Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Filter
1.
Acta Biomed ; 92(S6): e2021487, 2021 10 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503980

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The urgency of having rapidly safe and efficient COVID-19 vaccines called for the need to shorten trial phases, reduce sample sizes, and speed-up the approval process by the regulatory Agencies. In light of this, monitoring adverse effects (AEFI) (both immediate and at medium-long term) become of great importance. Aim of this cross-sectional study was to explore the associations between several factors and risk of immediate AEFI. METHODS: Data come from the electronic dataset developed ad hoc to record demographic data, anamnesis and data related to immunization, set-up in the mass vaccination site in Novegro (Milan). Novegro mass vaccination site was one of the mass vaccinations sites with the highest flow in Lombardy Region, with a maximum capacity of 5,000 vaccinations/day. The center opened in April 2021 and closed the 1st of August 2021. A multivariable logistic regression model was used. Odds ratios adjusted (aOR) for age and sex are presented. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Analyses were conducting using STATA. RESULTS: Among the total of 314,671 subjects vaccinated, 0.5% developed an immediate AEFI, on average 17.0 ± 0.43 minutes after the administration. The three most frequent AEFI recorded were vagal response (30%), anxiety reaction (24%) and dizziness (21%). AEFI were more frequently observed among women [aOR= 2.24 (95%CI= 2.00 - 2.50)], and those with at least one previous disease [aOR= 1.47 (95%CI= 1.22-1.76)]. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, AEFI were less likely to occur for increasing age and after the second dose. Results from this large, complete and representative sample population regarding enrich the interesting scientific debate on potential adverse events following COVID-19 immunization.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 , Vaccination , Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Immunization , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Vaccination/adverse effects
2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(10)2021 Oct 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1481031

ABSTRACT

Digitalisation offers great potential to improve vaccine uptake, supporting the need for effective life-course immunisation services. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with public health experts from 10 Western European countries (Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom) to assess the current level of digitalisation in immunisation programmes and retrieve data on interventions and best practices. Interviews were performed using an ad hoc questionnaire, piloted on a sample of national experts. We report a mixed level of digital technologies deployment within vaccination services across Europe: Some countries are currently developing eHealth strategies, while others have already put in place robust programmes. Institutional websites, educational videos, and electronic immunisation records are the most frequently adopted digital tools. Webinars and dashboards represent valuable resources to train and support healthcare professionals in immunisation services organisation. Text messages, email-based communication, and smartphone apps use is scattered across Europe. The main reported barrier to the implementation of digital-based programmes is the lack of resources and shared standards. Our study offers a comprehensive picture of the European context and shows the need for robust collaboration between states and international institutions to share best practices and inform the planning of digital intervention models with the aim of countering vaccine hesitancy and increasing vaccine uptake.

3.
Acta Biomed ; 91(9-S): 7-18, 2020 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-671594

ABSTRACT

We analyzed the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic in 9 metropolitan regions of the world with similar socio-demographic characteristics, daytime commuting population and business activities: the New York State, Bruxelles-Capital, the Community of Madrid, Catalonia, the Île-de-France Region, the Greater London county, Stockholms län, Hovedstaden (Copenhagen) and the Lombardy Region. The Lombardy region reported the highest COVID-19 crude mortality rate (141.0 x 100,000) 70-days after the onset of the epidemic, followed by the Community of Madrid (132.8 x 100,000) New York State (120.7 x 100,000). The large variation in COVID-19 mortality and case-fatality rates for COVID-19 in different age strata suggested a more accurate analysis and interpretation of the epidemic dynamics after standardization of the rates by age. The share of elder populations (>70 years) over total population varies widely in the considered study settings, ranging from 6.9% in Catalonia to 17.0% in Lombardy. When taking age distribution into consideration the highest standardized mortality rate was observed in the State of New York (257.9 x 100,000); with figures in most of the European regions concentrated between 123.3 x 100,000 in Greater London and 177.7 x 100,000 in Bruxelles-Capital, lower in French and Danish regions. We also report and critical appraise, when available, COVID-19 mortality figures in capital cities, nursing homes, as well as excess mortality at country level. Our data raise awareness on the need for a more in-depth epidemiological analysis of the current COVID-19 public health emergency that further explores COVID-19 mortality determinants associated with health services delivery, community-level healthcare, testing approaches and characteristics of surveillance systems, including classification of COVID-19 deaths.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
4.
Acta Biomed ; 91(9-S): 34-39, 2020 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-671248

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: To reflect on content, trends and quality of scientific publishing on COVID-19. In particular, to report on the systematic screening, quantitative assessment and critical appraisal of the first 10,000 scientific papers published on COVID-19 and to compare how scientific outputs matched identified research priorities and public health needs. METHODS: A comprehensive research strategy was developed to systematically retrieve on a daily basis all studies published on COVID-19. From included studies we extracted: bibliometric parameters, country of studies' implementation and study design. We assigned papers to 25 a priori defined COVID-19-related topics and we described scientific outputs in relation to countries' academic publishing ranking, as well as COVID-19 burden. RESULTS: 10,000 scientific articles were published on COVID-19 between 20th January and 7th May 2020,  accounting for 2.3% of total scientific production over the study period. One third (33%) focused on COVID-19 clinical management, with little adherence to identified research priorities.   Over sixty per cent of papers were opinion pieces not reporting original data. Papers were published on 1881 different journals but with half of scientific production included in 8% of journals. The US accounted for one fourth of total scientific production, followed by China (22.2%) and Italy (9%). CONCLUSIONS: Never before in the history of academic publishing such a great volume of research focused on a single topic, this being likely to introduce major changes in the way science is produced and communicated, at the risk of  bringing it far from its ultimate aim: informing clinical and public health practice and decision making.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Bibliometrics , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Acta Biomed ; 91(2): 23-30, 2020 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-301071

ABSTRACT

We analyzed the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic in 6 metropolitan regions with similar demographic characteristics, daytime commuting population and business activities: the New York metropolitan area, the Île-de-France region, the Greater London county, Bruxelles-Capital, the Community of Madrid and the Lombardy region. The highest mortality rates 30-days after the onset of the epidemic were recorded in New York (81.2 x 100,000) and Madrid (77.1 x 100,000). Lombardy mortality rate is below average (41.4 per 100,000), and it is the only situation in which the capital of the region (Milan) has not been heavily impacted by the epidemic wave. Our study analyzed the role played by containment measures and the positive contribution offered by the hospital care system. (www.actabiomedica.it).


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , COVID-19 , Cities , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Hospitals , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , SARS-CoV-2 , Urban Health
6.
Acta Biomed ; 91(3-S): 29-34, 2020 04 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-46526

ABSTRACT

One week after the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak a global health emergency we conducted a survey to explore knowledge and attitudes on 2019-nCoV, recently renamed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), in a large cohort of hospital staff. A representative sample of 2,046 hospital staff of a large university hospital in northern Italy (54% healthcare workers and 46% administrative staff, overall response rate: 25%) was administered an online questionnaire: overall there is good knowledge on 2019-nCoV control measures. The mean of correct answers for questions on general aspects of 2019-nCoV epidemic was 71.6% for HCWs and 61.2% for non-HCWs. The mean of correct answers for questions on 2019-nCoV patient management was 57.8% among HCWs. Nevertheless, on recommended precautions, also among healthcare workers there is still much to do in order to promote effective control measures and correct preventive behaviours at the individual level.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Coronavirus , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Pandemics , Personnel, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Civil Defense , Cohort Studies , Disease Outbreaks , Health Personnel , Hospitals, Teaching , Humans , Infection Control , Italy , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL