Effectiveness of prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission among unvaccinated Italian healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the association between personal protective equipment (PPE) use and SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We analyzed occupational surveillance contact forms followed by a PCR test notified between March and September 2020 by Italian HCWs. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for positive PCR based on HCWs and contacts characteristics were calculated through multivariable logistic regression models. When multiple contacts were potentially effective for a PCR test, they were weighted by the inverse of their number. RESULTS: Overall, 4,883 contacts reported by 2,952 HCWs were analyzed, and 224 contacts among 144 HCWs had positive PCR. No difference was found according to sex, age, employment, or job title, except for an OR of 0.30 (95%CI 0.11-0.78) for resident physicians, compared to administrative staff. The ORs for use of surgical mask were 0.59 (95%CI=0.40-0.86) for use only by HCW, 0.49 (95%CI=0.22-1.07) only by the infected person, and 0.40 (95%CI=0.27-0.60) by both, compared to use by neither. Use of other PPEs was not associated with infection, while the OR for hand sanitation was 0.61 (95%CI=0.40-0.93). HCWs reporting fever, cough, and asthenia had a higher risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Use of surgical masks was associated with a 40-60% lower risk of infection, especially when both HCWs and infected individuals used them. Our results quantify the role played by mask use and hand sanitation in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in high-risk circumstances.

Vaccination Confidence among Healthcare Workers: Results from Two Anamnestic Questionnaires Adopted in the COVID-19 and Influenza Campaign.

BACKGROUND: Following the announcement of the development of COVID-19 vaccines, hesitancy about the safety of vaccinations and their side effects have spread, despite having the approval of international drug agencies. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that concern about side effects may have led people to fill out the COVID-19 anamnestic vaccine questionnaire with greater attention compared to the similar instrument used for the influenza vaccination. METHODS: We analyzed vaccination questionnaires of 218 healthcare workers (HCWs) who underwent both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in 2020/2021. Outcomes included self-reported allergies, chronic pharmacological treatments, and chronic diseases. We tested the difference in prevalence, analyzed differences using the kappa statistics and concordance correlation, and explored factors associated with differences in reporting. RESULTS: HCWs reported more allergies to substances other than drugs and a higher prevalence of chronic drug intake in the COVID-19 questionnaires than in the influenza ones. Technical staff reported more drug allergies than physicians, and other HCWs reported more outcomes than physicians in the COVID-19 questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: We found that this population of HCWs reported higher conditions during the 2020 COVID-19 vaccination campaign compared to that of the influenza vaccine. The identification of socio-demographic characteristics of the less vaccine-confident HCWs could help in planning targeted interventions to enhance vaccine adherence.

Immune Response of a Heterologous mRNA-1273 Second-Dose Immunization after a First Dose of ChadOx1 against SARS-CoV-2: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Heterologous vaccination regimens could contribute to broadening vaccination coverage. To date, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of a combination of adenoviral COVID-19 vaccines with a second dose of mRNA vaccines. This study aims to evaluate the antibody response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein 25 weeks after vaccination with mRNA-1273 after a first dose of ChAdOx1. A cross-sectional study was conducted collecting sociodemographic data, clinical characteristics, and serological data from among the general population. Antibody levels were expressed as binding antibody units (BAU) per mL (cutoff = 33.8 BAU/mL). Linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between the subjects' characteristics and anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels. A total of 229 participants were followed up after a median time of 173 days. The overall anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titer was 729.0 BAU/mL. The multivariable analysis showed that the only factor associated with anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG levels was the BMI (p = 0.007), with decreases within the healthy range weight and increases in under- or overweight people. Our results support the use of heterologous COVID-19 vaccination regimens, as they can guarantee a sustained immune antibody response. More studies are needed to understand the link between BMI and body composition and the immune response to COVID-19 vaccinations.

SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors in a Large European Multicentric Cohort of Health Workers.

BACKGROUND: The research aimed to investigate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and their determinants in a large European cohort of more than 60,000 health workers. METHODS: A multicentric retrospective cohort study, involving 12 European centers, was carried out within the ORCHESTRA project, collecting data up to 18 November 2021 on fully vaccinated health workers. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was investigated with its association with occupational and social-demographic characteristics (age, sex, job title, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody titer levels, and time from the vaccination course completion). RESULTS: Among 64,172 health workers from 12 European health centers, 797 breakthrough infections were observed (cumulative incidence of 1.2%). The primary analysis using individual data on 8 out of 12 centers showed that age and previous infection significantly modified breakthrough infection rates. In the meta-analysis of aggregated data from all centers, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and the standardized antibody titer were inversely related to the risk of breakthrough infection (p = 0.008 and p = 0.007, respectively). CONCLUSION: The inverse correlation of antibody titer with the risk of breakthrough infection supports the evidence that vaccination plays a primary role in infection prevention, especially in health workers. Cellular immunity, previous clinical conditions, and vaccination timing should be further investigated.

Choosing between Homologous or Heterologous COVID-19 Vaccination Regimens: A Cross-Sectional Study among the General Population in Italy.

A shortage of COVID-19 vaccines and reports of side-effects led several countries to recommend a heterologous regimen for second vaccine doses. This study aimed to describe the reasons behind individuals' choices of a homologous or a heterologous second vaccination. This cross-sectional study enrolled individuals under 60 who had received a first dose of Vaxzevria and could choose between a homologous or heterologous regimen for their second dose. Quantitative (socio-demographic, clinical characteristics) and qualitative data were collected and analysed through a generalized linear model and thematic analysis, respectively. Of the 1437 individuals included in the analysis, the majority (76.1%) chose a heterologous second dose of the COVID-19 vaccination. More females chose a heterologous vaccination regimen (p = 0.003). Younger individuals also tended to choose heterologous vaccination (p < 0.001). The main motivation in favour of heterologous vaccination was to follow the Italian Ministry of Health recommendations (n = 118; 53.9%). This study showed that most individuals, mainly younger people and females, chose a heterologous dose of COVID-19 vaccination after their first viral vector vaccine. Heterologous vaccinations could be an effective public health measure to control the pandemic as they are a safe and efficient alternative to homologous regimens.

Impact of wearing a surgical mask on respiratory function in view of a widespread use during COVID-19 outbreak. A case-series study.

BACKGROUND: Because of the COVID-19 outbreak, the widespread use of Respiratory Protective Devices (RPD) is recommended to prevent the spread of infection. This recommendation involves not only healthcare workers but other category of workers and the general population as well, in public places, especially where social distancing is difficult to maintain. The use of facemasks should not cause physical impairment to individuals, especially for people suffering from lung and heart diseases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of RPDs on the respiratory function in healthy and asthmatic subjects, in order to identify the fitness for use mainly, but not only for, occupational purposes during COVID-19 outbreak. METHODS: Ten individuals were included, three of which affected by asthma and three current smokers. A Respiratory Functional Test (RFT) was performed at three times: at the beginning of the work shift 1) without wearing and 2) wearing surgical masks, and 3) after 4 hours of usual working activities wearing the masks. Arterial Blood Gas (ABG) samples were also tested before the first test and the third test. RESULTS: Observed RFTs and ABG parameters did not suffer significant variations, but for Maximal Voluntary Ventilation (P=0.002). Data on asthmatic subjects and smokers were comparable to healthy subjects. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that wearing a surgical mask does not produce significant respiratory impairment in healthy subjects nor in subjects with asthma. Four hours of continuing mask-wearing do not cause a reduction in breathing parameters. Fitness for use in subjects with more severe conditions has to be evaluated individually. Our adapted technique for RFTs could be adopted for the individual RPDs fitness evaluation.

COVID-19 infection and diffusion among the healthcare workforce in a large university-hospital in northwest Italy.

Backgroud: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been the workers most likely to contract the disease. Intensive focus is therefore needed on hospital strategies that minimize exposure and diffusion, confer protection and facilitate early detection and isolation of infected personnel. METHODS: To evaluate the early impact of a structured risk-management for exposed COVID-19 HCWs and describe how their characteristics contributed to infection and diffusion. Socio-demographic and clinical data, aspects of the event-exposure (date, place, length and distance of exposure, use of PPE) and details of the contact person were collected. RESULTS: The 2411 HCWs reported 2924 COVID-19 contacts. Among 830 HCWs who were at 'high or medium risk', 80 tested positive (9.6%). Physicians (OR=2.03), and non-medical services -resulted in an increased risk (OR=4.23). Patient care did not increase the risk but sharing the work environment did (OR=2.63). There was a significant time reduction between exposure and warning, exposure and test, and warning and test since protocol implementation. HCWs with management postitions were the main source of infection due to the high number of interactions. DISCUSSION: A proactive system that includes prompt detection of contagious staff and identification of sources of exposure helps to lower the intra-hospital spread of infection. A speedier return to work of staff who would otherwise have had to self-isolate as a precautionary measure improves staff morale and patient care by reducing the stress imposed by excessive workloads arising from staff shortages.