ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to investigate real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021. To assess VE, we calculated VE=1-RR (rate ratio), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of COVID-19 infection as the outcome, and the vaccination status as the main exploratory variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age and job types. RESULTS: 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVacvaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 infection cases happened in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVacvaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (p-value< 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need of mechanical ventilation. Nineteen SARSCoV-2 samples from nineteen HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Eighteen out of nineteen of those samples were Gamma SARS-CoV-2 variant. CONCLUSIONS: While both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 infection among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective even against a dominant Gamma variant.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either two doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1-IRR (incidence rate ratio), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (two doses) to those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11,427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine vs. 0.9% of HCWs receiving two doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001), and 9.8% of HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine vs. 1% among HCWs receiving two doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (p < 0.001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for two CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster, and 60.2% for two ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared to those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While two doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simpliï¬ed Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Aged , Brazil/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective Since the rising of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of transmission to cancer patients. Evidence on increased severity for patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment is posed against deferring oncologic treatment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes in a cancer center in an epicenter of the pandemic. Methods Outpatient and inpatient volumes were extracted from electronic health record database. Two intervals were compared: pre-COVID-19 (March to May 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020) periods. Results The total number of medical appointments declined by 45% in the COVID-19 period, including a 56.2% decrease in new visits. There was a 27.5% reduction in the number of patients undergoing intravenous systemic treatment and a 57.4% decline in initiation of new treatments. Conversely, there was an increase by 309% in new patients undergoing oral chemotherapy regimens and a 5.9% rise in new patients submitted to radiation therapy in the COVID-19 period. There was a 51.2% decline in length of stay and a 60% reduction in the volume of surgical cases during COVID-19. In the stem cell transplant unit, we observed a reduction by 36.5% in length of stay and a 62.5% drop in stem cell transplants. Conclusion A significant decrease in the number of patients undergoing cancer treatment was observed after COVID-19 pandemic. Although this may be partially overcome by alternative therapeutic options, avoiding timely health care due to fear of getting COVID-19 infection might impact on clinical outcomes. Our findings may help support immediate actions to mitigate this hypothesis. RESUMO Objetivo Desde o surgimento da pandemia da doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), há incerteza quanto ao impacto da transmissão para pacientes com câncer. As evidências sobre o aumento da gravidade para pacientes submetidos a tratamento antineoplásico são contra o adiamento do tratamento oncológico. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar o impacto da pandemia de COVID-19 em volumes de pacientes em um centro oncológico, em um epicentro da pandemia. Métodos Os volumes de pacientes ambulatoriais e de internação foram extraídos do banco de dados de prontuários eletrônicos. Dois intervalos foram comparados: períodos pré-COVID-19 (março a maio de 2019) e pandemia COVID-19 (março a maio de 2020). Resultados O número total de consultas médicas diminuiu 45% no período pandemia COVID-19, inclusive com redução de 56,2% nas novas consultas. Houve redução de 27,5% no número de pacientes em tratamento sistêmico intravenoso e de 57,4% no início de novos tratamentos. Por outro lado, ocorreram aumento de 309% em novos pacientes submetidos a regimes de quimioterapia oral e elevação de 5,9% em novos pacientes submetidos à radioterapia no período pandemia COVID-19. Observaram-se queda de 51,2% nos dias de internação e redução de 60% no volume de casos cirúrgicos durante a COVID-19. Na unidade de transplante de células-tronco, a redução foi de 36,5% nos dias de internação e de 62,5% nos transplantes de células-tronco. Conclusão Foi observado declínio significativo no número de pacientes em tratamento de câncer após a pandemia de COVID-19. Embora isso possa ser parcialmente superado por opções terapêuticas alternativas, evitar cuidados de saúde oportunos devido ao medo de contrair COVID-19 pode impactar nos resultados clínicos. Nossos resultados podem ajudar a apoiar ações imediatas para mitigar essa hipótese.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective Since the rising of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of transmission to cancer patients. Evidence on increased severity for patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment is posed against deferring oncologic treatment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes in a cancer center in an epicenter of the pandemic. Methods Outpatient and inpatient volumes were extracted from electronic health record database. Two intervals were compared: pre-COVID-19 (March to May 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020) periods. Results The total number of medical appointments declined by 45% in the COVID-19 period, including a 56.2% decrease in new visits. There was a 27.5% reduction in the number of patients undergoing intravenous systemic treatment and a 57.4% decline in initiation of new treatments. Conversely, there was an increase by 309% in new patients undergoing oral chemotherapy regimens and a 5.9% rise in new patients submitted to radiation therapy in the COVID-19 period. There was a 51.2% decline in length of stay and a 60% reduction in the volume of surgical cases during COVID-19. In the stem cell transplant unit, we observed a reduction by 36.5% in length of stay and a 62.5% drop in stem cell transplants. Conclusion A significant decrease in the number of patients undergoing cancer treatment was observed after COVID-19 pandemic. Although this may be partially overcome by alternative therapeutic options, avoiding timely health care due to fear of getting COVID-19 infection might impact on clinical outcomes. Our findings may help support immediate actions to mitigate this hypothesis. RESUMO Objetivo Desde o surgimento da pandemia da doença pelo coronavírus 2019 (COVID-19), há incerteza quanto ao impacto da transmissão para pacientes com câncer. As evidências sobre o aumento da gravidade para pacientes submetidos a tratamento antineoplásico são contra o adiamento do tratamento oncológico. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar o impacto da pandemia de COVID-19 em volumes de pacientes em um centro oncológico, em um epicentro da pandemia. Métodos Os volumes de pacientes ambulatoriais e de internação foram extraídos do banco de dados de prontuários eletrônicos. Dois intervalos foram comparados: períodos pré-COVID-19 (março a maio de 2019) e pandemia COVID-19 (março a maio de 2020). Resultados O número total de consultas médicas diminuiu 45% no período pandemia COVID-19, inclusive com redução de 56,2% nas novas consultas. Houve redução de 27,5% no número de pacientes em tratamento sistêmico intravenoso e de 57,4% no início de novos tratamentos. Por outro lado, ocorreram aumento de 309% em novos pacientes submetidos a regimes de quimioterapia oral e elevação de 5,9% em novos pacientes submetidos à radioterapia no período pandemia COVID-19. Observaram-se queda de 51,2% nos dias de internação e redução de 60% no volume de casos cirúrgicos durante a COVID-19. Na unidade de transplante de células-tronco, a redução foi de 36,5% nos dias de internação e de 62,5% nos transplantes de células-tronco. Conclusão Foi observado declínio significativo no número de pacientes em tratamento de câncer após a pandemia de COVID-19. Embora isso possa ser parcialmente superado por opções terapêuticas alternativas, evitar cuidados de saúde oportunos devido ao medo de contrair COVID-19 pode impactar nos resultados clínicos. Nossos resultados podem ajudar a apoiar ações imediatas para mitigar essa hipótese.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Since the rising of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there is uncertainty regarding the impact of transmission to cancer patients. Evidence on increased severity for patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment is posed against deferring oncologic treatment. We aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patient volumes in a cancer center in an epicenter of the pandemic. METHODS: Outpatient and inpatient volumes were extracted from electronic health record database. Two intervals were compared: pre-COVID-19 (March to May 2019) and COVID-19 pandemic (March to May 2020) periods. RESULTS: The total number of medical appointments declined by 45% in the COVID-19 period, including a 56.2% decrease in new visits. There was a 27.5% reduction in the number of patients undergoing intravenous systemic treatment and a 57.4% decline in initiation of new treatments. Conversely, there was an increase by 309% in new patients undergoing oral chemotherapy regimens and a 5.9% rise in new patients submitted to radiation therapy in the COVID-19 period. There was a 51.2% decline in length of stay and a 60% reduction in the volume of surgical cases during COVID-19. In the stem cell transplant unit, we observed a reduction by 36.5% in length of stay and a 62.5% drop in stem cell transplants. CONCLUSION: A significant decrease in the number of patients undergoing cancer treatment was observed after COVID-19 pandemic. Although this may be partially overcome by alternative therapeutic options, avoiding timely health care due to fear of getting COVID-19 infection might impact on clinical outcomes. Our findings may help support immediate actions to mitigate this hypothesis.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Medical Oncology/statistics & numerical data , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Latin AmericaABSTRACT
ABSTRACT Objective This study describes epidemiological and clinical features of patients with confirmed infection by SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed and treated at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein , which admitted the first patients with this condition in Brazil. Methods In this retrospective, single-center study, we included all laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein , São Paulo, Brazil, from February until March 2020. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological data were analyzed. Results A total of 510 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in this study. Most patients were male (56.9%) with a mean age of 40 years. A history of a close contact with a positive/suspected case was reported by 61.1% of patients and 34.4% had a history of recent international travel. The most common symptoms upon presentation were fever (67.5%), nasal congestion (42.4%), cough (41.6%) and myalgia/arthralgia (36.3%). Chest computed tomography was performed in 78 (15.3%) patients, and 93.6% of those showed abnormal results. Hospitalization was required for 72 (14%) patients and 20 (27.8%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Regarding clinical treatment, the most often used medicines were intravenous antibiotics (84.7%), chloroquine (45.8%) and oseltamivir (31.9%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required by 65% of Intensive Care Unit patients. The mean length of stay was 9 days for all patients (22 and 7 days for patients requiring or not intensive care, respectively). Only one patient (1.38%) died during follow-up. Conclusion These results may be relevant for Brazil and other countries with similar characteristics, which are starting to deal with this pandemic. RESUMO Objetivo Descrever as características epidemiológicas e clínicas de pacientes com infecção confirmada pelo SARS-CoV-2, diagnosticados e tratados no Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, que admitiu os primeiros pacientes com essa condição no Brasil. Métodos Neste estudo retrospectivo, de centro único, incluímos todos os casos com confirmação laboratorial de COVID-19 no Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, em São Paulo (SP) de fevereiro a março de 2020. Foram analisados dados demográficos, clínicos, laboratoriais e radiológicos. Resultados Foram incluídos 510 pacientes com diagnóstico confirmado de COVID-19. A maioria dos pacientes era do sexo masculino (56,9%), com média de idade de 40 anos. Foi relatada história de contato próximo com um caso positivo/suspeito por 61,1% dos pacientes, e 34,4% tinham história de viagens internacionais recentes. Os sintomas mais comuns foram febre (67,5%), congestão nasal (42,4%), tosse (41,6%) e mialgia/artralgia (36,3%). A tomografia computadorizada de tórax foi realizada em 78 (15,3%) pacientes, e 93,6% deles apresentaram resultados anormais. A hospitalização foi necessária para 72 (14%) pacientes, e 20 (27,8%) foram admitidos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. Quanto ao tratamento clínico, os medicamentos mais utilizados foram antibióticos intravenosos (84,7%), cloroquina (45,8%) e oseltamivir (31,9%). A ventilação mecânica invasiva foi necessária em 65% dos pacientes na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. O tempo médio de internação foi 9 dias para todos os pacientes (22 e 7 dias para pacientes que necessitaram ou não de cuidados intensivos, respectivamente). Apenas um (1,38%) paciente morreu durante o acompanhamento. Conclusão Estes resultados podem ser relevantes para o Brasil e outros países com características semelhantes, que começaram a lidar com essa pandemia.
ABSTRACT
Objective This study describes epidemiological and clinical features of patients with confirmed infection by SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed and treated at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein , which admitted the first patients with this condition in Brazil. Methods In this retrospective, single-center study, we included all laboratory confirmed COVID-19 cases at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein , São Paulo, Brazil, from February until March 2020. Demographic, clinical, laboratory and radiological data were analyzed. Results A total of 510 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were included in this study. Most patients were male (56.9%) with a mean age of 40 years. A history of a close contact with a positive/suspected case was reported by 61.1% of patients and 34.4% had a history of recent international travel. The most common symptoms upon presentation were fever (67.5%), nasal congestion (42.4%), cough (41.6%) and myalgia/arthralgia (36.3%). Chest computed tomography was performed in 78 (15.3%) patients, and 93.6% of those showed abnormal results. Hospitalization was required for 72 (14%) patients and 20 (27.8%) were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Regarding clinical treatment, the most often used medicines were intravenous antibiotics (84.7%), chloroquine (45.8%) and oseltamivir (31.9%). Invasive mechanical ventilation was required by 65% of Intensive Care Unit patients. The mean length of stay was 9 days for all patients (22 and 7 days for patients requiring or not intensive care, respectively). Only one patient (1.38%) died during follow-up. Conclusion These results may be relevant for Brazil and other countries with similar characteristics, which are starting to deal with this pandemic.