Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Acta Biomed ; 92(S6): e2021487, 2021 10 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1503980


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.

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
Acta Biomed ; 92(S6): e2021462, 2021 10 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1478885


BACKGROUND AND AIM: After the first cases of COVID-19 detected in Wuhan (China), the virus rapidly spread in the world, so much so that on February 20 the first autochthonous case was officially identified in Italy. However, this person had no apparent history of travel abroad or contact with people tested positive for the virus. For this reason, the aim of this literature review was to reconstruct the epidemiological dynamics of the first wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Lombardy Region. METHODS: To this end, a systematic review was carried out on PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE, and on grey literature. All article assessing incidence, mortality and hospitalizations by Lombardy province and municipality, and the impact of the main containment and organizational measures were considered eligible. In addition, data on general mortality and mortality due to COVID-19, hospital admission, and serological and environmental were also retrieved. RESULTS: From the included studies, it emerged that Lombardy was the first European region in which the virus began to circulate as early as January 2020 (and probably even earlier). Despite the high number of cases and deaths recorded, the reproduction number observed in Lombardy Region was, at the beginning of March 2020, the same (or lower) than in other regions. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, data of the first epidemic wave in Lombardy, compared to other Italian and foreign regions, highlight the extreme criticality of having had the first autochthonous case (and the first substantial outbreaks) when knowledge was still scarce and individual prevention measures were not widespread.

COVID-19 , Epidemics , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Incidence , Italy/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
Acta Biomed ; 91(9-S): 34-39, 2020 07 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-671248


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.

Betacoronavirus , Bibliometrics , Coronavirus Infections , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Publishing/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2