Cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population of the Valencian Community (Spain) after the surge of the Omicron BA.1 variant.

Studies investigating the cumulative incidence of and immune status against SARS-CoV-2 infection provide valuable information for shaping public health decision-making. A cross-sectional study on 935 participants, conducted in the Valencian Community (VC), measuring anti-SARS-CoV-2-receptor binding domain-RBD-total antibodies and anti-Nucleocapsid (N)-IgGs via electrochemiluminescence assays. Quantitation of neutralizing antibodies (NtAb) against ancestral and Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants and enumeration of SARS-CoV-2-S specific-IFNγ-producing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells was performed in 100 and 137 participants, respectively. The weighted cumulative incidence was 51.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 48.7-55.1) and was inversely related to age. Anti-RBD total antibodies were detected in 97% of participants; vaccinated and SARS-CoV-2-experienced (VAC-ex; n = 442) presented higher levels (p < 0.001) than vaccinated/naïve (VAC-n; n = 472) and nonvaccinated/experienced (UNVAC-ex; n = 63) subjects. Antibody levels correlated inversely with time elapsed since last vaccine dose in VAC-n (Rho, -0.52; p < 0.001) but not in VAC-ex (rho -0.02; p = 0.57). Heterologous booster shots resulted in increased anti-RBD antibody levels compared with homologous schedules in VAC-n, but not in VAC-ex. NtAbs against Omicron BA.1 were detected in 94%, 75%, and 50% of VAC-ex, VAC-n and UNVAC-ex groups, respectively. For Omicron BA.2, the figures were 97%, 84%, and 40%, respectively. SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive IFN-γ T cells were detected in 73%, 75%, and 64% of VAC-ex, VAC-n and UNVAC-ex, respectively. Median frequencies for both T-cell subsets were comparable across groups. In summary, by April 2022, around half of the VC population had been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and, due to extensive vaccination, displayed hybrid immunity.

The Waning of BNT162b2 Vaccine Effectiveness for SARS-CoV-2 Infection Prevention over Time: A Test-Negative Study in Health Care Professionals of a Health Department from January 2021 to December 2021.

The duration of protection of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection has been evaluated in previous studies, but uncertainty remains about the persistence of effectiveness over time and the ideal timing for booster doses. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers (HCWs) at a tertiary hospital depending on time elapsed since the completion of a two-dose vaccination regimen. We conducted a case-control with negative test study between 25 January and 12 December 2021 that included 1404 HCWs who underwent an active infection diagnostic test (AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection due to COVID-19 suspicion or prior close contact with patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccination regimen was 91.9%. Then, aVE decreased to 63.7% between 121 to 240 days after completing the full two-dose regimen and to 37.2% after 241 days since the second dose. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs remains highly effective after 12 to 120 days have elapsed since the administration of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine; however, effectiveness decreases as time elapses since its administration.

The effectiveness of mRNA vaccines to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 according to the time elapsed since their administration in health professionals in the Valencian Autonomous Community (Spain).

The objective was to understand the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in health professionals(HPs) in the Valencian Autonomous Community(Spain) who had completed a full vaccination regimen, both in terms of preventing infections and avoiding hospitalisations, according to the time elapsed since the vaccine administration. Case-controlled study with negative test results. HPs who had undergone at least one PCR or antigen(Ag) active infection diagnostic test(AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection between 25 January and 18 July 2021 were included. HPs with positive AIDT result were considered as cases and those with a negative result controls. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness(VEa) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its 95% confidence interval(95% CI) were calculated using the formula VEa = (1 - OR) × 100. The VEa for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccine regimen was 91.6%(95%CI[89.6%,93.2%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 95.2%(95%CI[88.3%,98.1%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. After 120 days the VEa was 71.5%(95%CI[67.0%,75.5%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 88.3%(95%CI[75.7,94.4%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The VEa for prevention of hospitalisation for COVID-19 for the complete two-dose regimen of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) was 96.8%(95%CI[76.1%,99.6%]). The administration of the complete regimen of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was highly effective for the prevention of COVID-19 cases in HPs when 12 to 120 days had elapsed since the second dose. However, said effectiveness decreased as time from the vaccine administration elapsed, although it was maintained for the prevention of hospitalisation of HPs.

Side effects during the week after first dose vaccination with four Covid-19 vaccines. Results of the ProVaVac Survey Study with 13,837 people in Spain.

BACKGROUND: In 2021, four vaccines against Covid-19 (BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1nCoV-19, and JNJ-78436735) were employed in the region of Valencia, Spain. We conducted a survey to identify real-world, self-reported frequency and severity of side effects during the week after vaccination. METHODS: Survey data was obtained from April 19, 2021, to October 6, 2021, at three different moments in time: day one, day three and day seven after vaccination. Answers were linked to individual-level, personal and clinical information. Respondents were stratified by the vaccine they received and reported effects were presented over time and stratified by severity. We compared our results per vaccine with the frequencies stated in each Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We used binomial logistic models to identify associations between respondent characteristics and side effects. RESULTS: No symptoms were reported by 1,986 respondents (14.35 %), 6,254 informed exclusively mild symptoms (45.20 %), 3,444 up to moderate symptoms (24.89 %), and 2,153 people (15.56 %) notified also severe symptoms. Among the latter, the more frequent were extreme tiredness (7.0 %), and nausea or vomiting (7.1 %). The reported frequency of facial paralysis (0.4 %) was much higher than reflected in SmPCs. Female sex, younger age, previous positive Active Infection Diagnostic Test, chronicity, and vaccination with other than the BNT162b2 vaccine were associated to an increased risk of side effects (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Side effects after vaccination are common in the real-world. However, they are principally mild, and their frequency declines after a few days. Providing patients with dependable, beforehand information about side effects may improve outcomes and reinforce vaccination programs.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Adaptive Immunity in Nursing Home Residents Following a Third Dose of the Comirnaty Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccine.

A third Comirnaty vaccine dose increased severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) receptor-binding domain antibody levels (median, 93-fold) and neutralizing antibody titers against Wuhan-Hu-1 (median, 57-fold), Beta (me 22-fold), Delta, (median, 43-fold), and Omicron (median, 8-fold) variants, but had less impact on S-reactive T-cell immunity in nursing home residents.

SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1 variant breakthrough infections in nursing home residents after an homologous third dose of the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine: Looking for correlates of protection.

We investigated whether peripheral blood levels of SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S) receptor binding domain antibodies (anti-RBD), neutralizing antibodies (NtAb) targeting Omicron S, and S-reactive-interferon (IFN)-γ-producing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells measured after a homologous booster dose (3D) with the Comirnaty® vaccine was associated with the likelihood of subsequent breakthrough infections due to the Omicron variant. An observational study including 146 nursing home residents (median age, 80 years; range, 66-99; 109 female) evaluated for an immunological response after 3D (at a median of 16 days). Anti-RBD total antibodies were measured by chemiluminescent immunoassay. NtAb were quantified by an Omicron S pseudotyped virus neutralization assay. SARS-CoV-2-S specific-IFNγ-producing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells were enumerated by whole-blood flow cytometry for intracellular cytokine staining. In total, 33/146 participants contracted breakthrough Omicron infection (symptomatic in 30/33) within 4 months after 3D. Anti-RBD antibody levels were comparable in infected and uninfected participants (21 123 vs. 24 723 BAU/ml; p = 0.34). Likewise, NtAb titers (reciprocal IC50 titer, 157 vs. 95; p = 0.32) and frequency of virus-reactive CD4+ (p = 0.82) and CD8+ (p = 0.91) T cells were similar across participants in both groups. anti-RBD antibody levels and NtAb titers estimated at around the time of infection were also comparable (3445 vs. 4345 BAU/ml; p = 0.59 and 188.5 vs. 88.9; p = 0.70, respectively). Having detectable NtAb against Omicron or SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive-IFNγ-producing CD4+ or CD8+ T cells after 3D was not correlated with increased protection from breakthrough infection (OR, 1.50; p = 0.54; OR, 0.0; p = 0.99 and OR 3.70; p = 0.23, respectively). None of the immune parameters evaluated herein, including NtAb titers against the Omicron variant, may reliably predict at the individual level the risk of contracting COVID-19 due to the Omicron variant in nursing home residents.

SARS-CoV-2 Delta-variant breakthrough infections in nursing home residents at midterm after Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccination.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Delta variant breakthrough infections in nursing home residents following vaccination with Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine were characterized. In total, 201 participants (median age, 87 years; range, 64-100; 133 female) from two nursing homes in the Valencian community (Spain) were included. SARS-CoV-2-Spike (S) antibody responses were determined by a lateral flow immunocromatography (LFIC) assay and by quantitative electrochemiluminescent assay in LFIC-negative participants. SARS-CoV-2-S-IFNγ T cells were enumerated by flow cytometry in 10 participants. Nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads were quantified by real-time polymerase chain reaction assays. Vaccine breakthrough COVID-19 due to the Delta variant occurred in 39 residents (median age, 87 years; range, 69-96; 31 female) at a median of 6.5 months after vaccination (nine requiring hospitalization). Breakthrough infections occurred at a higher rate (p < 0.0001) in residents who had not been previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 (naïve) (33/108; 18%) than in those with prior diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection (experienced) (6/93; 6.4%), and were more likely (p < 0.0001) to develop in residents who tested negative by LFIC (20/49) at 3 months after vaccination as compared to their LFIC-positive counterparts (19/142). Among LFIC-negative residents, a trend towards lower plasma anti-RBD antibody levels was noticed in those developing breakthrough infection (p = 0.16). SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads in nasopharyngeal specimens were lower in SARS-CoV-2-experienced residents (p < 0.001) and in those testing positive by LFIC (p = 0.13). The frequency of SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive T cells at 3 months was similar in LFIC-negative residents with (n = 7) or without (n = 3) breakthrough infection. Prior history of SARS-CoV-2 infection and detection of S-reactive antibodies by LFIC at 3 months is associated with a lower risk of Delta-variant breakthrough infection in nursing home residents at midterm after Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccination.

Coronavirus Disease Transmission Prevented in an Endoscopy Unit with Universal Protective Measures and No Systematic Preprocedural Testing.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Even after two years of pandemic, there are still uncertainties on how to proceed when we schedule endoscopic procedures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some scientific societies recommended universal preprocedural testing for all patients. However, other societies recommended against and considered enough to maintain strict infection control strategies. Our aim was to evaluate this approach in order to see if it was safe for both patients and healthcare workers to proceed with the endoscopies without performing a systematic PCR on all patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing endoscopy without preprocedural COVID testing at our center from March 2020 to May 2021. PCR tests performed in the patients receiving an endoscopic procedure were analyzed, and patients who tested positive between 14 days before and after the endoscopic procedure were selected. The registry of the endoscopy unit members participating in these procedures was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 10,132 procedures were performed in the unit with 26 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nineteen of these procedures were performed in patients with unknown SARS-CoV-2 carrier status. In 23 (88.5%) cases, transmission occurred through social or familial contact, and in 3 (11.5%), transmission occurred in the hospital. Four health care workers became infected during this period and none of them were related to the endoscopic procedures performed in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 positive testing in asymptomatic ambulatory patients is rare and the adequate use of individual protective measures emerges as the main way to control the spread of COVID-19 infection in endoscopy centers.

SARS-CoV-2 adaptive immunity in nursing home residents up to eight months after two doses of the Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine.

Burgos JS (General Directorate of Research and Healthcare Supervision, Department of Health, Valencia Government, Valencia, Spain); Meneu de Guillerna R (Vice-President Foundation Research Institute in Public Services, Valencia, Spain); Vanaclocha Luna H (General Directorate of Public Health, Department of Health, Valencia Government, Valencia, Spain); Burks DJ (The Prince Felipe Research Center-CIPF-, Valencia, Spain; Cervantes A (INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain); Comas I (Biomedicine Institute of Valencia, Spanish Research Council (CSIC); Díez-Domingo J (Foundation for the promotion of health and biomedical research of the Valencian Community-FISABIO-, Valencia, Spain); Peiro S (Foundation for the promotion of health and biomedical research of the Valencian Community-FISABIO-, Valencia, Spain); González-Candelas F (CIBER in Epidemiology and Public Health, Spain; Joint Research Unit "Infection and Public Health" FISABIO-University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Institute for Integrative Systems Biology (I2SysBio), CSIC-University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain); Ferrer Albiach C (Fundación Hospital Provincial de Castelló); Hernández-Aguado I (University Miguel Hernández, Alicante, Spain); Oliver Ramírez N (DataPop Alliance); Sánchez-Payá J (Preventive Medicine Service, Alicante General and University Hospital, Alicante, Spain; Alicante Institute of Health and Biomedical Research (ISABIAL), Alicante, Spain; Vento Torres M (Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe); Zapater Latorre E (Fundación Hospital General Universitario de València); Navarro D (Microbiology Service, Clinic University Hospital, INCLIVA Health Research Institute, Valencia, Spain;Department of Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain).

[Valproic Acid Could Help in the Fight Against COVID-19: a case-control study]. / El ácido valproico podría ayudar en la lucha contra el COVID-19: un estudio de casos y controles.

OBJECTIVE: There is early evidence about Valproic acid (VPA) antiviral effect. Our aim was to investigate the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in VPA users as compared with the general population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study nested within a cohort, carried out between March 1 and December 17, 2020. Retrospectively, we identified confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection patients exposed to VPA in our health department (defined as case). We ascertained VPA regimen (all the time (AT)(292 days) or at least 20% of the study period (notAT)(≥58 days) and if VPA levels were in therapeutic range (ATR) (50-100 mcg/mL) in the last 24 months. We calculated the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission in the cases, comparing it with the general unexposed VPA population (controls). RESULTS: During the study period, 6183 PCR+ were detected among 281035 inhabitants, of these, 746 were hospitalized. 691 patients were on VPA notAT and 628 (90.1%) AT. The indication for VPA use was epilepsy in 54.9%. The incidence of PCR+ was 1.736 % (OR 0.785 (95%CI 0.443-1.390) and 1.910 % (OR 0.865 (95%CI 0.488-1.533), on VPA notAT and VPA AT patients, respectively vs. 2.201% in people without VPA regimen. Those patients with VPA ATR had a lower risk of PCR + (OR 0.233 (95%CI 0.057-0.951) notAT; OR 0.218 (95%CI 0.053-0.890) AT). Hospital admission incidence was lower in patient on VPA (OR was 0.543 (95% CI 0.076 to 3.871). CONCLUSION: Patients with VPA within the therapeutic range had a reduction of SARS-Cov-2 infection incidence greater than 75%. There is a downward trend in the risk of COVID-19 admission by SARS-CoV-2 in patients on VPA therapy. These findings warrant further investigation.

El ácido valproico podría ayudar en la lucha contra el COVID-19: un estudio de casos y controles Valproic Acid Could Help in the Fight Against COVID-19: a case-control study

Objetivo: Existe evidencia preliminar sobre el efecto antiviral del ácido valproico (VPA). Nuestro objetivo fue investigar la incidencia y la gravedad de la infección por SARS-CoV-2 en usuarios de VPA en comparación con la población general. Material y métodos: Estudio de casos – controles anidado en una cohorte, realizado entre el 1 de marzo y el 17 de diciembre de 2020. De forma retrospectiva, identificamos en nuestro departamento de salud a las personas con infección confirmada por SARS-CoV-2 usuarias de VPA (definido como caso). Comprobamos el régimen de VPA (todo el tiempo (TT) (292 días) o al menos el 20% del período de estudio (no-TT) (≥58 días) y si los niveles de VPA estaban en rango terapéutico (RT) (50-100 mcg / mL) en los últimos 24 meses. Calculamos la incidencia acumulada de infección por SARS-CoV-2 e ingreso en los casos, comparándola con la población general no expuesta a VPA (controles). Resultados: Durante el período de estudio se detectaron 6183 PCR + entre 281 035 habitantes, de estos, 746 fueron hospitalizados. 691 pacientes estaban en VPA no-TT y 628 (90,1%) TT. La indicación para el uso de VPA fue la epilepsia en el 54,9%. La incidencia de PCR + fue 1,736% (OR 0,785 (IC 95% 0,443-1,390) y 1,910% (OR 0,865 (IC 95% 0,488-1,533), en pacientes con VPA no-TT y VPA TT, respectivamente, frente a 2,201% en personas sin indicación de VPA. Los pacientes con VPA en RT tenían un riesgo menor de PCR + (OR 0,233 (IC del 95%: 0,057-0,951) no-TT;OR 0,218 (IC del 95%: 0,053-0,890) TT). La incidencia de ingreso hospitalario fue menor en pacientes con VPA (OR 0,543 (IC del 95%: 0,076 a 3,871). Conclusión: Los pacientes con VPA dentro del rango terapéutico tuvieron una reducción de la incidencia de infección por SARS-Cov-2 superior al 75%. Existe una tendencia a la baja en el riesgo de admisión por COVID-19 por SARS-CoV-2 en pacientes en terapia con VPA. Estos hallazgos justifican una mayor investigación.

[Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine to preventing COVID-19 in healthcare personnel]. / Efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 para prevenir la COVID-19 en personal sanitario.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of the vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (BNT162b2) in healthcare personnel of a health department. METHOD: Test-negative case̶control study. Healthcare personnel with suspected COVID-19 and healthcare personnel close contacts of COVID-19 cases were included between January 27th and June 6th, 2021. They were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2; those with positive PCR were considered cases and those with negative PCR were considered controls. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) to prevent COVID-19 cases and their 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated using the formula VE=(1-odds ratio)×100. RESULTS: 624 healthcare personnel were included, of which 43 (6.9%) were considered cases and 581 (93.8%) controls. The aVE of the complete regimen was 96.3% (95%CI: 82.5̶99.2). The aVE of the incomplete pattern was 68.0% (95%CI: 30.0̶85.4). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of the complete pattern of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 is effective for the prevention of cases of COVID-19 in healthcare personnel.

Efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 para prevenir la COVID-19 en personal sanitario Effectiveness of BNT162b2 vaccine to preventing COVID-19 in healthcare personnel

Objetivo: Conocer la efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 en personal sanitario de un departamento de salud. Método: Estudio de casos y controles con prueba negativa. Se incluyó personal sanitario con sospecha de COVID-19 y personal sanitario que fue contacto estrecho de casos de COVID-19 entre el 25 de enero y el 6 de junio de 2021. Se les realizó prueba de reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para SARS-CoV-2;aquellos con PCR positiva fueron considerados casos y aquellos con PCR negativa fueron considerados controles. Se calculó la efectividad vacunal ajustada (EVa) para prevenir casos de COVID-19 y su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%), mediante la fórmula EV = (1 − odds ratio) × 100. Resultados: Se incluyeron 624 profesionales sanitarios;de ellos, 43 (6,9%) casos y 581 (93,1%) controles. La EVa de la pauta completa fue del 96,3% (IC95%: 82,5-99,2) y la de la pauta incompleta del 68,0% (IC95%: 30,0-85,4). Conclusiones: La administración de la pauta completa de vacuna es efectiva para la prevención de casos de COVID-19 en el personal sanitario.

Immunological response against SARS-CoV-2 following full-dose administration of Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine in nursing home residents.

OBJECTIVES: The current study was aimed at examining SARS-CoV-2 immune responses following two doses of Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine among elderly people in nursing homes. METHODS: A prospective cohort study in a representative sample from nursing homes in Valencia (n = 881; males: 271, females 610; median age, 86 years) recruited residents using a random one-stage cluster sampling approach. A lateral flow immunochromatography device (LFIC) (OnSite COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test; CTK BIOTECH, Poway, CA, USA) was used as the front-line test for detecting SARS-CoV-2-Spike (S)-specific antibodies in whole blood obtained using a fingerstick. Residents returning negative LFIC results underwent venipuncture and testing for presence of SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive antibodies and T cells using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S (Roche Diagnostics, Pleasanton, CA, USA), the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS IgG assay (Diasorin S.p.A, Saluggia, Italy) and by flow cytometry, respectively. RESULTS: The SARS-CoV-2-S antibody detection rate in nursing home residents was 99.6% (283/284) and 98.3% (587/597) for SARS-CoV-2 recovered and naïve residents, respectively, within a median of 99 days (range 17-125 days) after full vaccination. Three out of five residents lacking SARS-CoV-2-S antibodies had detectable S-reactive CD8+ and/or CD4+ T cells. In addition, 50/50 and 40/50 participants with detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies also had SARS-CoV-2-S-reactive interferon-γ-producing CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, respectively. DISCUSSION: The Comirnaty® COVID-19 vaccine is highly immunogenic in nursing home residents.

Latin American Origin Is Not Associated with Worse Outcomes among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in a Public Healthcare System.

Exploring differences in clinical outcomes based on race and origin among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 is a controversial issue. The ALC COVID-19 Registry includes all confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to hospital from 3 March 2020 to 17 December 2020. The data were obtained from electronic health records in order to evaluate the differences in the clinical features and outcomes among European and Latin American patients. The follow-ups occurred after 156 days. A propensity score weighting (PSW) logistic regression model was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR, 95% CI) for Latin American origin and outcome associations. Of the 696 patients included, 46.7% were women, with a median age of 65 (IQR 53-67) years, 614 (88.2%) were European, and 82 (11.8%) were Latin American. Latin American patients were younger, with fewer comorbidities, and a higher incidence of extensive pneumonia. After adjusting for residual confounders, Latin American origin was not associated with an increased risk of death (PSW OR 0.85 (0.23-3.14)) or with the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (PSW OR 0.35 (0.12-1.03)). Latin American origin was associated with a shorter hospital stay, but without differences in how long the patient remained on mechanical ventilation. In a public healthcare system, the rates of death or mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 cases were found to be comparable between patients of European and Latin American origins.

Sero-epidemiological study of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel in a healthcare department.

OBJECTIVE: Estimate IgG antibody prevalence against SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare personnel (HCP) of a healthcare department (HD). METHOD: Prevalence study. The presence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was determined in HCP of the HD. Enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) tests were used. Field work took place from April 24, 2020 to May 8, 2020. The age, sex, occupation (physician, nurse, etc.) and the work area (Primary Care, Emergency Room, etc.) were gathered. The IgG antibody prevalence was then calculated with its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). To study the association between HCP characteristics and the presence IgG the Chi Square test was used, and to study the magnitude of association, the Odds Ratio (95% CI) was calculated. RESULTS: Of the 4813 HCP in the HD, 4179 (87,1%) participated. Of these, 73,3% (3065) were women and 26,7% (1114) men. The global prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was 6,6% (95% CI: 5,8-7,3). There were statistically significant differences depending on the occupation, from 8,7% (95% CI: 6,9-10,6) on medics down to 3,2% (95% CI: 1,0-8,0) on personnel not associated with health care. The other characteristics did not associate significantly to antibody presence against SARS-CoV-2. CONCLUSION: The SARS-CoV-2 infection frequency in HCP is similar to the estimated in the general population for big cities in Spain. This highlights the effectiveness of the infection control and prevention programme in this healthcare department targeted at healthcare personnel.

Effectivity of a Program for the Control and Prevention of COVID-19 Healthcare-Associated Infections in a Spanish Academic Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although recommendations to prevent COVID-19 healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) have been proposed, data on their effectivity are currently limited. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to evaluate the effectivity of a program of control and prevention of COVID-19 in an academic general hospital in Spain. METHODS: We captured the number of COVID-19 cases and the type of contact that occurred in hospitalized patients and healthcare personnel (HCP). To evaluate the impact of the continuous use of a surgical mask among HCP, the number of patients with COVID-19 HAIs and accumulated incidence of HCP with COVID-19 was compared between the preintervention and intervention periods. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-two patients with COVID-19 have been admitted to the hospital. Seven of them had an HAI origin (6 in the preintervention period and 1 in the intervention period). One hundred forty-two HCP were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Of them, 22 (15.5%) were attributed to healthcare (2 in the emergency department and none in the critical care departments), and 120 (84.5%) were attributed to social relations in the workplace or during their non-work-related personal interactions. The accumulated incidence during the preintervention period was 22.3 for every 1000 HCP and 8.2 for every 1000 HCP during the intervention period. The relative risk was 0.37 (95% confidence interval, 0.25 to 0.55) and the attributable risk was -0.014 (95% confidence interval, -0.020 to -0.009). CONCLUSIONS: A program of control and prevention of HAIs complemented with the recommendation for the continuous use of a surgical mask in the workplace and social environments of HCP effectively decreased the risk of COVID-19 HAIs in admitted patients and HCP.