Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 16 de 16
Filter
1.
Clin Infect Dis ; 2023 Mar 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2327928

ABSTRACT

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.

2.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 151: w20475, 2021 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2249422

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, which emerged in China in late 2019, rapidly spread across the world with several million victims in 213 countries. Switzerland was severely hit by the virus, with 43,000 confirmed cases as of 1 September 2020. AIM: In cooperation with the Federal Office of Public Health, we set up a surveillance database in February 2020 to monitor hospitalised patients with COVID-19, in addition to their mandatory reporting system. METHODS: Patients hospitalised for more than 24 hours with a positive polymerase chain-reaction test, from 20 Swiss hospitals, are included. Data were collected in a customised case report form based on World Health Organisation recommendations and adapted to local needs. Nosocomial infections were defined as infections for which the onset of symptoms was more than 5 days after the patient’s admission date. RESULTS: As of 1 September 2020, 3645 patients were included. Most patients were male (2168, 59.5%), and aged between 50 and 89 years (2778, 76.2%), with a median age of 68 (interquartile range 54–79). Community infections dominated with 3249 (89.0%) reports. Comorbidities were frequently reported, with hypertension (1481, 61.7%), cardiovascular diseases (948, 39.5%) and diabetes (660, 27.5%) being the most frequent in adults; respiratory diseases and asthma (4, 21.1%), haematological and oncological diseases (3, 15.8%) were the most frequent in children. Complications occurred in 2679 (73.4%) episodes, mostly respiratory diseases (2470, 93.2% in adults; 16, 55.2% in children), and renal (681, 25.7%) and cardiac (631, 23.8%) complications for adults. The second and third most frequent complications in children affected the digestive system and the liver (7, 24.1%). A targeted treatment was given in 1299 (35.6%) episodes, mostly with hydroxychloroquine (989, 76.1%). Intensive care units stays were reported in 578 (15.8%) episodes. A total of 527 (14.5%) deaths were registered, all among adults. CONCLUSION: The surveillance system has been successfully initiated and provides a robust set of data for Switzerland by including about 80% (compared with official statistics) of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 hospitalised patients, with similar age and comorbidity distributions. It adds detailed information on the epidemiology, risk factors and clinical course of these cases and, therefore, is a valuable addition to the existing mandatory reporting.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Population Surveillance , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/complications , Child , Child, Preschool , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology , Young Adult
3.
PLoS Med ; 19(11): e1004125, 2022 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2109279

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Prospective Studies , Switzerland/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination/methods
4.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 11(6)2022 Jun 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1911142

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study was to analyze inpatient antibiotic consumption during the first 16 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland. The entire period (January 2018-June 2021) was divided into the prepandemic period, the first and second waves, and the intermediate period. In the first year of the pandemic, total overall inpatient antibiotic consumption measured in defined daily doses (DDD) per 100 bed-days remained stable (+1.7%), with a slight increase in ICUs of +4.2%. The increase in consumption of broad-spectrum antibiotics was +12.3% overall and 17.3% in ICUs. The segmented regression model of monthly data revealed an increase in overall antibiotic consumption during the first wave but not during the second wave. In the correlation analysis performed in a subset of the data, a significant positive association was found between broad-spectrum antibiotic consumption and an increasing number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (p = 0.018). Restricting this dataset to ICUs, we found significant positive correlations between the number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and total antibiotic consumption (p = 0.007) and broad-spectrum antibiotic consumption (p < 0.001). In conclusion, inpatient antibiotic use during the different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic varied greatly and was predominantly notable for broad-spectrum antibiotics.

5.
Clin Infect Dis ; 75(1): e1011-e1019, 2022 Aug 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1816031

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Olfaction Disorders , Asymptomatic Infections/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Fatigue , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome
6.
BMJ Open ; 12(3): e044639, 2022 03 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1752836

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Isolation precautions (IP) are applied to prevent transmission of pathogens in healthcare settings. Potential negative health outcomes experienced by patients have been previously described but results remain conflicting. We aimed at evaluating the psychological impact of IP in adult patients in isolation using a novel psychological assessment tool. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective matched cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary care centre in Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised patients under IP and non-isolated patients were matched by ward, age and illness severity. OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured surrogates of mental and social well-being by using the Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self Measure (PRISM) instrument once during hospitalisation. PRISM is a visual psychometric instrument that has been validated as a quantitative measure of suffering. Smaller distance in self-to-illness separation (SIS) signifies higher importance for a patient. RESULTS: 156 patients agreed to participate of which 63 were under IP and 93 were matched controls. Median (IQR) duration of isolation was 5 days (2-10). The median SIS (IQR) for perceived inferior nurses' care was 22.8 (18.5-24.3) and 23.8 (23.3-25.5) for isolated and non-isolated patients, respectively (p<0.001). Similarly, median SIS (IQR) was significantly smaller in isolated than non-isolated patients for avoidance by visitors with 17.5 (7.7-22.0) and 22.2 (21.8-22.6), for loneliness with 7.5 (3.6-16.0) and 18 (10.2-21.6) and for feeling impure with 19 (17.0-21.5) and 21.5 (18.9-22.1), respectively (all p values<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: IP to prevent transmission of pathogens may negatively impact mental and social well-being. Measures to alleviate adverse effects of IP should be taken routinely.


Subject(s)
Perception , Quality of Life , Adult , Cohort Studies , Humans , Prospective Studies , Quality of Life/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires
7.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 151: w30105, 2021 11 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1689912

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: When the periods of time during and after the first wave of the ongoing SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic in Europe are compared, the associated COVID-19 mortality seems to have decreased substantially. Various factors could explain this trend, including changes in demographic characteristics of infected persons and the improvement of case management. To date, no study has been performed to investigate the evolution of COVID-19 in-hospital mortality in Switzerland, while also accounting for risk factors. METHODS: We investigated the trends in COVID-19-related mortality (in-hospital and in-intermediate/intensive-care) over time in Switzerland, from February 2020 to June 2021, comparing in particular the first and the second wave. We used data from the COVID-19 Hospital-based Surveillance (CH-SUR) database. We performed survival analyses adjusting for well-known risk factors of COVID-19 mortality (age, sex and comorbidities) and accounting for competing risk. RESULTS: Our analysis included 16,984 patients recorded in CH-SUR, with 2201 reported deaths due to COVID-19 (13.0%). We found that overall in-hospital mortality was lower during the second wave of COVID-19 than in the first wave (hazard ratio [HR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63- 0.78; p <0.001), a decrease apparently not explained by changes in demographic characteristics of patients. In contrast, mortality in intermediate and intensive care significantly increased in the second wave compared with the first wave (HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05-1.49; p = 0.029), with significant changes in the course of hospitalisation between the first and the second wave. CONCLUSION: We found that, in Switzerland, COVID-19 mortality decreased among hospitalised persons, whereas it increased among patients admitted to intermediate or intensive care, when comparing the second wave to the first wave. We put our findings in perspective with changes over time in case management, treatment strategy, hospital burden and non-pharmaceutical interventions. Further analyses of the potential effect of virus variants and of vaccination on mortality would be crucial to have a complete overview of COVID-19 mortality trends throughout the different phases of the pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology
8.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 11(1): 27, 2022 02 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1673927

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Personnel , Masks , Respiratory Protective Devices , Adolescent , Adult , Aerosols , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Seroconversion , Switzerland , Young Adult
9.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 11(1): 12, 2022 01 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1643184

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Acinetobacter Infections/prevention & control , Acinetobacter baumannii , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/epidemiology , Candida auris , Candidiasis/prevention & control , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Acinetobacter Infections/complications , Acinetobacter baumannii/drug effects , Aged , Candidiasis/complications , Carbapenems/pharmacology , Cross Infection/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial , Female , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Switzerland/epidemiology
10.
Euro Surveill ; 27(1)2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613508

ABSTRACT

BackgroundSince the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the disease has frequently been compared with seasonal influenza, but this comparison is based on little empirical data.AimThis study compares in-hospital outcomes for patients with community-acquired COVID-19 and patients with community-acquired influenza in Switzerland.MethodsThis retrospective multi-centre cohort study includes patients > 18 years admitted for COVID-19 or influenza A/B infection determined by RT-PCR. Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for patients with COVID-19 or influenza. We used Cox regression (cause-specific and Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models) to account for time-dependency and competing events with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounders.ResultsIn 2020, 2,843 patients with COVID-19 from 14 centres were included. Between 2018 and 2020, 1,381 patients with influenza from seven centres were included; 1,722 (61%) of the patients with COVID-19 and 666 (48%) of the patients with influenza were male (p < 0.001). The patients with COVID-19 were younger (median 67 years; interquartile range (IQR): 54-78) than the patients with influenza (median 74 years; IQR: 61-84) (p < 0.001). A larger percentage of patients with COVID-19 (12.8%) than patients with influenza (4.4%) died in hospital (p < 0.001). The final adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio for mortality was 3.01 (95% CI: 2.22-4.09; p < 0.001) for COVID-19 compared with influenza and 2.44 (95% CI: 2.00-3.00, p < 0.001) for ICU admission.ConclusionCommunity-acquired COVID-19 was associated with worse outcomes compared with community-acquired influenza, as the hazards of ICU admission and in-hospital death were about two-fold to three-fold higher.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza, Human , Cohort Studies , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Hospitals , Humans , Influenza, Human/diagnosis , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Intensive Care Units , Male , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology
11.
BMC Med ; 19(1): 270, 2021 10 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1496171

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Cohort Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , Prospective Studies , Sentinel Surveillance
13.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 151: w20547, 2021 07 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1332302

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As clinical signs of COVID-19 differ widely among individuals, from mild to severe, the definition of risk groups has important consequences for recommendations to the public, control measures and patient management, and needs to be reviewed regularly. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hospitalised COVID-19 patients during the first epidemic wave in Switzerland, as an example of a country that coped well during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: This study included all (n = 3590) adult polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed hospitalised patients in 17 hospitals from the hospital-based surveillance of COVID-19 (CH-Sur) by 1 September 2020. We calculated univariable and multivariable (adjusted) (1) proportional hazards (Fine and Gray) survival regression models and (2) logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and admission to ICU, to evaluate the most common comorbidities as potential risk factors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We found that old age was the strongest factor for in-hospital mortality after having adjusted for gender and the considered comorbidities (hazard ratio [HR] 2.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33−2.59 and HR 5.6 95% CI 5.23−6 for ages 65 and 80 years, respectively). In addition, male gender remained an important risk factor in the multivariable models (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.41−1.53). Of all comorbidities, renal disease, oncological pathologies, chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease (but not hypertension) and dementia were also risk factors for in-hospital mortality. With respect to ICU admission risk, the pattern was different, as patients with higher chances of survival might have been admitted more often to ICU. Male gender (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.58−2.31), hypertension (OR  1.3, 95% CI 1.07−1.59) and age 55–79 years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06−1.26) are risk factors for ICU admission. Patients aged 80+ years, as well as patients with dementia or with liver disease were admitted less often to ICU. CONCLUSION: We conclude that increasing age is the most important risk factor for in-hospital mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Switzerland, along with male gender and followed by the presence of comorbidities such as renal diseases, chronic respiratory or cardiovascular disease, oncological malignancies and dementia. Male gender, hypertension and age between 55 and 79 years are, however, risk factors for ICU admission. Mortality and ICU admission need to be considered as separate outcomes when investigating risk factors for pandemic control measures and for hospital resources planning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/mortality , Comorbidity , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Switzerland/epidemiology
14.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(9): 1336-1344, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1233398

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/metabolism , COVID-19/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/virology , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/immunology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Diseases/immunology , Risk Factors , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Sex Characteristics , Socioeconomic Factors , Switzerland/epidemiology , Young Adult
16.
Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ; 9(1): 100, 2020 07 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-657352

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/analysis , Betacoronavirus/physiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Air Microbiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Health Personnel , Humans , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Protective Devices , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL