ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant was detected in the psychiatric ward of a general hospital in Brasília, Brazil. METHODS: We report the investigation, clinical outcomes, viral sequencing, and control measures applied to outbreak containment. RESULTS: The overall attack rate was 95% (23/24) in a period of 13 days. Among the cases, 78% (18/23) were vaccinated and 17% (4/23) required intensive care. The Omicron variant was isolated from the 19 sequenced samples. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the potential harm that highly transmissible variants may generate among hospitalized populations, particularly those with comorbidities.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Brazil/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , Hospitals, General , Humans , Psychiatric Department, Hospital , SARS-CoV-2/geneticsABSTRACT
This cross-sectional seroepidemiological survey presents the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a population living in 15 Long-Term Care Facilities (LTCFs), after two intra-institutional outbreaks of COVID-19 in the city of Botucatu, Sao Paulo State, Brazil. Residents were invited to participate in the serological survey performed in June and July 2020. Sociodemographic and clinical characterization of the participants as well as the LTCF profile were recorded. Blood samples were collected, processed and serum samples were tested using the rapid One Step COVID-19 immunochromatography test to detect IgM and IgG anti-SARS-CoV-2. Among 209 residents, the median of age was 81 years old, 135 (64.6%) were female and 171 (81.8%) self-referred as being white. An overall seroprevalence of 11.5% (95% CI: 7.5% - 16.6%) was found. The highest seroprevalences of 100% and 76.9% were observed in LTCFs that had experienced COVID-19 outbreaks. Most residents with positive immunochromatography tests (70.8%) referred previous contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. Although there was a relatively low seroprevalence of COVID-19 in the total number of elderly people, this population is highly vulnerable and LTCFs are environments at higher risk for COVID-19 dissemination. A well-established test for COVID-19 policies, the adequate characterization of the level of interaction between residents and the healthcare provider team and the level of complexity of care are crucial to monitor and control the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in these institutions.
Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Long-Term Care , Nursing Homes , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/analysis , Brazil/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Cross-Sectional Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/analysis , Immunoglobulin M/analysis , Male , Seroepidemiologic StudiesABSTRACT
Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar efeitos de tratamentos medicamentosos para infecções por coronavírus. Revisão sistemática rápida com buscas nas bases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov e International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Foram incluídos 36 estudos avaliando alternativas medicamentosas contra SARS, SARS-CoV-2 e MERS. A maioria dos estudos incluídos foi conduzida na China com delineamento observacional para tratamento da COVID-19. Os tratamentos mais estudados foram antimaláricos e antivirais. Nos antimaláricos, a metanálise de dois estudos com 180 participantes não identificou benefício da hidroxicloroquina em relação à negativação da carga viral via reação em cadeia de polimerase em tempo real e o uso de antivirais comparado ao cuidado padrão foi similar em relação aos desfechos. As evidências científicas disponíveis são preliminares e de baixa qualidade metodológica, o que sugere cautela na interpretação dos dados. Pesquisas que avaliem a eficácia comparativa em ensaios clínicos randomizados, controlados, com tempo de acompanhamento adequado e com os métodos devidamente divulgados e sujeitos à revisão científica por pares são necessárias. Recomenda-se atualização periódica da presente revisão. This work aimed to evaluate the effects of drug therapies for coronavirus infections. Rapid systematic review with search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases. Thirty-six studies evaluating alternative drugs against SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS were included. Most of the included studies were conducted in China with an observational design for the treatment of COVID-19. The most studied treatments were with antimalarials and antivirals. In antimalarial, the meta-analysis of two studies with 180 participants did not identify the benefit of hydroxychloroquine concerning the negative viral load via real-time polymerase chain reaction, and the use of antivirals compared to standard care was similar regarding outcomes. The available scientific evidence is preliminary and of low methodological quality, which suggests caution when interpreting its results. Research that evaluates comparative efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, with adequate follow-up time and with the methods properly disclosed and subject to scientific peer review is required. A periodic update of this review is recommended.
ABSTRACT
This work aimed to evaluate the effects of drug therapies for coronavirus infections. Rapid systematic review with search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, BVS, Global Index Medicus, Medrix, bioRxiv, Clinicaltrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform databases. Thirty-six studies evaluating alternative drugs against SARS, SARS-CoV-2 and MERS were included. Most of the included studies were conducted in China with an observational design for the treatment of COVID-19. The most studied treatments were with antimalarials and antivirals. In antimalarial, the meta-analysis of two studies with 180 participants did not identify the benefit of hydroxychloroquine concerning the negative viral load via real-time polymerase chain reaction, and the use of antivirals compared to standard care was similar regarding outcomes. The available scientific evidence is preliminary and of low methodological quality, which suggests caution when interpreting its results. Research that evaluates comparative efficacy in randomized, controlled clinical trials, with adequate follow-up time and with the methods properly disclosed and subject to scientific peer review is required. A periodic update of this review is recommended.