Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Life (Basel) ; 13(5)2023 May 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20235643

ABSTRACT

Airborne-mediated microbial diseases represent one of the major challenges to public health. Ultraviolet C radiation (UVC) is among the different sanitation techniques useful to reduce the risk of infection in healthcare facilities. Previous studies about the germicidal activity of UVC were mainly performed in artificial settings or in vitro models. This study aimed to assess the sanitizing effectiveness of a UVC device (SanificaAria 200, Beghelli, Valsamoggia, Bologna, Italy) in 'real-life' conditions by evaluating its ability to reduce microbial loads in several hospital settings during routine daily activities. The efficacy of the UVC lamp in reducing the bacterial component was evaluated by microbial culture through the collection of air samples in different healthcare settings at different times (30 min-24 h) after turning on the device. To assess the anti-viral activity, air samplings were carried out in a room where a SARS-CoV-2-positive subject was present. The UVC device showed good antibacterial properties against a wide range of microbial species after 6 h of activity. It was effective against possible multi-drug resistant microorganisms (e.g., Pseudomonas spp., Acinetobacter spp.) and spore-forming bacteria (e.g., Bacillus spp.). In addition, the UVC lamp was able to inactivate SARS-CoV-2 in just one hour. Thanks to its effectiveness and safety, SanificaAria 200 could be useful to inactivate airborne pathogens and reduce health risks.

2.
Med Lav ; 114(3): e2023022, 2023 Jun 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239228

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health care workers (HCWs) were on the frontline of the current pandemic. We aimed at identifying determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the effectiveness of personal protection equipment (PPE) worn by HCWs before vaccination. METHODS: We abstracted data on SARS-CoV-2 infection based on positive PCR results and sociodemographic characteristics of 38,793 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from 10 European centers. We fitted cohort-specific multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of infection and combined the results using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of infection before vaccination among HCWs was 9.58%. Infection was associated with the presence of selected symptoms; no association was found between sociodemographic factors and increased risk of infection. The use of PPE and particularly FFP2/FFP3 masks had a different protective effect during the first and second waves of the COVID pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The study provides evidence that mask use was the most effective PPE in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Health Personnel , Pandemics
4.
Sustainability ; 15(9):7337, 2023.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-2317936

ABSTRACT

Background: There is compelling evidence to suggest that leadership behaviour and teamwork are critical success factors in healthcare organisations facing increasingly complex demands and limited resources. Effective teamwork is essential to deliver high-quality care, requiring integrating different professionals in the healthcare sector. Leaders play a significant role in facilitating teamwork by managing conflicts and promoting cooperation among team members. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the importance of leadership in supporting the mental health and well-being of team members. Methods: A cross-lagged research design was used to examine the relationship between mental health-specific (MHS) leadership and teamwork. Participants were 118 healthcare professionals (76.3% female;44.9% aged between 45 and 54 years old). Results: A serial mediation model was confirmed, showing an indirect effect of mental health leadership on teamwork through interpersonal conflict and cooperation. Conclusions: Effective (MHS) leadership can positively impact the teamwork of healthcare professionals, particularly during times of crisis.

5.
Environ Health Insights ; 16: 11786302221123573, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2309802

ABSTRACT

Background: Face masks are recommended based on the assumption that they protect against SARS-CoV-2 transmission, however studies on their potential side effects are still lacking. We aimed to evaluate the inhaled air carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, when wearing masks. Methods: We measured end-tidal CO2 using professional side-stream capnography, with water-removing tubing, (1) without masks, (2) wearing a surgical mask, and (3) wearing a FFP2 respirator (for 5 minutes each while seated after 10 minutes of rest), in 146 healthy volunteers aged 10 to 90 years, from the general population of Ferrara, Italy. The inhaled air CO2 concentration was computed as: ([mask volume × end-tidal CO2] + [tidal volume - mask volume] × ambient air CO2)/tidal volume. Results: With surgical masks, the mean CO2 concentration was 7091 ± 2491 ppm in children, 4835 ± 869 in adults, and 4379 ± 978 in the elderly. With FFP2 respirators, this concentration was 13 665 ± 3655 in children, 8502 ± 1859 in adults, and 9027 ± 1882 in the elderly. The proportion showing a CO2 concentration higher than the 5000 ppm (8-hour average) acceptable threshold for workers was 41.1% with surgical masks, and 99.3% with FFP2 respirators. Adjusting for age, gender, BMI, and smoking, the inhaled air CO2 concentration significantly increased with increasing respiratory rate (mean 10 837 ±3712 ppm among participants ⩾18 breaths/minute, with FFP2 respirators), and among the minors. Conclusion: If these results are confirmed, the current guidelines on mask-wearing should be reevaluated.

7.
Front Immunol ; 13: 986085, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255441

ABSTRACT

Background: The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p<0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels. Conclusions: Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/prevention & control , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Immunity , Immunoglobulin G , Infant , Vaccination
8.
Front Immunol ; 13: 1079884, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2229034

ABSTRACT

Short summary: We investigated changes in serologic measurements after COVID-19 vaccination in 19,422 subjects. An individual-level analysis was performed on standardized measurements. Age, infection, vaccine doses, time between doses and serologies, and vaccine type were associated with changes in serologic levels within 13 months. Background: Persistence of vaccine immunization is key for COVID-19 prevention. Methods: We investigated the difference between two serologic measurements of anti-COVID-19 S1 antibodies in an individual-level analysis on 19,422 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) from Italy, Spain, Romania, and Slovakia, tested within 13 months from first dose. Differences in serologic levels were divided by the standard error of the cohort-specific distribution, obtaining standardized measurements. We fitted multivariate linear regression models to identify predictors of difference between two measurements. Results: We observed a progressively decreasing difference in serologic levels from <30 days to 210-240 days. Age was associated with an increased difference in serologic levels. There was a greater difference between the two serologic measurements in infected HCW than in HCW who had never been infected; before the first measurement, infected HCW had a relative risk (RR) of 0.81 for one standard deviation in the difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.85]. The RRs for a 30-day increase in time between first dose and first serology, and between the two serologies, were 1.08 (95% CI 1.07-1.10) and 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05), respectively. The first measurement was a strong predictor of subsequent antibody decrease (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.56-1.64). Compared with Comirnaty, Spikevax (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92) and mixed vaccines (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) were smaller decrease in serological level (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.40-0.54). Conclusions: Age, COVID-19 infection, number of doses, time between first dose and first serology, time between serologies, and type of vaccine were associated with differences between the two serologic measurements within a 13-month period.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19 , Humans , Infant , COVID-19/prevention & control , Antibodies , Health Personnel , Italy
9.
Frontiers in immunology ; 13, 2022.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-2072928

ABSTRACT

Background The duration of immune response to COVID-19 vaccination is of major interest. Our aim was to analyze the determinants of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG titer at 6 months after 2-dose vaccination in an international cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods We analyzed data on levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of 6,327 vaccinated HCWs from 8 centers from Germany, Italy, Romania and Slovakia. Time between 1st dose and serology ranged 150-210 days. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors, obtaining standardized values. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of 1 standard deviation of log antibody level and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and finally combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results A 6-month serological response was detected in 99.6% of HCWs. Female sex (RR 1.10, 95%CI 1.00-1.21), past infection (RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.73-2.95) and two vaccine doses (RR 1.50, 95%CI 1.22-1.84) predicted higher IgG titer, contrary to interval since last dose (RR for 10-day increase 0.94, 95%CI 0.91-0.97) and age (RR for 10-year increase 0.87, 95%CI 0.83-0.92). M-RNA-based vaccines (p<0.001) and heterologous vaccination (RR 2.46, 95%CI 1.87-3.24, one cohort) were associated with increased antibody levels. Conclusions Female gender, young age, past infection, two vaccine doses, and m-RNA and heterologous vaccination predicted higher antibody level at 6 months. These results corroborate previous findings and offer valuable data for comparison with trends observed with longer follow-ups.

10.
Infection ; 50(5): 1243-1253, 2022 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1821023

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to build a predictive model able to stratify the risk of bacterial co-infection at hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Multicenter observational study of adult patients hospitalized from February to December 2020 with confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Endpoint was microbiologically documented bacterial co-infection diagnosed within 72 h from hospitalization. The cohort was randomly split into derivation and validation cohort. To investigate risk factors for co-infection univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Predictive risk score was obtained assigning a point value corresponding to ß-coefficients to the variables in the multivariable model. ROC analysis in the validation cohort was used to estimate prediction accuracy. RESULTS: Overall, 1733 patients were analyzed: 61.4% males, median age 69 years (IQR 57-80), median Charlson 3 (IQR 2-6). Co-infection was diagnosed in 110 (6.3%) patients. Empirical antibiotics were started in 64.2 and 59.5% of patients with and without co-infection (p = 0.35). At multivariable analysis in the derivation cohort: WBC ≥ 7.7/mm3, PCT ≥ 0.2 ng/mL, and Charlson index ≥ 5 were risk factors for bacterial co-infection. A point was assigned to each variable obtaining a predictive score ranging from 0 to 5. In the validation cohort, ROC analysis showed AUC of 0.83 (95%CI 0.75-0.90). The optimal cut-point was ≥2 with sensitivity 70.0%, specificity 75.9%, positive predictive value 16.0% and negative predictive value 97.5%. According to individual risk score, patients were classified at low (point 0), intermediate (point 1), and high risk (point ≥ 2). CURB-65 ≥ 2 was further proposed to identify patients at intermediate risk who would benefit from early antibiotic coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Our score may be useful in stratifying bacterial co-infection risk in COVID-19 hospitalized patients, optimizing diagnostic testing and antibiotic use.


Subject(s)
Bacterial Infections , COVID-19 , Coinfection , Adult , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bacterial Infections/diagnosis , Bacterial Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing , Cohort Studies , Coinfection/diagnosis , Coinfection/epidemiology , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies
11.
Med Lav ; 113(2): e2022022, 2022 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1818998

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Characterizing immunological response following COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health issue. The objectives of the present analysis were to investigate the proportion, level and the determinants of humoral response from 21 days to three months after the first dose in vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We abstracted data on level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies (IgG) and sociodemographic characteristics of 17,257 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from three centers in Northern Italy who underwent COVID-19 vaccination (average 70.6 days after first dose). We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models and combined them using random-effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: A humoral response was elicited in 99.3% of vaccinated HCW. Female sex, young age, and previous COVID-19 infection were predictors of post-vaccination antibody level, and a positive association was also detected with pre-vaccination serology level and with time between pre- and post-vaccination testing, while a decline of antibody level was suggested with time since vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: These results stress the importance of analyzing retrospective data collected via occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the COVID-19 epidemic and following vaccination. They need to be confirmed in larger series based on prospectively collected data.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , RNA, Viral , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/methods
12.
Med Lav ; 112(6): 436-443, 2021 Dec 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1599009

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The Covid-19 pandemic in Italy has been characterized by three waves of infection during 2020. Vaccination of healthcare workers started in January 2021, earlier than that of other population groups. The main aim of this study is to compare the spread of the pandemic between HCW and the general population focusing on potential effects of the vaccination. METHODS: The study consisted of a retrospective analysis of results of RT-PCR tests performed between 6 March 2020 and 4 April 2021 among HCWs from Bologna, Italy, and those of the general population of Emilia Romagna region. We calculated the crude proportion of positive RT-PCR tests over total tests and the crude prevalence of positive test in population; then, we conducted joinpoint analyses using the Joinpoint Regression Program of the National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: The results of the joinpoint analysis show that both φ and ψ ratio indicators have a similar pattern, with a sharp increase during the early phase of the pandemic, and a strong decrease at the end of the first wave around week 15. In both indicators there are no significant changes in the trend after week 25. Pandemic spread among HCWs appeared earlier than in the general population, but it otherwise appeared to have comparable features. A decline in infection was apparent among HCWs after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of HCWs would inform on the epidemic in the general population. The apparent effectiveness of the anti-SarsCoV2 vaccine will likely occur in the general population.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Health Personnel , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Population Groups , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination
13.
Med Lav ; 112(5): 340-345, 2021 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1498270

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2; while PCR test remains gold standard for diagnosis of COVID19 infection, antigen based rapid detection tests have been recently approved by OMS. METHODS: We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 6397 asymptomatic HCW and other employees who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection at the University Hospital in Bologna using rapid antigen test between November 16, 2020 and January 29, 2021. FINDINGS: A total of 17,993 rapid tests were performed, of which 704 for contact with an infected person and 17,289 for voluntary screening. Among 17,732 tests with valid results, 87 tested positive (0.49%) and 17 weakly positive (0.10%). The sensitivity of the antigenic test was 88.6% (81.1-96.1), the specificity was 93.4% (89-97.8), the positive predictive value, given a prevalence of infection of 42.1%, was 90.7% (84.8-96.6).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity
14.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 5788, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132103

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, yet limited information is available on risk factors of infection. We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 10,654 HCW who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in six Italian centers. Information was available on demographics, job title, department of employment, source of exposure, use of personal protective equipment (PPEs), and COVID-19-related symptoms. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of infection. The prevalence of infection ranged from 3.0 to 22.0%, and was correlated with that of the respective areas. Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. Fever, cough, dyspnea and malaise were the symptoms most strongly associated with infection, together with anosmia and ageusia. No differences in the risk of infection were detected according to job title, or working in a COVID-19 designated department. Reported contact with a patient inside or outside the workplace was a risk factor. Use of a mask was strongly protective against risk of infection as was use of gloves. The use of a mask by the source of exposure (patient or colleague) had an independent effect in reducing infection risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Med Lav ; 111(5): 365-371, 2020 Oct 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-895851

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the Covid-19 outbreak, a recurrent subject in scientific literature has been brought back into discussion: whether surgical masks provide a sufficient protection against airborne SARS-CoV-2 infections. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to summarize the available studies which have compared the respective effectiveness of surgical masks and filtering facepiece respirators  for the prevention of infections caused by viruses that are transmitted by the respiratory tract. METHODS: The relevant scientific literature was identified by querying the PubMed database with a combination of search strings. The narrower search string "(surgical mask *) AND (respirator OR respirators)" included all the relevant articles retrieved using broader search strategies. Of all the relevant articles found, seven systematic reviews were selected and examined. RESULTS: The currently available scientific evidence seems to suggest that surgical masks and N95 respirators/FFP2 confer an equivalent degree of protection against airborne viral infections. DISCUSSION: Since surgical masks are less expensive than N95 respirators but seem to be as effective in protecting against airborne infection and they are also more comfortable for the user, requiring less respiratory work, they should be the standard protective device for health care workers and especially for workers who carry out non-medical jobs. Filtering facepiece respirators, whose extended use is less comfortable for the wearer, may be preferred for procedures which require greater protection for a shorter time.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Masks , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Respiratory Protective Devices , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL