Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 8 de 8
Filter
1.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 10(3)2022 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760858

ABSTRACT

We aimed at evaluating quantitative IgG response to BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine among health care workers (HCW), and exploring the role of demographic, clinical, and occupational factors as predictors of IgG levels. On May 2021, among 6687 HCW at the largest tertiary care University-Hospital of Northwestern Italy, at a median of 15 weeks (Interquartile range-IQR 13.6-16.0) after second-dose, serological response was present in 99.8%. Seropositivity was >97% in all the subgroups, except those self-reporting immunodeficiency (94.9%). Overall, the median serological IgG value was 990 BAU/mL (IQR 551-1870), with most of subjects with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or with shorter time lapse (2-8 weeks) between vaccination and serology with values in the highest quintile (>2080). At multivariable analysis, significant predictors of lower values were increasing age, male, current smoking, immunodeficiency, recent occupational contacts, and increasing time lapse from vaccination; conversely, previous infection and recent household contacts were significantly associated with higher IgG levels. Subjects with previous infection kept a very high level (around 2000 BAU/mL) up to 120 days. These results, besides supporting a high serological response up to 4-5 months, suggest predictive factors of faster decay of IgG levels that could be useful in tailoring vaccination strategies.

2.
Med Lav ; 112(6): 444-452, 2021 Dec 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667921

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:  The gold standard to identify SARS-CoV-2 infections is the Reverse Transcriptase-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) on rhino-pharyngeal swabs, but faster and cheaper methods such as antigenic swabs have been developed. A retrospective observational study on antigenic swabs included in the extraordinary health surveillance protocol of a large Hospital in Turin was aimed to assess their performance validity. Methods: From 30 October 2020 to 4 May 2021, 4000 antigenic swabs were carried out in three groups of healthcare workers (HCWs), respectively (i) asymptomatic, (ii) cohabiting with a positive case, and (iii) not recently exposed to the virus.  Results: Overall sensitivity and specificity associated with a prevalence of 1.30% were 26.9%, 97.2%, respectively, the corresponding positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) being 11.29% and 99.02% [95% IC (99.00 - 99.04)] respectively; a prevalence of 0.29% was observed in the asymptomatic group, among whom sensitivity and specificity were 25.0% and 98.9%, respectively, the corresponding PPV and NPV being 6.25% and 99.78% [95% IC (99.76 - 99.81)], respectively; the cohabitant group showed a prevalence of 21.11%, sensitivity and specificity were 47.4%, 81.7%, respectively, giving rise to a PPV of 40.91% and NPV of 85.29% [95% IC (85.18 - 85.41)] respectively. The prevalence in the not exposed group was 0.77%, sensitivity and specificity were 29.2%, 97.4%, respectively, and PPV and NPV 8.05% and 99.44% [95% IC (99.42 - 99.46)] respectively. Conclusions: Antigenic swabs reduced costs and provided reliable diagnostic results. In the cohabitant group, the higher-prevalence groups showed poor test performances, likely because of the high prevalence of pre-symptomatic illness in this group. Owing to the relatively low NPV, a negative result would still require confirmation with a molecular test to be acceptable for a surveillance program that effectively reduces the virus's intra-hospital spread.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Med Lav ; 112(6): 465-476, 2021 Dec 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1667920

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A prospective observational study involved 13,787 Health Care Workers (HCWs) of a large hospital to assess the effectiveness of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. METHODS: The daily incidence of infections was estimated from 1st October 2020 to 30th April 2021 and compared with that of the province of Turin (2.26 million). In the middle of this period, a mass vaccination began among HCW, and its effect was assessed. RESULTS: In the first half-period, 1,163 positive HCWs were observed, the average daily incidence rate per 100,000 being 79.58 (± 15.58; 95% CI) compared to 38.54 (± 5.96; 95% CI) in the general population (p<0.001). The vaccination campaign immunized 9,843 HCWs; among them, the average daily incidence was 14.23 (± 2.73; 95% CI) compared to 34.2 (± 2.95; 95% CI) in the province (p<0.001). Among fully vaccinated HCW, 59 cases were observed, giving rise to an incidence of 6.3 (± 2.66; 95% CI) much lower than in the province (p<0.001). In the second half of the observation period, the RR for HCWs compared to the province dropped from 2.07 (1.96 - 2.18; 95% CI; p<0.001) to 0.5 (0.42 - 0.58; 95% CI; p<0.001) and to 0.17 (0.13 - 0.22; 95% CI; p<0.001) for unvaccinated and vaccinated HCWs, respectively. The RR of vaccinate HCW was 0.43 (0.31 - 0.58; 95% CI; p<0.001) compared to unvaccinated. In the second half of the observation period, unvaccinated HCWs had a RR of 0.21 (0.18 - 0.25; 95% CI; p<0.001) as compared to the first one. A linear regression model (R2 = 0.87) showed that every percent increase in vaccinated HCWs lowered daily incidence by 0.94 (0.86 - 1.02; IC 95%; p<0.001). Vaccinated HCWs had a RR of 0.09 (0.07 - 0.12; 95% CI; p<0.001) compared to unvaccinated HCWs, which led to estimated effectiveness of the two-dose vaccine of 91 % (± 3 %; CI 95%) similar to that reported by the manufacturer.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination , Vaccines, Synthetic , Workforce
4.
Med Lav ; 112(6): 411-413, 2021 12 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1592728
5.
Viruses ; 13(6)2021 06 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259623

ABSTRACT

This observational study evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence and related clinical, demographic, and occupational factors among workers at the largest tertiary care University-Hospital of Northwestern Italy and the University of Turin after the first pandemic wave of March-April 2020. Overall, about 10,000 individuals were tested; seropositive subjects were retested after 5 months to evaluate antibodies waning. Among 8769 hospital workers, seroprevalence was 7.6%, without significant differences related to job profile; among 1185 University workers, 3.3%. Self-reporting of COVID-19 suspected symptoms was significantly associated with positivity (Odds Ratio (OR) 2.07, 95%CI: 1.76-2.44), although 27% of seropositive subjects reported no previous symptom. At multivariable analysis, contacts at work resulted in an increased risk of 69%, or 24% for working in a COVID ward; contacts in the household evidenced the highest risk, up to more than five-fold (OR 5.31, 95%CI: 4.12-6.85). Compared to never smokers, being active smokers was inversely associated with seroprevalence (OR 0.60, 95%CI: 0.48-0.76). After 5 months, 85% of previously positive subjects still tested positive. The frequency of SARS-COV-2 infection among Health Care Workers was comparable with that observed in surveys performed in Northern Italy and Europe after the first pandemic wave. This study confirms that infection frequently occurred as asymptomatic and underlines the importance of household exposure, seroprevalence (OR 0.60, 95%CI: 0.48-0.76).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Tertiary Care Centers/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Epidemiological Monitoring , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires
6.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 5788, 2021 03 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1132103

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, yet limited information is available on risk factors of infection. We pooled data on occupational surveillance of 10,654 HCW who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in six Italian centers. Information was available on demographics, job title, department of employment, source of exposure, use of personal protective equipment (PPEs), and COVID-19-related symptoms. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of infection. The prevalence of infection ranged from 3.0 to 22.0%, and was correlated with that of the respective areas. Women were at lower risk of infection compared to men. Fever, cough, dyspnea and malaise were the symptoms most strongly associated with infection, together with anosmia and ageusia. No differences in the risk of infection were detected according to job title, or working in a COVID-19 designated department. Reported contact with a patient inside or outside the workplace was a risk factor. Use of a mask was strongly protective against risk of infection as was use of gloves. The use of a mask by the source of exposure (patient or colleague) had an independent effect in reducing infection risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Adult , Female , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Mass Screening , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
7.
Med Lav ; 111(5): 372-378, 2020 Oct 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-895853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome - Coronavirus - 2 (SARS-CoV-2)  is a virus, primarily transmitted through  droplets, able to persist on different surfaces and in the air for several hours. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Health Care Workers should be considered a high risk profession. Beside social distancing rules and the proper use of Personal Protective Equipment,  sanitization measures and ventilation system disinfection are essential to reduce viral transmission. OBJECTIVES: This is the first Italian study aiming to assess the magnitude of environmental contamination in a COVID-19 non-Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: In addition to ordinary cleaning procedures, surface and air samplings have been performed before and after the application of two different sanitization devices. Samples have been analyzed with Real Time-Polymerase Chain Reaction in order to find viral RNA. RESULTS: All samples obtained from surfaces and air before and after extra-ordinary sanitization procedures turned out negative for viral detection. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight the efficiency of ordinary cleaning procedures in guaranteeing a safer workplace. The adoption of additional sanitization protocols should be considered in order to further reduce environmental viral contamination.


Subject(s)
Air Microbiology , Betacoronavirus/isolation & purification , Coronavirus Infections , Equipment Contamination , Hospital Units , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , COVID-19 , Disinfection , Humans , Italy , SARS-CoV-2 , Ventilation
8.
Med Lav ; 111(3): 184-194, 2020 Jun 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-633858

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Health Personnel , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Universities , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , SARS-CoV-2 , Workforce
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL