ABSTRACT
Background The debate on vaccination strategies has been periodically involving researchers, policymakers, and also the population. Interest waves have occurred both after a revival of childhood infectious diseases in 2016-2017, due to low vaccine coverages, and during the recent Coronavirus outbreak. This study aimed at overviewing vaccination strategies (and corresponding vaccine coverages) for childhood vaccinations and SARS-CoV-2. Methods Measles was chosen as a childhood vaccination indicator. Policy data were retrieved from health institutions (either European or national/regional) and, for COVID-19, also from press agencies and newspaper websites. Vaccine coverage data were retrieved from the World Bank, World Health Organisation, and UNICEF databases (for childhood vaccines), and from the “Our World in Data” platform for SARS-CoV-2. A qualitative comparison was performed between the two contexts. Results Unlike childhood vaccinations, few countries (and only Austria in Europe) imposed generalised COVID-19 mandates, most countries preferring targeted mandates for higher-risk groups. Many countries confirmed their traditional voluntary vaccination approach also for COVID-19, while countries historically relying on compulsory vaccination strategies, such as Slovenia and Hungary, surprisingly opted for voluntary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, with unsatisfactory results. However, no tangible crude association was generally found between vaccination policies and achieved coverages, although factors such as cultural background, education, and religion appeared to influence the impact of vaccination policies. Conclusions The COVID-19 experience has enriched pre-existent vaccination strategy debates by adding interesting elements concerning attitudes toward vaccines in a novel context. Reading the available results in the frame of vaccine hesitancy determinants can help to understand the relationship between policies and actual coverages. Key messages Few countries have imposed generalised mandates for COVID-19, while many preferred targeted obligations for high-risk groups and some countries surprisingly opted for a voluntary approach. Accurately considering social and cultural determinants allows understanding the chance of success of vaccination strategies, ahead of fostering the right policymaking approach for each population.
ABSTRACT
Background The COVID-19 pandemic led to important disruptions in surgical activity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on abdominal surgery outcomes in the region of Piedmont, in northern Italy. Methods Data were gathered from 42 hospitals participating in the regional surveillance network from 2018 to 2020. SSI, overall mortality and case fatality rates (CFR) were calculated, comparing 2020 to mean 2018-19 data. Chi-squared tests were used to assess both the differences among the proportion of urgent and oncological procedures (based on ICD-9-CM codes) and rates between the two periods. Subgroup analyses on 2020 data were carried out comparing urgent vs. elective and oncological vs. non-oncological procedures using chi-squared tests. Analyses were performed using SPSS v. 28.0.1.0. Results 5407 procedures were recorded in 2018-19;310 SSIs and 120 deaths were observed. The mean proportions of urgent and oncological operations were, respectively, 21.90% and 43.24%. In 2020, 1057 procedures were recorded, along with 44 SSIs and 29 deaths. 34.44% of procedures were urgent and 39.74% oncological. The mean 2018-2019 SSI rate was 5.73%, with an overall mortality of 2.22% and a CFR of 7.42%. The SSI rate in 2020 was 4.16%, with an overall mortality of 2.74% and a CFR of 9.09%. The proportion of urgent procedures significantly differed between the two periods (p < 0.001), as did the proportion of oncological procedures and SSI rates (both p = 0.05). Considering 2020, significant differences were found comparing overall mortality between urgent vs. elective procedures (4.95% vs. 1.59%, p = 0.002) and comparing SSI rates between oncological vs. non-oncological patients (3.57% vs. 2.20%, p = 0.02). Conclusions During the pandemic, patients undergoing surgical procedures significantly differed, reflecting public health decisions. Even though these differences did not reach statistical significance, overall mortality and CFR increased in 2020. Key messages Results of this study suggest the COVID-19 pandemic had a negative impact on outcomes after abdominal surgery. Further longer-term studies are needed to assess the impact of policies implemented during the pandemic, to help inform future pandemic plans.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Italy was one of the first EU countries hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, Italy has reported 15.5 million cases of COVID-19 and 161000 deaths. Meanwhile, the vaccination campaign against COVID-19 began in Italy at the end of 2020, using mRNA and viral vector vaccines (immunizing people against Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. The purpose of this study was to estimate, in a representative sample of the Italian population, the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV2 in 2019 (before case zero, identified in Italy in February 2020) and in 2021, after 3 pandemic waves and a vaccination campaign. Methods During October / November 2019: 365 participants were selected in the Piedmontese population among those who went to a hospital for routine blood tests. The population was selected on the basis of age and gender to be representative of the Italian population. The same number of patients was selected in the first quarter of 2021, the inclusion and exclusion criteria remained the same. Sera were searched for spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 and, if positive, tested for anti-nucleocapsid antibodies. Results Our preliminary data show that half of the sample for both years is female. In the 2019 sample, i.e. before case zero was identified in Italy (Lombardy), five of the sera (4 males and one female) tested positive for anti-Spike,indicating a previous infection (vaccine didn't exist). In the 2021 sample, 152 males and 139 females tested positive for IgG anti-spike, for a total of 291. The prevalence therefore passed from 1.37% to 79.73%. As regards the search for ANti-Nantibodies, one male and one female tested positive in 2019;in 2021 9 males and 13 females. Conclusions The results of our study show that in 2019, before the first official case in Italy was highlighted, coronavirus was already circulating. The prevalence has risen exponentially, going from less than 2% to around 80%. Key messages • Covid-19 was circulating in Italy in 2019. • Seroprevalence of anti-S in 2021 was about 20%.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Hand hygiene is an important measure in infection prevention to decrease transmission of microbial pathogens. Especially in these last two years, COVID-19 pandemic brought focus on the importance of a correct and frequent hand hygiene. Currently, direct observation is considered the gold standard for hand hygiene surveillance. The purpose of this observational study is to assess healthcare professionals hand hygiene compliance during the World Health Organization's ‘Five Moments for hand hygiene'. Methods In this study we examined perceptions, compliance, techniques, and contextual issues of hand hygiene practices among healthcare workers, in three different hospitals. Twelve different wards were observed, including ICU, surgical wards and medical wards. At least 200 hand hygiene opportunities (based on the WHO's ‘Five Moments') were recorded for each ward, using a mobile application called SpeedyAudit™. Results The results showed highly variable levels of adherence to the hygiene practices, with compliance rates ranging from 20% to 84%. There was also a wide variability of compliance between the different moments, with compliance rates ranging from 75% after touching patient surroundings to 59% before touching a patient. Overall, physicians had the worst score among the healthcare workers, resulting in 55% of compliance, while social health operators performed best with 70%. Conclusions There is still a huge variability in hand hygiene among healthcare workers. Despite the conceivable Hawthorne Effect influence, general compliance was not optimal. Overall hand hygiene adherence and knowledge should be achieved by implementing hand sanitizer distribution, offering further education and raising awareness on the importance of a correct hand hygiene, for the sake of both patients and healthcare workers. Key messages Hand hygiene adherence and knowledge should be achieved by implementing hand sanitizer distribution, offering further education and raising awareness on the importance of a correct hand hygiene. There is still a huge variability in hand hygiene among healthcare workers.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has led to a global pandemic. Currently, the diagnosis of COVID-19 is confirmed by detecting SARS-CoV-2 via RealTime-RT-PCR in rhino-pharyngeal swab. Serological test is required to evaluate a previous exposure to the virus, as well as antibody response. The aim of this multicentric study is to analyse the antibody response following COVID-19 vaccination in healthcare workers and guests of nursing homes, and to determine differences between subjects with or without a confirmed previous infection. Methods Our study included 657 subjects, recruited from guests and healthcare workers of nursing homes in the Piedmont region. 10 days after the completion of the vaccination cycle, a blood sample was taken from the subjects to measure IgG against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Serological testing was performed using an enzyme immunoassay kit (EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA). We performed statistical analysis with R software. Results We recruited 657 subjects aged between 19 to 106. Among them, 404 had a previous infection and 253 didn't have a known previous infection. The serological examination resulted positive in 655 subjects and negative in 2 (X¯ IgG 1095 RU/ml). Samples with titer> 1200 RU/ml will be further diluted to identify the titer and differences from the baseline situation. Conclusions This study analyses neutralizing antibodies, which should prevent the virus from binding to target cells via spike protein. According to literature, immunological response to vaccine presents a great variability of antibodies level in the study population. However, no significantly correlations were found between the available variables. Preliminary data show the presence of a very intense antibody response after active vaccine immunization both in subjects with previous infection and in the rest of the study population. Key messages Covid-19 vaccine response in a population at risk. Differences between subjects with or without a confirmed previous infection.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization characterized the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak as a pandemic. The first cases in Italy were reported on January 30, 2020, and the outbreak quickly escalated. On March 19, 2020, deaths in Italy surpassed those in China. The Italian government implemented progressively restrictive measures leading to a nationwide lockdown on March 8, 2020. This study aimed to assess the impact of mitigation measures implemented in Italy on the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Publicly available data were used to evaluate changes in the growth curve of the number of patients hospitalized in intensive care (IC) at three time intervals between February 19, 2020, and April 9, 2020, after the implementation of progressive measures: (1) containment and travel restrictions, (2) lockdown of the epicenter of the outbreak, and (3) school closures and nationwide lockdown. The models that showed the highest reliability according to the Akaike information criterion and based on data from the three time intervals were projected to assess how the epidemic would have evolved if no other measure had been implemented. RESULTS: The most reliable models were (1) exponential, (2) quadratic, and (3) cubic (R2 = 0.99, >0.99, and > 0.99 respectively), indicating a progressive decrease in the growth of the curve. CONCLUSION: This study suggests the measures were effective in flattening the epidemic curve and bought valuable time, allowing for the number of IC beds to be nearly doubled before the national health system reached maximum capacity.