Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Front Public Health ; 9: 644702, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1354895

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a central role in handling the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Monitoring HCWs, both symptomatic and asymptomatic, through screening programs, are critical to avoid the spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the hospital environment to rapidly identify and isolate infected individuals and to allow their prompt return to work as soon as necessary. We aim to describe our healthcare surveillance experience (April 2-May 6, 2020) based on a combined screening consisting of real-time PCR (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs and rapid serologic tests (RST) for SARS-CoV-2 in all HCWs of Meyer Children's University Hospital in Florence. Among the analyzed workers, 13/1690 (0.8%), all of them without clinical manifestations, was found positive for SARS-CoV-2 by using RT-PCR on NP swab: 8/1472 (0.5%) were found positive during the screening, 1/188 (0.5%) during contact with a positive individual (p > 0.05 vs. screening group), while 4/30 (13.3%) were found positive on the day of re-admission at work after an influenza-like-illness (p < 0.05). Concerning working areas, the majority of RT-PCR positivity (12/13) and serologic positivity (34/42) was found in non-COVID-19 dedicated areas (p > 0.05 vs. COVID-19 dedicated areas). No cases were registered among non-patients-facing workers (p = 0.04 vs. patient-facing group). Nurses and residents represented, respectively, the working role with the highest and lowest percentage of RT-PCR positivity. In conclusion, accurate surveillance is essential to reduce virus spread among HCWs, patients, and the community and to limit the shortage of skilled professionals. The implementation of the surveillance system through an efficient screening program was offered to all professionals, regardless of the presence of clinical manifestations and the level of working exposure risk, maybe wise and relevant.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Child , Health Personnel , Hospitals, Pediatric , Humans , Italy/epidemiology , Pandemics , Tertiary Healthcare
2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 8: 617399, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1133923

ABSTRACT

Background: Although the nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) is the reference sampling method for the detection of SARS-Cov-2, it is not always possible to collect NPS in some patients. Saliva represents an interesting sampling method because it is less invasive and more convenient in patients with nasal or pharyngeal lesions. Objective: To compare the RT-qPCR test performances of saliva samples with nasal mid-turbinate swab (NMTS) and NPS samples in a cohort of ambulatory patients suspected of having COVID-19. Study Design: For each of the 112 enrolled patients, NPS, NMTS, and saliva samples were collected and tested for SARS-Cov-2 detection using three different target genes (RdRP, N and E genes) by RT-qPCR. Results: Among the positive samples (56/112), saliva samples showed a lower percentage of SARS-Cov-2 detection compared to NPS samples, (85.7 vs. 96.4%), while still a lower percentage was observed for NMTS samples (78.6%). In average, saliva samples showed higher Ct values for all tested target genes, compared to those from NPS and NMTS samples. Conclusions: By using the AllplexTM 2019-nCoV Assay Kit, saliva samples showed lower sensitivity for SARS CoV-2 compared to NPS samples; however, the not detected cases had lower viral burden in NPS samples (CT values >33) representing an interesting alternative sampling method in patients in which it is not possible to take a NPS sample.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL