Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 70
Filter
1.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open ; 8(5): e2868, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1795027

ABSTRACT

The novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly become a health threat worldwide and has been declared global pandemic by the World Health Organization. Possible transmission routes, including respiratory droplets, close contact, and aerosol propagation, have put plastic and reconstructive healthcare professionals at high risk, especially during surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to summarize and share our experience of infection control measures and corresponding outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Infection control measures, including workflow optimization, useful epidemiologic survey methods, and personal full protective clothing, were discussed. Characteristics and outcomes of emergency cases and elective cases under local and general anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic were summarized. RESULTS: A hierarchy of interventions were applied mainly from 4 aspects. First, administration control and online consultation significantly decreased patient attendance. Second, a triage workflow was established to identify high-/low-risk patients, with clinical manifestations (fever, fatigue, cough, nasal discharge, etc), epidemiologic survey, blood test, chest computed tomographic scan, and coronavirus test if necessary. Third, strict environmental control was adopted using increasing ventilation, isolated room for inpatients, etc. Fourth, proper rotation of healthcare staff was ensured to reduce workload and minimize possible contact. A total of 904 emergency interventions, 2561 local anesthesia, and 570 general anesthesia were performed during this period, and none of the cases/healthcare professionals were found to be infected. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience could help global plastic and reconstructive healthcare professionals to get better preparation and continue to give qualified medical services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proper adjustments should be taken according to their own clinical settings.

2.
Lancet Glob Health ; 9(5): e598-e609, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683792

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A rapidly increasing number of serological surveys for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have been reported worldwide. We aimed to synthesise, combine, and assess this large corpus of data. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and five preprint servers for articles published in English between Dec 1, 2019, and Dec 22, 2020. Studies evaluating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in humans after the first identified case in the area were included. Studies that only reported serological responses among patients with COVID-19, those using known infection status samples, or any animal experiments were all excluded. All data used for analysis were extracted from included papers. Study quality was assessed using a standardised scale. We estimated age-specific, sex-specific, and race-specific seroprevalence by WHO regions and subpopulations with different levels of exposures, and the ratio of serology-identified infections to virologically confirmed cases. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020198253. FINDINGS: 16 506 studies were identified in the initial search, 2523 were assessed for eligibility after removal of duplicates and inappropriate titles and abstracts, and 404 serological studies (representing tests in 5 168 360 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis. In the 82 studies of higher quality, close contacts (18·0%, 95% CI 15·7-20·3) and high-risk health-care workers (17·1%, 9·9-24·4) had higher seroprevalence than did low-risk health-care workers (4·2%, 1·5-6·9) and the general population (8·0%, 6·8-9·2). The heterogeneity between included studies was high, with an overall I2 of 99·9% (p<0·0001). Seroprevalence varied greatly across WHO regions, with the lowest seroprevalence of general populations in the Western Pacific region (1·7%, 95% CI 0·0-5·0). The pooled infection-to-case ratio was similar between the region of the Americas (6·9, 95% CI 2·7-17·3) and the European region (8·4, 6·5-10·7), but higher in India (56·5, 28·5-112·0), the only country in the South-East Asia region with data. INTERPRETATION: Antibody-mediated herd immunity is far from being reached in most settings. Estimates of the ratio of serologically detected infections per virologically confirmed cases across WHO regions can help provide insights into the true proportion of the population infected from routine confirmation data. FUNDING: National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars, Key Emergency Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Committee, Program of Shanghai Academic/Technology Research Leader, National Science and Technology Major project of China, the US National Institutes of Health. TRANSLATION: For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Seroepidemiologic Studies
3.
J Gen Intern Med ; 36(11): 3456-3461, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525593

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Medical centers across the country have had to rapidly adapt clinician staffing strategies to accommodate large influxes of patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the adaptations and staffing strategies that US academic medical centers employed in the inpatient setting early in the spread of COVID-19, and to assess whether those changes were sustained during the first phase of the pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey assessing organization-level, team-level, and clinician-level inpatient workforce adaptations. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital medicine leadership at 27 academic medical centers in the USA. KEY RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 36 centers responded to the survey (75%). Widespread practices included frequent staffing reassessment, organization-level changes such as geographic cohorting and redeployment of non-hospitalists, and exempting high-risk healthcare workers from direct care of patients with COVID-19. Several practices were implemented but discontinued, such as reduction of non-essential services, indicating that they were less sustainable for large centers. CONCLUSION: These findings provide guidance for inpatient leaders seeking to identify sustainable practices for COVID-19 inpatient workforce planning.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Inpatients , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Workforce
4.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(4): 490-496, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1442664

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that healthcare workers (HCWs) with high-risk exposures outside the healthcare system would have less asymptomatic coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) disease and more symptoms than those without such exposures. DESIGN: A longitudinal point prevalence study was conducted during August 17-September 4, 2020 (period 1) and during December 2-23, 2020 (period 2). SETTING: Community based teaching health system. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs were invited to participate. Among HCWs who acquired COVID-19, logistic regression models were used to evaluate the adjusted odds of asymptomatic disease using high-risk exposure outside the healthcare system as the explanatory variable. The number of symptoms between exposure groups was evaluated with the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. The risk of seropositivity among all HCS by work exposure was evaluated during both periods. INTERVENTIONS: Survey and serological testing. RESULT: Seroprevalence increased from 1.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2%-2.6%) to 13.7% (95% CI, 11.9%-15.5%) during the study. Only during period 2 did HCWs with the highest work exposure (versus low exposure) have an increased risk of seropositivity (risk difference [RD], 7%; 95% CI, 1%-13%). Participants who had a high-risk exposure outside of work (compared to those without) had a decreased probability of asymptomatic disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.16-0.86) and demonstrated more symptoms (median 3 [IQR, 2-6] vs 1 [IQR, 0-4]; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare-acquired COVID-19 increases the probability of asymptomatic or mild COVID-19 disease compared to community-acquired disease. This finding suggests that infection prevention strategies (including masks and eye protection) may be mitigating inoculum and supports the variolation theory in COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Asymptomatic Diseases , COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies
5.
JAMA ; 323(19): 1915-1923, 2020 May 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1441893

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a pandemic, and it is unknown whether a combination of public health interventions can improve control of the outbreak. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of public health interventions with the epidemiological features of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan by 5 periods according to key events and interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study, individual-level data on 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between December 8, 2019, and March 8, 2020, were extracted from the municipal Notifiable Disease Report System, including patients' age, sex, residential location, occupation, and severity classification. EXPOSURES: Nonpharmaceutical public health interventions including cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction, social distancing, home confinement, centralized quarantine, and universal symptom survey. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infections (defined as the number of cases per day per million people), across age, sex, and geographic locations were calculated across 5 periods: December 8 to January 9 (no intervention), January 10 to 22 (massive human movement due to the Chinese New Year holiday), January 23 to February 1 (cordons sanitaire, traffic restriction and home quarantine), February 2 to 16 (centralized quarantine and treatment), and February 17 to March 8 (universal symptom survey). The effective reproduction number of SARS-CoV-2 (an indicator of secondary transmission) was also calculated over the periods. RESULTS: Among 32 583 laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases, the median patient age was 56.7 years (range, 0-103; interquartile range, 43.4-66.8) and 16 817 (51.6%) were women. The daily confirmed case rate peaked in the third period and declined afterward across geographic regions and sex and age groups, except for children and adolescents, whose rate of confirmed cases continued to increase. The daily confirmed case rate over the whole period in local health care workers (130.5 per million people [95% CI, 123.9-137.2]) was higher than that in the general population (41.5 per million people [95% CI, 41.0-41.9]). The proportion of severe and critical cases decreased from 53.1% to 10.3% over the 5 periods. The severity risk increased with age: compared with those aged 20 to 39 years (proportion of severe and critical cases, 12.1%), elderly people (≥80 years) had a higher risk of having severe or critical disease (proportion, 41.3%; risk ratio, 3.61 [95% CI, 3.31-3.95]) while younger people (<20 years) had a lower risk (proportion, 4.1%; risk ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.31-0.70]). The effective reproduction number fluctuated above 3.0 before January 26, decreased to below 1.0 after February 6, and decreased further to less than 0.3 after March 1. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A series of multifaceted public health interventions was temporally associated with improved control of the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan, China. These findings may inform public health policy in other countries and regions.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Child , China/epidemiology , Communicable Disease Control/statistics & numerical data , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Disease Outbreaks , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Female , Health Policy , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
6.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep ; 69(43): 1605-1610, 2020 Oct 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1389857

ABSTRACT

Health care personnel (HCP) are at increased risk for infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), as a result of their exposure to patients or community contacts with COVID-19 (1,2). Since the first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Minnesota was reported on March 6, 2020, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has required health care facilities* to report HCP† exposures to persons with confirmed COVID-19 for exposure risk assessment and to enroll HCP with higher-risk exposures into quarantine and symptom monitoring. During March 6-July 11, MDH and 1,217 partnering health care facilities assessed 21,406 HCP exposures; among these, 5,374 (25%) were classified as higher-risk§ (3). Higher-risk exposures involved direct patient care (66%) and nonpatient care interactions (e.g., with coworkers and social and household contacts) (34%). Within 14 days following a higher-risk exposure, nearly one third (31%) of HCP who were enrolled in monitoring reported COVID-19-like symptoms,¶ and more than one half (52%) of enrolled HCP with symptoms received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Among all HCP with higher-risk exposures, irrespective of monitoring enrollment, 7% received positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. Compared with HCP with higher-risk exposures working in acute care settings, those working in congregate living or long-term care settings more often returned to work (57%), worked while symptomatic (5%), and received a positive test result (10%) during 14-day postexposure monitoring than did HCP working outside of such settings. These data highlight the need for awareness of nonpatient care SARS-CoV-2 exposure risks and for targeted interventions to protect HCP, in addition to residents, in congregate living and long-term care settings. To minimize exposure risk among HCP, health care facilities need improved infection prevention and control, consistent personal protective equipment (PPE) availability and use, flexible sick leave, and SARS-CoV-2 testing access. All health care organizations and HCP should be aware of potential exposure risk from coworkers, household members, and social contacts.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/transmission , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional , Occupational Exposure/adverse effects , Pneumonia, Viral/transmission , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Humans , Middle Aged , Minnesota/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure/statistics & numerical data , Pandemics/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment/statistics & numerical data , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Risk Assessment , Young Adult
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(1): e191-e198, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1289853

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) could be at increased occupational risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections due to increased exposure. Information regarding the burden of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic in HCWs living in Mexico is scarce. Here, we aimed to explore the epidemiology, symptoms, and risk factors associated with adverse outcomes in HCWs in Mexico City. METHODS: We explored data collected by the National Epidemiological Surveillance System in Mexico City, in HCWs who underwent real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. We explored COVID-19 outcomes in HCWs and the performance of symptoms to detect SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: As of 20 September 2020, 57 758 HCWs were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and 17 531 were confirmed (30.35%); 6610 were nurses (37.70%), 4910 physicians (28.0%), 267 dentists (1.52%), and 5744 laboratory personnel and other HCWs (32.76%). Overall, 2378 HCWs required hospitalization (4.12%), 2648 developed severe COVID-19 (4.58%), and 336 required mechanical-ventilatory support (.58%). Lethality was recorded in 472 (.82%) cases. We identified 635 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections (3.62%). Compared with general population, HCWs had higher incidence, testing, asymptomatic cases, and mortality rates. No individual symptom offers adequate performance to detect SARS-CoV2. Older HCWs with chronic noncommunicable diseases and severe respiratory symptoms were associated with higher risk for adverse outcome; physicians were at higher risk compared with nurses and other HCWs. CONCLUSIONS: We report a high prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs in Mexico City. Symptoms as a screening method are not efficient to discern those HCWs with a positive PCR-RT test. Particular attention should focus on HCWs with risk factors to prevent adverse outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Humans , Mexico , RNA, Viral , SARS-CoV-2
8.
Front Robot AI ; 8: 652685, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1266693

ABSTRACT

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has brought the world to a standstill. Healthcare systems are critical to maintain during pandemics, however, providing service to sick patients has posed a hazard to frontline healthcare workers (HCW) and particularly those caring for elderly patients. Various approaches are investigated to improve safety for HCW and patients. One promising avenue is the use of robots. Here, we model infectious spread based on real spatio-temporal precise personal interactions from a geriatric unit and test different scenarios of robotic integration. We find a significant mitigation of contamination rates when robots specifically replace a moderate fraction of high-risk healthcare workers, who have a high number of contacts with patients and other HCW. While the impact of robotic integration is significant across a range of reproductive number R0, the largest effect is seen when R0 is slightly above its critical value. Our analysis suggests that a moderate-sized robotic integration can represent an effective measure to significantly reduce the spread of pathogens with Covid-19 transmission characteristics in a small hospital unit.

10.
Occup Environ Med ; 79(1): 63-71, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1243722

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Employees in non-healthcare occupations may be in several ways exposed to infectious agents. Improved knowledge about the risks is needed to identify opportunities to prevent work-related infectious diseases. The objective of the current study was to provide an updated overview of the published evidence on the exposure to pathogens among non-healthcare workers. Because of the recent SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks, we also aimed to gain more evidence about exposure to several respiratory tract pathogens. METHODS: Eligible studies were identified in MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane between 2009 and 8 December 2020. The protocol was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42019107265). An additional quality assessment was applied according to the Equator network guidelines. RESULTS: The systematic literature search yielded 4620 papers of which 270 met the selection and quality criteria. Infectious disease risks were described in 37 occupational groups; 18 of them were not mentioned before. Armed forces (n=36 pathogens), livestock farm labourers (n=31), livestock/dairy producers (n=26), abattoir workers (n=22); animal carers and forestry workers (both n=16) seemed to have the highest risk. In total, 111 pathogen exposures were found. Many of these occupational groups (81.1%) were exposed to respiratory tract pathogens. CONCLUSION: Many of these respiratory tract pathogens were readily transmitted where employees congregate (workplace risk factors), while worker risk factors seemed to be of increasing importance. By analysing existing knowledge of these risk factors, identifying new risks and susceptible risk groups, this review aimed to raise awareness of the issue and provide reliable information to establish more effective preventive measures.


Subject(s)
Disease Transmission, Infectious , Occupational Diseases/epidemiology , Occupational Exposure , Workforce , Workplace , Global Health , Humans , Risk Factors
11.
Eur J Intern Med ; 89: 97-103, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1242969

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The kinetics of the antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) needs to be evaluated since long-term duration of antibody remains largely unknown, particularly in infected healthcare workers (HCW). METHODS: Prospective study, evaluating the longitudinal profile of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers in a random sample of 331 seropositive healthcare workers (HCW) of Spanish Hospitals Group. Serial measurements of serum IgG-anti-SARS-CoV-2 were obtained at baseline (April-May,2020), and in 2 follow-up visits. Linear mixed models were used to investigate antibody kinetics and associated factors. RESULTS: A total of 306 seropositive subjects (median age: 44.7years;69.9% female) were included in the final analysis. After a median follow-up of 274 days between baseline and final measurement, 235(76.8%) maintained seropositivity. Antibody titers decreased in 82.0%, while remained stable in 13.1%. Factors associated with stability of antibodies over time included age≥45 years, higher baseline titers, severe/moderate infection and high-grade exposure to COVID-19 patients. In declining profile, estimated mean antibody half-life was 146.3 days(95%CI:138.6-154.9) from baseline. Multivariate models show independent longer durability of antibodies in HCW with high-risk exposure to COVID-19 patients (+14.1 days;95%CI:0.6-40.2) and with symptomatic COVID-19 (+14.1 days;95%CI:0.9-43.0). The estimated mean time to loss antibodies was 375(95% CI:342-408) days from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first study measuring the kinetics of antibody response against SARS-CoV-2 in HCW beyond 6 months. Most participants remained seropositive after 9 months but presented a significant decline in antibody-titers. Two distinct antibody dynamic profiles were observed (declining vs. stable). Independent factors associated with longer durability of antibodies were symptomatic infection and higher exposure to COVID-19 patients.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , Antibodies, Viral , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , Kinetics , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies
12.
Arch Prev Riesgos Labor ; 24(2): 67-83, 2021 04 15.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1236960

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Frontline healthcare workers have a high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which causes COVID-19. The use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) is essential to prevent this occupational disease. Surgical masks and filtering face piece (FFP) respirators are important parts of this PPE. European standard EN 149 establishes three protection levels for FFP respirators (FFP1, FFP2, FFP3), depending on the particle infiltration degree through their materials, and these, in turn, are based on their filtration effectiveness. The aim of this laboratory test is to determine and quantify the filtration and fit rate of different FFP respirators, singly and in combination with surgical masks, by performing a series of fit tests and consequently, to check whether this combination improves protection levels for healthcare workers who care for COVID-19 patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Several FFP respirators and surgical masks, singly and in combination, were fit tested with a PortaCount Pro + 8038, which fulfills OSHA standards, in a series of tests performed on healthcare workers in seven different breathing situations when taking care on COVID-19 patients, in order to determine and quantify their fit to the workers' face. RESULTS: Wearing a surgical mask together with a highly efficient FFP respirator provided increased respiratory protection. Interestingly, one of these highly efficient FFP models, combined with a surgical mask, achieved a protection factor over 200 (whereas 100 is the minimum required protection factor). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical masks, when used together with a FFP2 respirator, could significant ly improve the degree of fit of all self-filtering face piece by providing greater filtration efficiency and greater user protection from exposure to aerosols.


INTODUCCIÓN: Un componente importante del equipo de protección individual (EPI) frente al SARS-CoV-2 son las mascarillas quirúrgicas y las mascarillas autofiltrantes (FFP). La norma europea EN 149 establece y clasifica las mascarillas autofiltrantes en tres niveles de protección dependiendo del porcentaje de fuga del total de partículas en suspensión del aire exterior hacia el aire interior FFP1, FFP2, FFP3. El objetivo de este e ensayo de laboratorio es determinar y cuantificar el nivel de ajuste de las mascarillas autofiltrantes FFP2 combinadas con las mascarillas quirúrgicas mediante series de pruebas de ajuste (fit test). MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se utilizó el equipo medidor de ajuste de mascarillas FFP modelo PortaCount® Pro + 8038 compatible con las normas y metodología de la OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) de los EEUU. Se realizaron series de pruebas de ajuste sobre diferentes modelos de mascarillas autofiltrantes FFP2 con y sin mascarilla quirúrgica para diferentes situaciones de respiración del trabajador participante en este experimento.  RESULTADOS: El uso de la mascarilla quirúrgica sobre una mascarilla autofiltrante FFP2 aporta una mejora en la protección respiratoria determinante, incrementando el factor de ajuste hasta de +200 (el factor de ajuste mínimo debe ser 100). CONCLUSIONES: Las mascarillas quirúrgicas cuando se usan conjuntamente con las mascarillas autofiltrantes, podrían mejorar significativamente el grado de ajuste de todas las mascarillas autofiltrantes proporcionando una mayor eficacia de filtración y una mayor protección al usuario frente a la exposición a aerosoles.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel , Humans , Masks , Personal Protective Equipment
13.
Clin Microbiol Infect ; 27(8): 1174.e1-1174.e4, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1226280

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In December 2020, Italy began a national immunization campaign using the BNT162b2 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccine, prioritizing healthcare workers (HCWs). Immune serum from vaccinated subjects seems (largely) to retain titres of neutralizing antibodies, even against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) VOC 202012/01-lineage B.1.1.7. Here, we describe an outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 infection in three HCWs in a hospital setting; two of the HCWs were fully vaccinated (i.e. had received two doses). METHODS: Two physicians and one nurse working on the same shift on 20th February 2021 were involved in the outbreak. Real-time PCR, antigen tests, and serological tests for the IgG anti-spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 were performed, along with whole-genome sequencing (WGS). RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in all three HCWs; all presented with mild symptoms of COVID-19. The two physicians were fully vaccinated with BNT162b2 vaccine, with the second dose administered 1 month before symptom onset. Both had high titres of IgG anti-spike antibodies at the time of diagnosis. WGS confirmed that all virus strains were VOC 202012/01-lineage B.1.1.7, suggesting a common source of exposure. Epidemiological investigation revealed that the suspected source was a SARS-CoV-2-positive patient who required endotracheal intubation due to severe COVID-19. All procedures were carried out using a full suite of personal protective equipment (PPE). CONCLUSIONS: This mini-outbreak highlights some important issues about the efficacy of vaccines against transmission of SARS-CoV-2 variants, the high risk of exposure among HCWs, and the need for optimized implementation of PPE in hospitals. The wide circulation of VOC 202012/01 in Europe and Italy highlights the need to improve surveillance and genetic sequencing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Vaccination , Adult , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19/virology , Female , Health Personnel , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Intubation, Intratracheal , Italy/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Personal Protective Equipment , Phylogeny , Whole Genome Sequencing
14.
Clin Epidemiol Glob Health ; 11: 100766, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1225164

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health Care Workers (HCWs) are at higher risk for Covid19. Sero-surveillance among HCWs using IgG antibodies can add further value to the scientific findings. OBJECTIVES: To estimate seropositivity among HCWs and to correlate it with various factors affecting seropositivity. METHODS: Population based large scale sero-surveillance among HCWs was carried out during second half of August'20 in Ahmedabad using "Covid-Kavach" IgG Antibody Detection ELISA kits. Seropositivity among HCWs was estimated and compared with various demographic & other factors to understand their infection & immunity status. Proportions and Z-test were used as appropriate. RESULTS: As on August'20, Seropositivity among HCWs from Ahmedabad is 23.65% (95% Confidence Interval 21.70-25.73%). Seropositivity of 25.98% (95%CI 23.47-28.66) among female HCWs is significantly higher than 19.48% (95%CI 16.53-22.80) among male HCWs. The zone wise positivity among HCWs closely correlate with cases reported from the respective zone. The sero-positivity among HCWs from the earliest and worst affected zones have lower level of seropositivity as compared to the zones affected recently. This might be pointing towards the fact that the IgG Antibodies may not be long lasting. CONCLUSION: As on August 2020, the seropositivity of 23.65% in HCWs indicate high level of disease transmission and higher risk of infection among HCWs in Ahmedabad. The seropositivity is significantly higher among female HCWs. Zone wise seropositivity, closely correlate with the reported cases from the respective zone. Their comparison also indicates the possibility of reducing IgG seropositivity, which necessitates further in-depth scientific research to generate greater scientific evidences.

15.
Int J Environ Res Public Health ; 18(9)2021 May 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1219923

ABSTRACT

Healthcare workers (HCW) are exposed to health-related anxiety in times of pandemic as they are considered to have a high risk of being infected whilst being the vital workforce to manage the outbreak. This study determined the factors that influence health anxiety and its extent in correlations with perceived risk, knowledge, attitude, and practice of HCW. A cross-sectional online survey was conducted on a total of 709 HCW from both public and private healthcare facilities who completed a set of questionnaires on sociodemographic data, knowledge, attitude, and practice of HCW on COVID-19, and health anxiety traits assessed using the short version Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI). Multiple linear regression (adjusted R2 = 0.06) revealed respondents with higher perceived risk for COVID-19 significantly predicted higher HAI scores (beta 1.281, p < 0.001, 95%, CI: 0.64, 1.92), and those with a higher cautious attitude towards COVID-19 significantly predicted higher HAI scores (beta 0.686, p < 0.001, 95%CI: 0.35, 1.02). Healthcare workers' perceived risk and cautious attitude towards COVID-19 might be potentially influenced by management of the sources and approaches to the dissemination of information of the pandemic. The implementation of certain measures that minimize the infection risk and its related anxiety is important to preserve both their physical and psychological wellbeing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Anxiety/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Personnel , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob ; 20(1): 31, 2021 Apr 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1204080

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the specific risk factors for the transmission of novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) among healthcare workers in different campuses of a university hospital and to reveal the risk factors for antibody positivity. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 2988 (82%) of 3620 healthcare workers in a university hospital participated. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antibody was investigated using serum from healthcare workers who underwent COVID-19 antibody testing. The antibody test results of the participants were evaluated based on their work campus, their profession and their workplace. The statistical significance level was p < 0.05 in all analyses. RESULTS: Of the participants in this study, 108 (3.6%) were antibody positive, and 2880 (96.4%) were negative. Antibody positivity rates were greater in nurses compared with other healthcare workers (p < 0.001). Regarding workplace, antibody positivity was greater in those working in intensive care compared to those working in other locations (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare workers are at the highest risk of being infected with COVID-19. Those who have a higher risk of infection among healthcare workers and those working in high-risk areas should be vaccinated early and use personal protective equipment during the pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospective permission was obtained from both the local ethics committee and the Turkish Ministry of Health for this study (IRB No:71522473/050.01.04/370, Date: 05.20.2020).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Health Personnel , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , COVID-19 , Cross-Sectional Studies , Hospitals, University , Humans , Retrospective Studies
17.
Trials ; 22(1): 276, 2021 Apr 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1183569

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of an inactivated and aluminium hydroxide adsorbed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (Sinovac, China) in voluntary participants after 14 days of the second dose against RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 cases. The secondary objectives include evaluating the efficacy after at least one dose of the vaccine against RT-PCR confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 cases; the efficacy of two doses of the vaccine on the rates of hospitalization and death; the safety of the vaccine including adverse reactions up to one year after the 2nd dose of vaccination; and the immunogenicity of the vaccine and its duration up to 120 days. TRIAL DESIGN: This is a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled case driven clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the vaccine. The study is planned to be carried out within two separate cohorts in voluntary participants aged between 18-59 years old. The first cohort includes healthcare professionals actively working in healthcare units, who are assumed to have higher risk of acquiring COVID-19, and the second cohort includes other immunocompetent subjects in the same age group, who are at a regular risk for COVID-19 disease. In Cohort 1, healthcare professionals will be randomized to receive two intramuscular doses of investigational product or the placebo in a 1:1 ratio and they will be monitored for 12 months by active surveillance of COVID-19. In Cohort 2, immunocompetent subjects will be randomized to receive vaccine or the placebo in a 2:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals of both genders, including medical doctors, nurses, cleaners, hospital technicians, and administrative personnel who work in any department of a healthcare unit and immunocompetent individuals of both genders are included. Pregnant (confirmed by positive beta-hCG test) and breastfeeding women as well as those intending to become pregnant within three months after vaccination are excluded. Other exclusion criteria include history of COVID-19 test positivity (PCR or immunoglobulin test results), any form of immunosuppressive therapy including corticosteroids within 6 months, history of bleeding disorders, asplenia, and administration of any form of immunoglobulins or blood products within 3 months. Exclusion criteria for the second dose include any serious adverse events related with the vaccine, anaphylaxis or hypersensitivity after vaccination, or any confirmed or suspected autoimmune or immunosuppressive disease (including HIV infection). Participants are only included after signing the voluntary informed consent form, ensuring cooperation in visits, undergoing screening for evaluation, and conforming to all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All clinical sites are located in Turkey. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: The vaccine was manufactured by Sinovac Research & Development Co., Ltd. It is a preparation made from a novel coronavirus (strain CZ02) grown in the kidney cell cultures (Vero Cell) of the African green monkey and contains inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus, aluminium hydroxide, disodium hydrogen phosphate, sodium dihydrogen phosphate, and sodium chloride. A dose of 0.5 mL contains 600 SU of SARS-CoV-2 virus antigen. The placebo contains aluminium hydroxide, disodium hydrogen phosphate, sodium dihydrogen phosphate, and sodium chloride (0.5mL/dose). Scheduled visits and additional unscheduled weekly visits will be performed for the first 13 weeks and neutralizing antibody test, IgG test, T-Cell activation test, pregnancy test, and RT-PCR tests along with total antibody test will be performed. Adverse events and serious adverse events during the follow-up will be recorded on diary cards. Diary cards will collect information on the timing and severity of COVID-19 symptoms and solicited adverse events recorded by the subjects during one-year follow-up period. All serious adverse events will be managed and necessary treatment will be ensured according to the local regulations. All serious adverse events following vaccination will be reported to the ethics committee, the Ministry of Health, and the study sponsor within 24 hours of detection. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary efficacy endpoint is the incidence of symptomatic cases of COVID-19 disease confirmed by RT-PCR two weeks after the second dose of vaccination. Secondary efficacy endpoints are the incidence of hospitalization/mortality rates among one or two dose regimens, duration of immunogenicity rates up to 120 days, the seroconversion rate, the seropositivity rate, neutralizing antibody titer, and IgG levels 14 days after each dose of vaccination. The primary safety endpoint is the severity and frequency of local and systemic adverse reactions during the period of one week after vaccination. The study would be terminated if more than 15% of the subjects have grade ≥3 adverse events related to vaccination including local reactions. RANDOMISATION: Eligible subjects will be randomized at their Study Day 0 to two study groups using an Interactive Web Response System (IWRS; developed by Omega CRO, Ankara, Turkey) in both risk groups. The IWRS system customizes the randomization algorithm. After enrolment in the study, each participant will be randomly assigned to either of the two treatment arms at a ratio of 1:1 in the high-risk group and at a ratio of 2:1 in the normal risk group. Each enrolled participant will be assigned to a code and will receive the treatment labelled with the code. BLINDING (MASKING): The trial is a double-blind study to avoid introducing bias. The blinding may be broken by the investigator in the event of a medical emergency in which knowledge of the identity of the study vaccine is critical for management of the subject's immediate treatment. The Data and Safety Monitoring Board is to be contacted in case of breaking the blinding for a study object. The blood samples will be taken from both placebo and vaccinated groups, in order not to break the blinding. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The study is planned to be carried out with two separate cohorts. The Cohort 1 includes healthcare professionals working in healthcare units and the Cohort 2 consists of immunocompetent subjects having normal risk for COVID-19 disease. The Cohort 2 will be initiated after the evaluation of the interim safety report of the Cohort 1 by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Both cohorts will be followed-up via RT-PCR to confirm symptomatic COVID-19 cases. If the clinical efficacy of the vaccine is shown in the Cohort 1 or 2, the subjects randomized into the placebo arm will also be vaccinated. In the Cohort 1, 588 subjects should be included in both arms with the assumption that the risk of infection with COVID-19 will be 5% for the placebo arm and 2% for the vaccine arm in the high-risk group. Considering 10% of drop-out rate and 5% of seropositivity or PCR positivity at baseline, 680 subjects should be screened at both arms of the Cohort 1. Group sample sizes of 7545 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine and 3773 placebo suits at a two-sided 95% confidence interval for the difference in population proportions with a width equal to 1.0%, when the estimated incidence rate for vaccinated group is 1.0% and the estimated incidence rate for placebo group is 2.0%. Drop-out rate is assumed to be 10% and seropositivity or PCR positivity at baseline is assumed to be 5%; accordingly, 13000 participants are needed to be enrolled totally in both cohorts. The remaining 11640 subjects will be screened in the Cohort 2 and eligible subjects will be randomized at a ratio of 2:1. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 6.0 - 15 October 2020. Recruitment started on 15.09.2020 and is expected to end on February 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04582344 . Registered 8 October 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol of the trial is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Animals , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , China , Chlorocebus aethiops , Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Male , Pregnancy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Vero Cells
18.
J Nurs Manag ; 29(7): 1934-1945, 2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1177450

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals responsible for care and treatment during outbreaks are more likely to experience anxiety, depression, insomnia and stress. AIM: This study investigated operating room nurses' anxiety levels and related factors during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The research was conducted between July and September 2020. The sample consisted of 192 operating room nurses. Data were collected using a descriptive questionnaire and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI). RESULTS: Participants had moderate levels of anxiety. The risk factors associated with high levels of anxiety included having chronic diseases, working with patients causing worry, fear of contracting COVID-19 and transmitting it to loved ones, incompetence of hospitals in managing the pandemic, lack of support from hospital managers, taking few breaks and working long shifts due to preventive measures at the workplace. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF NURSING MANAGEMENT: The results show that operating room nurses have had moderate anxiety levels since the onset of the pandemic. Therefore, it is critical to regularly identify and meet their mental and emotional needs to implement early preventive interventions. Identifying risk factors will help recognize anxiety in operating room nurses and take measures to protect their mental health while working with high-risk patients in different clinics during the pandemic. What is more, managers should draw up action plans for extraordinary conditions, such as a pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Nurses , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Depression , Humans , Operating Rooms , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
19.
J Infect Dis ; 224(1): 70-80, 2021 07 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1169671

ABSTRACT

Herein we measured CD4+ T-cell responses against common cold coronaviruses (CCC) and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in high-risk health care workers (HCW) and community controls. We observed higher levels of CCC-reactive T cells in SARS-CoV-2-seronegative HCW compared to community donors, consistent with potential higher occupational exposure of HCW to CCC. We further show that SARS-CoV-2 T-cell reactivity of seronegative HCW was higher than community controls and correlation between CCC and SARS-CoV-2 responses is consistent with cross-reactivity and not associated with recent in vivo activation. Surprisingly, CCC T-cell reactivity was decreased in SARS-CoV-2-infected HCW, suggesting that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might interfere with CCC responses, either directly or indirectly. This result was unexpected, but consistently detected in independent cohorts derived from Miami and San Diego. CD4+ T-cell responses against common cold coronaviruses (CCC) are elevated in SARS-CoV-2 seronegative high-risk health care workers (HCW) compared to COVID-19 convalescent HCW, suggesting that exposure to SARS-CoV-2 might interfere with CCC responses and/or cross-reactivity associated with a protective effect.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , Health Personnel , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , T-Lymphocyte Subsets/immunology , Adult , Antibodies, Viral , Biomarkers , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD4-Positive T-Lymphocytes/metabolism , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/immunology , CD8-Positive T-Lymphocytes/metabolism , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/virology , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Epitopes, T-Lymphocyte/chemistry , Epitopes, T-Lymphocyte/immunology , Female , Humans , Immunophenotyping , Lymphocyte Activation/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Peptides/chemistry , Peptides/immunology , Public Health Surveillance , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , T-Lymphocyte Subsets/metabolism
20.
Prehosp Emerg Care ; : 1-10, 2021 May 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1165151

ABSTRACT

Objective: Firefighter first responders and other emergency medical services (EMS) personnel have been among the highest risk healthcare workers for illness during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We sought to determine the rate of seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and of acute asymptomatic infection among firefighter first responders in a single county with early exposure in the pandemic. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of clinically active firefighters cross-trained as paramedics or EMTs in the fire departments of Santa Clara County, California. Firefighters without current symptoms were tested between June and August 2020. Our primary outcomes were rates of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody seropositivity and SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR swab positivity for acute infection. We report cumulative incidence, participant characteristics with frequencies and proportions, and proportion positive and associated relative risk (with 95% confidence intervals). Results: We enrolled 983 out of 1339 eligible participants (response rate: 73.4%). Twenty-five participants (2.54%, 95% CI 1.65-3.73) tested positive for IgG antibodies and 9 (0.92%, 95% CI 0.42-1.73) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR. Our cumulative incidence, inclusive of self-reported prior positive PCR tests, was 34 (3.46%, 95% CI 2.41-4.80). Conclusion: In a county with one of the earliest outbreaks in the United States, the seroprevalence among firefighter first responders was lower than that reported by other studies of frontline health care workers, while the cumulative incidence remained higher than that seen in the surrounding community.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL