Post-acute sequelae after SARS-CoV-2 infection by viral variant and vaccination status: a multicenter cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Disentangling the effects of SARS-CoV-2 variants and vaccination on the occurrence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is crucial to estimate and reduce the burden of PASC. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis (May/June 2022) within a prospective multicenter healthcare worker (HCW) cohort in North-Eastern Switzerland. HCW were stratified by viral variant and vaccination status at time of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. HCW without positive swab and with negative serology served as controls. The sum of eighteen self-reported PASC symptoms was modeled with univariable and multivariable negative-binomial regression to analyse the association of mean symptom number with viral variant and vaccination status. RESULTS: Among 2'912 participants (median age 44 years, 81.3% female), PASC symptoms were significantly more frequent after wild-type infection (estimated mean symptom number 1.12, p<0.001; median time since infection 18.3 months), after Alpha/Delta infection (0.67 symptoms, p<0.001; 6.5 months), and after Omicron BA.1 infections (0.52 symptoms, p=0.005; 3.1 months) compared to uninfected controls (0.39 symptoms). After Omicron BA.1 infection, the estimated mean symptom number was 0.36 for unvaccinated individuals, compared to 0.71 with 1-2 vaccinations (p=0.028) and 0.49 with ≥3 prior vaccinations (p=0.30). Adjusting for confounders, only wild-type (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 2.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.08-3.83) and Alpha/Delta infection (aRR 1.93, 95% CI 1.10-3.46) were significantly associated with the outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Previous infection with pre-Omicron variants was the strongest risk factor for PASC symptoms among our HCW. Vaccination prior to Omicron BA.1 infection was not associated with a clear protective effect against PASC symptoms in this population.

COVID-19 burden and influencing factors in Swiss long-term-care facilities: a cross-sectional analysis of a multicentre observational cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the burden of COVID-19 in Swiss long-term care facilities in 2020, to identify its influencing factors, and to assess vaccination rates among residents and healthcare workers at the end of the vaccine campaign in Switzerland in May 2021. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Long-term care facilities from two Swiss cantons (St. Gallen / Eastern Switzerland and Vaud / Western Switzerland). METHODS: We collected numbers of COVID-19 cases and related deaths and all-cause mortality for 2020, potential risk factors at the institutional level (e.g. size, infection prevention and control measures, and resident characteristics), and vaccination rates among residents and healthcare workers. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify factors associated with resident mortality in 2020. RESULTS: We enrolled 59 long-term care facilities with a median of 46 (interquartile range [IQR]: 33-69) occupied beds. In 2020, the median COVID-19 incidence was 40.2 (IQR: 0-108.6) per 100 occupied beds, with higher rates in VD (49.9%) than in SG (32.5%; p = 0.037). Overall, 22.7% of COVID-19 cases died, of which 24.8% were COVID-19-related deaths. In the univariate analysis, higher resident mortality was associated with COVID-19 rates among residents (p < 0.001) and healthcare workers (p = 0.002) and age (p = 0.013). Lower resident mortality was associated with the proportion of single rooms (p = 0.012), isolation of residents with COVID-19 in single rooms (p = 0.003), symptom screening of healthcare workers (p = 0.031), limiting the number of visits per day (p = 0.004), and pre-scheduling visits (p = 0.037). In the multivariate analysis, higher resident mortality was only associated with age (p = 0.03) and the COVID-19 rate among residents (p = 0.013). Among 2936 residents, 2042 (69.9%) received ≥1 dose of the COVID-19 vaccine before 31 May 2021. Vaccine uptake among healthcare workers was 33.8%. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: COVID-19 burden was high but also highly variable in Swiss long-term care facilities. severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers was a modifiable factor associated with increased resident mortality. Symptom screening of healthcare workers appeared to be an effective preventive strategy and should be included in routine infection prevention and control measures. Promoting COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers should be a priority in Swiss long-term care facilities.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the adherence to hand hygiene practice in hospitals-Data from a Swiss national surveillance system.

In >100,000 observations across Swiss acute-care hospitals, hand hygiene (HH) adherence significantly increased during the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave. However, despite persisting COVID-19 activity, HH adherence returned to prepandemic levels over a 2-year observation period. These results indicate that training and support remains challenging.

Risk and symptoms of COVID-19 in health professionals according to baseline immune status and booster vaccination during the Delta and Omicron waves in Switzerland-A multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge about protection conferred by previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or vaccination against emerging viral variants allows clinicians, epidemiologists, and health authorities to predict and reduce the future Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden. We investigated the risk and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 (re)infection and vaccine breakthrough infection during the Delta and Omicron waves, depending on baseline immune status and subsequent vaccinations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this prospective, multicentre cohort performed between August 2020 and March 2022, we recruited hospital employees from ten acute/nonacute healthcare networks in Eastern/Northern Switzerland. We determined immune status in September 2021 based on serology and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections/vaccinations: Group N (no immunity); Group V (twice vaccinated, uninfected); Group I (infected, unvaccinated); Group H (hybrid: infected and ≥1 vaccination). Date and symptoms of (re)infections and subsequent (booster) vaccinations were recorded until March 2022. We compared the time to positive SARS-CoV-2 swab and number of symptoms according to immune status, viral variant (i.e., Delta-dominant before December 27, 2021; Omicron-dominant on/after this date), and subsequent vaccinations, adjusting for exposure/behavior variables. Among 2,595 participants (median follow-up 171 days), we observed 764 (29%) (re)infections, thereof 591 during the Omicron period. Compared to group N, the hazard ratio (HR) for (re)infection was 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for V, 0.25 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p = 0.001) for I, and 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, p < 0.001) for H in the Delta period. HRs substantially increased during the Omicron period for all groups; in multivariable analyses, only belonging to group H was associated with protection (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.77, p = 0.001); booster vaccination was associated with reduction of breakthrough infection risk in groups V (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85, p = 0.001) and H (aHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00, p = 0.048), largely observed in the early Omicron period. Group H (versus N, risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, p = 0.021) and participants with booster vaccination (versus nonboosted, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88, p < 0.001) reported less symptoms during infection. Important limitations are that SARS-CoV-2 swab results were self-reported and that results on viral variants were inferred from the predominating strain circulating in the community at that time, rather than sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that hybrid immunity and booster vaccination are associated with a reduced risk and reduced symptom number of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta- and Omicron-dominant periods. For previously noninfected individuals, booster vaccination might reduce the risk of symptomatic Omicron infection, although this benefit seems to wane over time.

It is complicated: Potential short- and long-term impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on antimicrobial resistance-An expert review.

As of December 2021, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has claimed millions of deaths and caused disruptions in health systems around the world. The short- and long-term effects of COVID-19 on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which was already a global threat before the pandemic, are manifold and complex. In this expert review, we summarize how COVID-19 might be affecting AMR in the short term (by influencing the key determinants antibiotic use, infection control practices and international/local mobility) and which additional factors might play a role in the long term. Whereas reduced outpatient antibiotic use in high-income countries, increased awareness for hand hygiene, and reduced mobility have likely mitigated the emergence and spread of AMR in the short term, factors such as overuse of antibiotics in COVID-19 patients, shortage of personal protective equipment, lack of qualified healthcare staff, and patient overcrowding have presumably facilitated its propagation. Unsurprisingly, international and national AMR surveillance data for 2020 show ambiguous trends. Although disruptions in antibiotic stewardship programs, AMR surveillance and research might promote the spread of AMR, other developments could prove beneficial to the cause in the long term. These factors include the increased public awareness for infectious diseases and infection control issues, the strengthening of the One Health perspective as outlined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the unprecedented number of international research collaborations and platforms. These factors could even serve as leverage and provide opportunities to better combat AMR in the future.

Symptoms Compatible With Long Coronavirus Disease (COVID) in Healthcare Workers With and Without Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection-Results of a Prospective Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: The burden of long-term symptoms (ie, long COVID) in patients after mild COVID-19 is debated. Within a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), frequency and risk factors for symptoms compatible with long COVID are assessed. METHODS: Participants answered baseline (August/September 2020) and weekly questionnaires on SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) results and acute disease symptoms. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed; in March, symptoms compatible with long COVID (including psychometric scores) were asked and compared between HCWs with positive NPS, seropositive HCWs without positive NPS (presumable asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic infections), and negative controls. The effect of time since diagnosis and quantitative anti-spike protein antibodies (anti-S) was evaluated. Poisson regression was used to identify risk factors for symptom occurrence. RESULTS: Of 3334 HCWs (median, 41 years; 80% female), 556 (17%) had a positive NPS and 228 (7%) were only seropositive. HCWs with positive NPS more frequently reported ≥1 symptom compared with controls (73% vs 52%, P < .001); seropositive HCWs without positive NPS did not score higher than controls (58% vs 52%, P = .13), although impaired taste/olfaction (16% vs 6%, P < .001) and hair loss (17% vs 10%, P = .004) were more common. Exhaustion/burnout was reported by 24% of negative controls. Many symptoms remained elevated in those diagnosed >6 months ago; anti-S titers correlated with high symptom scores. Acute viral symptoms in weekly questionnaires best predicted long-COVID symptoms. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue scores. CONCLUSIONS: Seropositive HCWs without positive NPS are only mildly affected by long COVID. Exhaustion/burnout is common, even in noninfected HCWs. Physical activity might be protective against neurocognitive impairment/fatigue symptoms after COVID-19.

Safety Evaluation of a Medical Congress Held During the COVID-19 Pandemic-A Prospective Cohort.

Objectives: During the COVID-19 pandemic, few scientific congresses have been held on-site. We prospectively evaluated the safety concept of the congress of the Swiss Societies of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Hygiene. Methods: The congress was held in Geneva (Switzerland) while local COVID-19 incidence (with SARS-CoV-2 wild type circulating) was 65/100,000 population (September 2020). A rigorous safety concept was implemented. Congress attendees filled out a questionnaire to assess risk perception, exposures, symptoms and diagnoses of SARS-CoV-2 before, during and after the congress. Dried blood spots were taken on-site and 4 weeks later to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversions. Results: Of 365 congress attendees, 196 (54%) either answered the questionnaire (N = 150) or provided baseline and follow-up blood samples (N = 168). None of the participants reported a positive PCR in the 2 weeks after the congress. Five of 168 (3%) participants were seropositive at follow-up, all of which had already been positive at baseline. Conclusion: Findings indicate that congresses with a rigorous safety concept may take place, even in areas with moderately-high COVID-19 activity. Whether this holds true in vaccinated populations and with more transmissible viral variants circulating remains unclear.

Impact of respirator versus surgical masks on SARS-CoV-2 acquisition in healthcare workers: a prospective multicentre cohort.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) versus surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS: Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled HCW from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferentially worn mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures. The impact of FFP2 on (1) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and (2) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 3259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users; seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR 10.1, 95% CI 7.5-13.5; aOR 5.0, 95% CI 3.9-6.5). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (> 20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0.7 for positive swab, 95% CI 0.5-0.8; aOR 0.6 for seroconversion, 95% CI 0.4-1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients.

The challenge of preventing and containing outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms and Candida auris during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: report of a carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii outbreak and a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Despite the adoption of strict infection prevention and control measures, many hospitals have reported outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Following an outbreak of carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (CRAB) in our institution, we sought to systematically analyse characteristics of MDRO outbreaks in times of COVID-19, focussing on contributing factors and specific challenges in controlling these outbreaks. METHODS: We describe results of our own CRAB outbreak investigation and performed a systematic literature review for MDRO (including Candida auris) outbreaks which occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (between December 2019 and March 2021). Search terms were related to pathogens/resistance mechanisms AND COVID-19. We summarized outbreak characteristics in a narrative synthesis and contrasted contributing factors with implemented control measures. RESULTS: The CRAB outbreak occurred in our intensive care units between September and December 2020 and comprised 10 patients (thereof seven with COVID-19) within two distinct genetic clusters (both ST2 carrying OXA-23). Both clusters presumably originated from COVID-19 patients transferred from the Balkans. Including our outbreak, we identified 17 reports, mostly caused by Candida auris (n = 6) or CRAB (n = 5), with an overall patient mortality of 35% (68/193). All outbreaks involved intensive care settings. Non-adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) or hand hygiene (n = 11), PPE shortage (n = 8) and high antibiotic use (n = 8) were most commonly reported as contributing factors, followed by environmental contamination (n = 7), prolonged critical illness (n = 7) and lack of trained HCW (n = 7). Implemented measures mainly focussed on PPE/hand hygiene audits (n = 9), environmental cleaning/disinfection (n = 9) and enhanced patient screening (n = 8). Comparing potentially modifiable risk factors and control measures, we found the largest discrepancies in the areas of PPE shortage (risk factor in 8 studies, addressed in 2 studies) and patient overcrowding (risk factor in 5 studies, addressed in 0 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Reported MDRO outbreaks during the COVID-19 pandemic were most often caused by CRAB (including our outbreak) and C. auris. Inadequate PPE/hand hygiene adherence, PPE shortage, and high antibiotic use were the most commonly reported potentially modifiable factors contributing to the outbreaks. These findings should be considered for the prevention of MDRO outbreaks during future COVID-19 waves.

Digital SARS-CoV-2 Detection Among Hospital Employees: Participatory Surveillance Study.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of novel techniques as a complement to traditional disease surveillance systems represents an additional opportunity for rapid analysis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to describe a web-based participatory surveillance strategy among health care workers (HCWs) in two Swiss hospitals during the first wave of COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective cohort of HCWs was recruited in March 2020 at the Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen and the Eastern Switzerland Children's Hospital. For data analysis, we used a combination of the following techniques: locally estimated scatterplot smoothing (LOESS) regression, Spearman correlation, anomaly detection, and random forest. RESULTS: From March 23 to August 23, 2020, a total of 127,684 SMS text messages were sent, generating 90,414 valid reports among 1004 participants, achieving a weekly average of 4.5 (SD 1.9) reports per user. The symptom showing the strongest correlation with a positive polymerase chain reaction test result was loss of taste. Symptoms like red eyes or a runny nose were negatively associated with a positive test. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve showed favorable performance of the classification tree, with an accuracy of 88% for the training data and 89% for the test data. Nevertheless, while the prediction matrix showed good specificity (80.0%), sensitivity was low (10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Loss of taste was the symptom that was most aligned with COVID-19 activity at the population level. At the individual level-using machine learning-based random forest classification-reporting loss of taste and limb/muscle pain as well as the absence of runny nose and red eyes were the best predictors of COVID-19.

Impact of baseline SARS-CoV-2 antibody status on syndromic surveillance and the risk of subsequent COVID-19-a prospective multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: In a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline serostatus. METHODS: Baseline serologies were performed among HCW from 23 Swiss healthcare institutions between June and September 2020, before the second COVID-19 wave. Participants answered weekly electronic questionnaires covering information about nasopharyngeal swabs (PCR/rapid antigen tests) and symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Screening of symptomatic staff by nasopharyngeal swabs was routinely performed in participating facilities. We compared numbers of positive nasopharyngeal tests and occurrence of COVID-19 symptoms between HCW with and without anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. RESULTS: A total of 4812 HCW participated, wherein 144 (3%) were seropositive at baseline. We analyzed 107,807 questionnaires with a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Median number of answered questionnaires was similar (24 vs. 23 per person, P = 0.83) between those with and without positive baseline serology. Among 2712 HCW with ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 test during follow-up, 3/67 (4.5%) seropositive individuals reported a positive result (one of whom asymptomatic), compared to 547/2645 (20.7%) seronegative participants, 12 of whom asymptomatic (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.66). Seropositive HCWs less frequently reported impaired olfaction/taste (6/144, 4.2% vs. 588/4674, 12.6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.73), chills (19/144, 13.2% vs. 1040/4674, 22.3%, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90), and limb/muscle pain (28/144, 19.4% vs. 1335/4674, 28.6%, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.49-0.95). Impaired olfaction/taste and limb/muscle pain also discriminated best between positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 results. CONCLUSIONS: Having SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies provides almost 80% protection against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection for a period of at least 8 months.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Swiss hospital workers: Results of a prospective cohort study.

In this prospective cohort of 1,012 Swiss hospital employees, 3 different assays were used to screen serum for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seropositivity was 1%; the positive predictive values of the lateral-flow immunoassay were 64% (IgG) and 13% (IgM). History of fever and myalgia most effectively differentiated seropositive and seronegative participants.

Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers - A multicentre cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population. METHODS: Between 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: Among 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33-106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.8). DISCUSSION: Living with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.

Characteristics of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza at time of hospital admission: a single center comparative study.

BACKGROUND: In the future, co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses A/B is likely. From a clinical point of view, differentiation of the two disease entities is crucial for patient management. We therefore aim to detect clinical differences between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza patients at time of hospital admission. METHODS: In this single-center observational study, we included all consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 or influenza between November 2019 and May 2020. Data were extracted from a nationwide surveillance program and from electronic health records. COVID-19 and influenza patients were compared in terms of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation and outcome. We used recursive partitioning to generate a classification tree to discriminate COVID-19 from influenza patients. RESULTS: We included 96 COVID-19 and 96 influenza patients. Median age was 68 vs. 70 years (p = 0.90), 72% vs. 56% (p = 0.024) were males, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 1 vs. 2 (p = 0.027) in COVID-19 and influenza patients, respectively. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission was longer for COVID-19 (median 7 days, IQR 3-10) than for influenza patients (median 3 days, IQR 2-5, p < 0.001). Other variables favoring a diagnosis of COVID-19 in the classification tree were higher systolic blood pressure, lack of productive sputum, and lack of headache. The tree classified 86/192 patients (45%) into two subsets with ≥80% of patients having influenza or COVID-19, respectively. In-hospital mortality was higher for COVID-19 patients (16% vs. 5%, p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Discriminating COVID-19 from influenza patients based on clinical presentation is challenging. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission is considerably longer in COVID-19 than in influenza patients and showed the strongest discriminatory power in our classification tree. Although they had fewer comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was higher for COVID-19 patients.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, to provide evidence on the rational use of masks, and to discuss additional measures important for the protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. METHODS: Literature review and expert opinion. SHORT CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing COVID-19, is considered to be transmitted via droplets rather than aerosols, but droplets with strong directional airflow support may spread further than 2 m. High rates of COVID-19 infections in healthcare-workers (HCWs) have been reported from several countries. Respirators such as filtering face piece (FFP) 2 masks were designed to protect HCWs, while surgical masks were originally intended to protect patients (e.g., during surgery). Nevertheless, high quality standard surgical masks (type II/IIR according to European Norm EN 14683) appear to be as effective as FFP2 masks in preventing droplet-associated viral infections of HCWs as reported from influenza or SARS. So far, no head-to-head trials with these masks have been published for COVID-19. Neither mask type completely prevents transmission, which may be due to inappropriate handling and alternative transmission pathways. Therefore, compliance with a bundle of infection control measures including thorough hand hygiene is key. During high-risk procedures, both droplets and aerosols may be produced, reason why respirators are indicated for these interventions.