, whereas being surveyed in November-February 2022 favoured MCV for admission to schools and universities. Attitudes towards MCV were variable across policies; thus, to avoid unintended consequences, these aspects should be carefully considered by policymakers.

The other side of COVID-19: A cross-sectional study on mental health in a sample of Italian nurses during the second wave

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a drastic increase in the workload of healthcare professionals, particularly nurses, with serious consequences for their psychological well-being. Our study aimed to identify demographic and work-related factors, as well as clinical predictors of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), in nurses employed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We carried out a cross-sectional study between December 2020 and April 2021 on nurses employed during the COVID-19 second wave (October - December 2020). We evaluated PTSD and GAD using two validated questionnaires: i) the Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES-R);and ii) General Anxiety Disorder –7 (GAD-7). Results Overall, 400 nurses, whose mean age was 34.3 years (SD ± 11.7), were included in the study. Most were female (78.5%), unmarried (58.5%) and employed in the central (61.5%) regions of Italy. A total of 56.8% of all participants had clinical predictors of PTSD, recording a median IES-R score (IQR) of 37.0 (22.0, 51.0) (range 1-84;cut-off >33 for PTSD). Furthermore, 50% of respondents reported moderate-to-severe symptoms consistent with GAD, recording a median GAD-7 score (IQR) of 9.5 (6.0,14.0) (range 0-21;cut-off >10 for GAD). Multivariable analysis showed that moderate-to-severe GAD (aOR = 4.54, 95% CI: 2.93 - 7.05), being employed in the critical care area (aOR = 1.74, 95% CI: 1.01 - 3.00) and being female (aOR= 1.88, 95% CI: 1.09 - 3.22) were significantly associated with the presence of clinical predictors of PTSD. Discussion The levels of PTSD symptoms and anxiety among nurses were high during the pandemic. PTSD and GAD represent a public health problem that should be addressed in the post-pandemic period. Healthcare organizations need to activate specific support and rehabilitation networks and programs for healthcare professionals employed during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Risk of reinfection and disease after SARS-CoV-2 primary infection: Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: A precise estimate of the frequency and severity of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections would be critical to optimize restriction and vaccination policies for the hundreds of millions previously infected subjects. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the risk of reinfection and COVID-19 following primary infection. METHODS: We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories for cohort studies evaluating the onset of new infections among baseline SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects. Random-effect meta-analyses of proportions were stratified by gender, exposure risk, vaccination status, viral strain, time between episodes, and reinfection definition. RESULTS: Ninety-one studies, enrolling 15,034,624 subjects, were included. Overall, 158,478 reinfections were recorded, corresponding to a pooled rate of 0.97% (95% CI: 0.71%-1.27%), with no substantial differences by definition criteria, exposure risk or gender. Reinfection rates were still 0.66% after ≥12 months from first infection, and the risk was substantially lower among vaccinated subjects (0.32% vs. 0.74% for unvaccinated individuals). During the first 3 months of Omicron wave, the reinfection rates reached 3.31%. Overall rates of severe/lethal COVID-19 were very low (2-7 per 10,000 subjects according to definition criteria) and were not affected by strain predominance. CONCLUSIONS: A strong natural immunity follows the primary infection and may last for more than one year, suggesting that the risk and health care needs of recovered subjects might be limited. Although the reinfection rates considerably increased during the Omicron wave, the risk of a secondary severe or lethal disease remained very low. The risk-benefit profile of multiple vaccine doses for this subset of population needs to be carefully evaluated.

COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and hospitalization: Meta-analysis.

The addictive protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection conferred by vaccination, as compared to natural immunity alone, remains to be quantified. We thus carried out a meta-analysis to summarize the existing evidence on the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the risk of reinfection and disease. We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories up to July 31, 2022, to retrieve cohort or case-control studies comparing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection or severe/critical COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated subjects, recovered from a primary episode. Data were combined using a generic inverse-variance approach. Eighteen studies, enrolling 18,132,192 individuals, were included. As compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated subjects showed a significantly lower likelihood of reinfection (summary Odds Ratio-OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.42-0.54). Notably, the results did not change up to 12 months of follow-up, by number of vaccine doses, in studies that adjusted for potential confounders, adopting different reinfection definitions, and with different predominant strains. Once reinfected, vaccinated subjects were also significantly less likely to develop a severe disease (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.38-0.54). Although further studies on the long-term persistence of protection, under the challenge of the new circulating variants, are clearly needed, the present meta-analysis provides solid evidence of a stronger protection of hybrid vs. natural immunity, which may persist during Omicron waves and up to 12 months.

COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection and hospitalization: Meta-analysis

The addictive protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection conferred by vaccination, as compared to natural immunity alone, remains to be quantified. We thus carried out a meta-analysis to summarize the existing evidence on the association between SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and the risk of reinfection and disease. We searched MedLine, Scopus and preprint repositories up to July 31, 2022, to retrieve cohort or case-control studies comparing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection or severe/critical COVID-19 among vaccinated vs. unvaccinated subjects, recovered from a primary episode. Data were combined using a generic inverse-variance approach. Eighteen studies, enrolling 18,132,192 individuals, were included. As compared to the unvaccinated, vaccinated subjects showed a significantly lower likelihood of reinfection (summary Odds Ratio—OR: 0.47;95% CI: 0.42–0.54). Notably, the results did not change up to 12 months of follow-up, by number of vaccine doses, in studies that adjusted for potential confounders, adopting different reinfection definitions, and with different predominant strains. Once reinfected, vaccinated subjects were also significantly less likely to develop a severe disease (OR: 0.45;95% CI: 0.38–0.54). Although further studies on the long-term persistence of protection, under the challenge of the new circulating variants, are clearly needed, the present meta-analysis provides solid evidence of a stronger protection of hybrid vs. natural immunity, which may persist during Omicron waves and up to 12 months.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors: A testing program and nested case-control study conducted at Sapienza University of Rome between March and June 2021.

Background: To safely resume in-person activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sapienza University of Rome implemented rigorous infection prevention and control measures, a successful communication campaign and a free SARS-CoV-2 testing program. In this study, we describe the University's experience in carrying out such a program in the context of the COVID-19 response and identify risk factors for infection. Methods: Having identified resources, space, supplies and staff, from March to June 2021 Sapienza offered to all its enrollees a molecular test service (8.30 AM to 4 PM, Monday to Thursday). A test-negative case-control study was conducted within the program. Participants underwent structured interviews that investigated activity-related exposures in the 2 weeks before testing. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were performed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Results: A total of 8,959 tests were administered, of which 56 were positive. The detection trend followed regional tendencies. Among 40 cases and 80 controls, multivariable analysis showed that a known exposure to a COVID-19 case increased the likelihood of infection (aOR: 8.39, 95% CI: 2.38-29.54), while having a job decreased it (aOR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.88). Of factors that almost reached statistical significance, participation in activities in the university tended to reduce the risk (aOR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.09-1.06), while attendance at private gatherings showed an increasing risk trend (aOR: 3.48, 95% CI: 0.95-12.79). Age, gender, activities in the community, visiting bars or restaurants, and use of public transportation were not relevant risk factors. When those students regularly attending the university campus were excluded from the analysis, the results were comparable, except that attending activities in the community came close to having a statistically significant effect (aOR: 8.13, 95% CI: 0.91-72.84). Conclusions: The testing program helped create a safe university environment. Furthermore, promoting preventive behavior and implementing rigorous measures in public places, as was the case in the university setting, contributed to limit the virus transmission.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors: A testing program and nested case-control study conducted at Sapienza University of Rome between March and June 2021

Background To safely resume in-person activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sapienza University of Rome implemented rigorous infection prevention and control measures, a successful communication campaign and a free SARS-CoV-2 testing program. In this study, we describe the University's experience in carrying out such a program in the context of the COVID-19 response and identify risk factors for infection. Methods Having identified resources, space, supplies and staff, from March to June 2021 Sapienza offered to all its enrollees a molecular test service (8.30 AM to 4 PM, Monday to Thursday). A test-negative case-control study was conducted within the program. Participants underwent structured interviews that investigated activity-related exposures in the 2 weeks before testing. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were performed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. Results A total of 8,959 tests were administered, of which 56 were positive. The detection trend followed regional tendencies. Among 40 cases and 80 controls, multivariable analysis showed that a known exposure to a COVID-19 case increased the likelihood of infection (aOR: 8.39, 95% CI: 2.38–29.54), while having a job decreased it (aOR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06–0.88). Of factors that almost reached statistical significance, participation in activities in the university tended to reduce the risk (aOR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.09–1.06), while attendance at private gatherings showed an increasing risk trend (aOR: 3.48, 95% CI: 0.95–12.79). Age, gender, activities in the community, visiting bars or restaurants, and use of public transportation were not relevant risk factors. When those students regularly attending the university campus were excluded from the analysis, the results were comparable, except that attending activities in the community came close to having a statistically significant effect (aOR: 8.13, 95% CI: 0.91–72.84). Conclusions The testing program helped create a safe university environment. Furthermore, promoting preventive behavior and implementing rigorous measures in public places, as was the case in the university setting, contributed to limit the virus transmission.

Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in University Students: A Case-Control Study.

Closure of Higher Education Institutions in the early phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was largely diffused. With their reopening, numerous preventive measures have been enacted, but limited evidence exists on students' behavior that could influence their infection risk. We conducted a case-control study at the Sapienza University of Rome to identify protective and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Students attending the campus within 48 h of SARS-CoV-2 infection were considered cases. Controls were students who come in contact with a confirmed case within the campus. Demographic features and activities carried out before positivity or contact were investigated. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to identify factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, estimating adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). The analysis showed an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection for attending the second year or above of university (aOR 17.7, 95% CI 2.21-142.82) and participating in private parties or ceremonies (aOR 15.9, 95% CI 2.30-109.67) while living outside the family (aOR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.54) and attending practical activities or libraries on campus (aOR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08-0.97) reduced the risk. Data strongly suggests that it may be safe to participate in activities organized under strict infection prevention guidelines. Tailored prevention measures might reduce the risk of infection in university students.

The Impact of eHealth Interventions on the Improvement of Self-Care in Chronic Patients: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Promoting self-care is one of the most promising strategies for managing chronic conditions. This overview aimed to investigate the effectiveness of eHealth interventions at improving self-care in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease when compared to standard care. We carried out a review of systematic reviews on PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, PsychInfo, and CINAHL. AMSTAR-2 was used for quality appraisal. Eight systematic reviews (six with meta-analysis) were included, involving a total of 41,579 participants. eHealth interventions were categorized into three subgroups: (i) reminders via messaging apps, emails, and apps; (ii) telemonitoring and online operator support; (iii) internet and web-based educational programs. Six systematic reviews showed an improvement in self-care measurements through eHealth interventions, which also led to a better quality of life and clinical outcomes (HbA1C, blood pressure, hospitalization, cholesterol, body weight). This overview provided some implications for practice and research: eHealth is effective in increasing self-care in chronic patients; however, it is required to designate the type of eHealth intervention based on the needed outcome (e.g., implementing telemonitoring to increase self-monitoring of blood pressure). In addition, there is a need to standardize self-care measures through increased use of validated assessment tools.

Mapping the Prevalence of COVID-19 Vaccine Acceptance at the Global and Regional Level: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Despite the availability of effective and safe vaccines, the acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination is suboptimal. In this meta-analysis we quantified the prevalence estimates of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance with a specific focus on worldwide geographical differences. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycInfo up to April 2021 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021235328). Generalized random-effects linear models with a logit link were used to calculate the pooled estimated rate of vaccine acceptance at both the global and regional level. A meta-regression analysis was performed to assess the association between COVID-19 vaccine acceptance and various characteristics of the studies. Overall, 71 articles yielding 128 prevalence estimates were included. The pooled prevalence of COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate was 66% (95% CI: 61-71%). This varied by geographic area, ranging from 36% (95% CI: 18-60%) in Africa to 83% (95% CI: 82-84%) in Oceania, and there was high variability between countries (15.4% Cameroon-100% Bhutan). Meta-regression analysis showed that studies that investigated COVID-19 vaccination intentions using multiple choice/scoring gave a vaccine acceptance prevalence lower than studies with only two possible answers (yes/no) (ß: -1.02 95% CI: -1.41 to -0.63). Despite some variation in the estimates, the results showed that one in three people may refuse/delay COVID-19 vaccination.

Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates from COVID-19 Patients in a Hospital Intensive Care Unit: Molecular Typing and Risk Factors.

Infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii represent a major concern for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, the epidemiology of these infections among COVID-19 patients has not been fully explored. The aims of this study were (i) to characterize the clonal spread of A. baumannii among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of the Umberto I hospital of Rome during the first year of the pandemic and (ii) to identify risk factors for its acquisition. Isolates were analysed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and a multivariable regression model was constructed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Overall, 193 patients were included, and 102 strains were analysed. All isolates had highly antibiotic-resistant profiles and derived from two genotypes. The cumulative incidence of A. baumannii acquisition (colonization or infection) was 36.8%. Patients with A. baumannii had higher mortality and length of stay. Multivariable analysis showed that previous carbapenem use was the only risk factor associated with A. baumannii acquisition (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 1.78-9.64). We documented substantial A. baumannii infections and colonization and high levels of clonal transmission. Given the limited treatment options, effective prevention and containment strategies to limit the spread of A. baumannii should be implemented.

Acinetobacter baumannii Isolates from COVID-19 Patients in a Hospital Intensive Care Unit: Molecular Typing and Risk Factors

Infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii represent a major concern for intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, the epidemiology of these infections among COVID-19 patients has not been fully explored. The aims of this study were (i) to characterize the clonal spread of A. baumannii among COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of the Umberto I hospital of Rome during the first year of the pandemic and (ii) to identify risk factors for its acquisition. Isolates were analysed by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, and a multivariable regression model was constructed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Overall, 193 patients were included, and 102 strains were analysed. All isolates had highly antibiotic-resistant profiles and derived from two genotypes. The cumulative incidence of A. baumannii acquisition (colonization or infection) was 36.8%. Patients with A. baumannii had higher mortality and length of stay. Multivariable analysis showed that previous carbapenem use was the only risk factor associated with A. baumannii acquisition (aOR: 4.15, 95% CI: 1.78–9.64). We documented substantial A. baumannii infections and colonization and high levels of clonal transmission. Given the limited treatment options, effective prevention and containment strategies to limit the spread of A. baumannii should be implemented.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Italian University Students: A Cross-Sectional Survey during the First Months of the Vaccination Campaign.

Achieving high levels of vaccination coverage against COVID-19 may be hindered by vaccine hesitancy. We quantified over time the prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among university students, investigated its determinants, and analyzed student attitudes, risk perceptions and compliance with preventive measures. The survey was administered online from 1 March to 30 June 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was built to identify predictors of hesitancy. Overall, we collected 5369 questionnaires that were grouped into three survey periods (March, April-May, and May-June). The response rate ranged from 81.2% to 76.4%, whereas vaccine hesitancy ranged from 22% to 29%. Multivariable analysis showed that April-May participants had higher odds of hesitancy than March respondents. Other positive predictors were being male, not being a healthcare student, having a lower academic level, and not disclosing a political position. Conversely, higher levels of perceived COVID-19 severity, concern for the emergency, confidence in vaccine safety and effectiveness, and self-reported adherence to mask wearing indoors and outdoors were negatively associated with hesitancy. We found that vaccine hesitancy changed over time and in relation to several factors. Strategies aimed at increasing the students' awareness and engagement, restoring confidence in health authorities, and limiting disinformation around the vaccines should be devised.