Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 205
Filter
1.
Sangyo Eiseigaku Zasshi ; 64(2): 107-113, 2022 Mar 25.
Article in Japanese | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1760008

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Immediately before the state of emergency was declared, there was an outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among special training participants with severe physical stress. For promoting the optimization of infection prevention measures by identifying acts and situations with high risk of infection, we conducted a survey and analysis to understand the detailed process of infection spread in these cases. METHODS: A structured interview was conducted for the special training participants on their health status, changes in symptoms, training methods, and behavior history in their private lives. Additionally, a patrol of the training facility was carried out to understand the training environment, and antibody tests were conducted on the close contacts for more accurately grasping the spread of infection, by identifying subclinical infected persons. RESULTS: Within 10 days of COVID-19 onset in the first patient, 15 of the 19 original training participants developed symptoms, and 14 patients tested positive for RT-PCR. PCR tests were also performed on four patients who did not develop the disease - two were positive and negative, each. The two negatives turned positive on a later antibody test, suggesting that there was an asymptomatic infection. In addition, all five patients who participated in the training for only a day developed symptoms and tested positive for PCR in a few days. Of the 64 people who underwent testing for antibodies as close contacts, all but one who was living together with a patient were negative on antibody testing. CONCLUSIONS: The onset of COVID-19 occurred after the start of practice-based training continuously; therefore, the practice-based training was thought to be the main cause of the transmission. We speculate that the main factors behind the rapid spread of infection are as follows: during practice-based training, increased ventilation made it difficult to wear a mask; repeated loud vocalizations at close range; and the training pair was not fixed. Physical training without shouting and desk work, however, did not possess the risk of COVID-19, and avoiding certain situations at high risk of respiratory infections may have significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission. If personnel become infected with SARS-CoV-2, emergency measures should be devised by identifying patients and close contacts and facilitating the investigation of their behavioral history. Furthermore, evaluating and improving the effectiveness of infection control measures is necessary by ascertaining potentially infected persons by performing PCR tests, antigen tests, antibody tests, etc. in combination.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Humans , Inservice Training , Surveys and Questionnaires
2.
Disaster Med Public Health Prep ; 15(5): e17-e25, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1590815

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: On March 1, 2020, the Kurdistan Region Government (KRG) announced 4 confirmed cases of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We aimed to explore the response of the public toward the prevention principles against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. METHODS: The investigators invited individuals from different geographic areas of Duhok Governorate of Iraqi Kurdistan in March 2020. RESULTS: The mean age of the participants was 25.74 (16-95 years). The mean score and prevalence of fear toward SARS-CoV-2 infection was 4.40 of 10 and 81.9%, respectively. A small percentage of participants did not minimize their exposures by reducing close contacts and transmission of respiratory droplets (14.5%) and visited public areas during the epidemic (28.7%). The study revealed that 30.8% of the participants do not use face masks or tissues when they sneeze in public areas. Most of the participants wash their hands when they suspect a possible transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 pathogen (94.6%) and clean or disinfect pathogen contamination-suspected areas at home (84.6%). The study also revealed that some participants (11.2%), due to a lower education, did not visit a medical clinic when they experienced possible symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants agreed with the health policies of KRG against the COVID-19 outbreak (90.8%). CONCLUSIONS: Some individuals do not adhere to preventive measures against SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Disease Outbreaks , Humans , Masks , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
3.
Emerg Microbes Infect ; 10(1): 365-375, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1490458

ABSTRACT

Concerns about vaccine safety are an important reason for vaccine hesitancy, however, limited information is available on whether common adverse reactions following vaccination affect the immune response. Data from three clinical trials of recombinant vaccines were used in this post hoc analysis to assess the correlation between inflammation-related solicited adverse reactions (ISARs, including local pain, redness, swelling or induration and systematic fever) and immune responses after vaccination. In the phase III trial of the bivalent HPV-16/18 vaccine (Cecolin®), the geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) for IgG anti-HPV-16 and -18 (P<0.001) were significantly higher in participants with any ISAR following vaccination than in those without an ISAR. Local pain, induration, swelling and systemic fever were significantly correlated with higher GMCs for IgG anti-HPV-16 and/or anti-HPV-18, respectively. Furthermore, the analyses of the immunogenicity bridging study of Cecolin® and the phase III trial of a hepatitis E vaccine yielded similar results. Based on these results, we built a scoring model to quantify the inflammation reactions and found that the high score of ISAR indicates the strong vaccine-induced antibody level. In conclusion, this study suggests inflammation-related adverse reactions following vaccination potentially indicate a stronger immune response.


Subject(s)
Hepatitis E/immunology , Human papillomavirus 16/immunology , Human papillomavirus 18/immunology , Papillomavirus Infections/immunology , Papillomavirus Vaccines/immunology , Vaccines, Synthetic/immunology , Viral Hepatitis Vaccines/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Female , Hepatitis E/prevention & control , Hepatitis E/virology , Human papillomavirus 16/genetics , Human papillomavirus 18/genetics , Humans , Immunity , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , Papillomavirus Infections/prevention & control , Papillomavirus Infections/virology , Papillomavirus Vaccines/administration & dosage , Papillomavirus Vaccines/adverse effects , Papillomavirus Vaccines/genetics , Vaccination/adverse effects , Vaccines, Synthetic/administration & dosage , Vaccines, Synthetic/adverse effects , Vaccines, Synthetic/genetics , Viral Hepatitis Vaccines/administration & dosage , Viral Hepatitis Vaccines/adverse effects , Viral Hepatitis Vaccines/genetics , Young Adult
4.
Rheumatology (Oxford) ; 60(SI): SI13-SI24, 2021 10 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1493950

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the change in quality of life, disease-specific indicators, health and lifestyle before and during the COVID-19 pandemic among people with musculoskeletal diagnoses and symptoms. METHODS: We undertook an additional follow-up of two existing UK registers involving people with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) and participants in a trial in the UK who had regional pain and were identified at high risk of developing chronic widespread pain. Participants completed the study questionnaire between July and December 2020, throughout which time there were public health restrictions in place. RESULTS: The number of people taking part in the study was 1054 (596 axSpA, 162 PsA, 296 regional pain). In comparison with their previous (pre-pandemic) assessment, there was an age-adjusted significant, small decrease in quality of life measured by EQ-5D [-0.020 (95% CI -0.030, -0.009)] overall and across all population groups examined. This was primarily related to poorer mental health and pain. There was a small increase in fibromyalgia symptoms, but a small decrease in sleep problems. There was a small deterioration in axSpA disease activity, and disease-specific quality of life and anxiety in PsA participants. Predictors of poor quality of life were similar pre- and during the pandemic. The effect of lockdown on activity differed according to age, gender and deprivation. CONCLUSION: Important lessons include focusing on addressing anxiety and providing enhanced support for self-management in the absence of normal health care being available, and awareness that all population groups are likely to be affected.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Chronic Pain/psychology , Communicable Disease Control , Musculoskeletal Diseases/psychology , Quality of Life , Adult , Aged , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/etiology , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Health Services Accessibility , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Acceptance of Health Care/psychology , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , United Kingdom/epidemiology
5.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 6: CD013333, 2020 06 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1453528

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Demodex blepharitis is a chronic condition commonly associated with recalcitrant dry eye symptoms though many people with Demodex mites are asymptomatic. The primary cause of this condition in humans is two types of Demodex mites: Demodex folliculorum and Demodex brevis. There are varying reports of the prevalence of Demodex blepharitis among adults, and it affects both men and women equally. While Demodex mites are commonly treated with tea tree oil, the effectiveness of tea tree oil for treating Demodex blepharitis is not well documented. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of tea tree oil on ocular Demodex infestation in people with Demodex blepharitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2019, Issue 6); Ovid MEDLINE; Embase.com; PubMed; LILACS; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We used no date or language restrictions in the electronic search for trials. We last searched the databases on 18 June 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with tea tree oil (or its components) versus another treatment or no treatment for people with Demodex blepharitis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and then full text of records to determine their eligibility. The review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Covidence. A third review author resolved any conflicts at all stages. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (1124 eyes of 562 participants; 17 to 281 participants per study) from the US, Korea, China, Australia, Ireland, and Turkey. The RCTs compared some formulation of tea tree oil to another treatment or no treatment. Included participants were both men and women, ranging from 39 to 55 years of age. All RCTs were assessed at unclear or high risk of bias in one or more domains. We also identified two RCTs that are ongoing or awaiting publications. Data from three RCTs that reported a short-term mean change in the number of Demodex mites per eight eyelashes contributed to a meta-analysis. We are uncertain about the mean reduction for the groups that received the tea tree oil intervention (mean difference [MD] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24 to 1.16) at four to six weeks as compared to other interventions. Only one RCT reported data for long-term changes, which found that the group that received intense pulse light as the treatment had complete eradication of Demodex mites at three months. We graded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as very low. Three RCTs reported no evidence of a difference for participant reported symptoms measured on the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) between the tea tree oil group and the group receiving other forms of intervention. Mean differences in these studies ranged from -10.54 (95% CI - 24.19, 3.11) to 3.40 (95% CI -0.70 7.50). We did not conduct a meta-analysis for this outcome given substantial statistical heterogeneity and graded the certainty of the evidence as low. One RCT provided information concerning visual acuity but did not provide sufficient data for between-group comparisons. The authors noted that mean habitual LogMAR visual acuity for all study participants improved post-treatment (mean LogMAR 1.16, standard deviation 0.26 at 4 weeks). We graded the certainty of evidence for this outcome as low. No RCTs provided data on mean change in number of cylindrical dandruff or the proportion of participants experiencing conjunctival injection or experiencing meibomian gland dysfunction. Three RCTs provided information on adverse events. One reported no adverse events. The other two described a total of six participants randomized to treatment with tea tree oil who experienced ocular irritation or discomfort that resolved with re-educating the patient on application techniques and continuing use of the tea tree oil. We graded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that there is uncertainty related to the effectiveness of 5% to 50% tea tree oil for the short-term treatment of Demodex blepharitis; however, if used, lower concentrations may be preferable in the eye care arena to avoid induced ocular irritation. Future studies should be better controlled, assess outcomes at long term (e.g. 10 to 12 weeks or beyond), account for patient compliance, and study the effects of different tea tree oil concentrations.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use , Blepharitis/drug therapy , Mite Infestations/drug therapy , Tea Tree Oil/therapeutic use , Adult , Blepharitis/parasitology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Mite Infestations/complications , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
6.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; 43(4): 490-496, 2022 Apr.
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
7.
Trials ; 22(1): 39, 2021 Jan 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440947

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: In this cluster-randomised controlled study (CoV-Surv Study), four different "active" SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for general population surveillance are evaluated for their effectiveness in determining and predicting the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections in a given population. In addition, the costs and cost-effectiveness of the four surveillance strategies will be assessed. Further, this trial is supplemented by a qualitative component to determine the acceptability of each strategy. Findings will inform the choice of the most effective, acceptable and affordable strategy for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance, with the most effective and cost-effective strategy becoming part of the local public health department's current routine health surveillance activities. Investigating its everyday performance will allow us to examine the strategy's applicability to real time prevalence prediction and the usefulness of the resulting information for local policy makers to implement countermeasures that effectively prevent future nationwide lockdowns. The authors would like to emphasize the importance and relevance of this study and its expected findings in the context of population-based disease surveillance, especially in respect to the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. In Germany, but also in many other countries, COVID-19 surveillance has so far largely relied on passive surveillance strategies that identify individuals with clinical symptoms, monitor those cases who then tested positive for the virus, followed by tracing of individuals in close contact to those positive cases. To achieve higher effectiveness in population surveillance and to reliably predict the course of an outbreak, screening and monitoring of infected individuals without major symptoms (about 40% of the population) will be necessary. While current testing capacities are also used to identify such asymptomatic cases, this rather passive approach is not suitable in generating reliable population-based estimates of the prevalence of asymptomatic carriers to allow any dependable predictions on the course of the pandemic. To better control and manage the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, current strategies therefore need to be complemented by an active surveillance of the wider population, i.e. routinely conducted testing and monitoring activities to identify and isolate infected individuals regardless of their clinical symptoms. Such active surveillance strategies will enable more effective prevention of the spread of the virus as they can generate more precise population-based parameters during a pandemic. This essential information will be required in order to determine the best strategic and targeted short-term countermeasures to limit infection spread locally. TRIAL DESIGN: This trial implements a cluster-randomised, two-factorial controlled, prospective, interventional, single-blinded design with four study arms, each representing a different SARS-CoV-2 testing and surveillance strategy. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible are individuals age 7 years or older living in Germany's Rhein-Neckar Region who consent to provide a saliva sample (all four arms) after completion of a brief questionnaire (two arms only). For the qualitative component, different samples of study participants and non-participants (i.e. eligible for study, but refuse to participate) will be identified for additional interviews. For these interviews, only individuals age 18 years or older are eligible. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Of the four surveillance strategies to be assessed and compared, Strategy A1 is considered the gold standard for prevalence estimation and used to determine bias in other arms. To determine the cost-effectiveness, each strategy is compared to status quo, defined as the currently practiced passive surveillance approach. Strategy A1: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification (RT-LAMP). Strategy A2: Individuals (one per household) receive information and study material by mail with instructions on how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B1: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms and risk exposures. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions on how to produce a saliva sample and how to return the sample by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the saliva sample is tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. Strategy B2: Individuals (one per household) receive information by mail on how to complete a brief pre-screening questionnaire which asks about COVID-19 related clinical symptoms. Only individuals whose pre-screening score crosses a defined threshold, will then receive additional study material by mail with instructions how to produce their own as well as saliva samples from each household member and how to return these samples by mail. Once received by the laboratory, the samples are tested for SARS-CoV-2 using RT-LAMP. In each strategy, RT-LAMP positive samples are additionally analyzed with qPCR in order to minimize the number of false positives. MAIN OUTCOMES: The identification of the one best strategy will be determined by a set of parameters. Primary outcomes include costs per correctly screened person, costs per positive case, positive detection rate, and precision of positive detection rate. Secondary outcomes include participation rate, costs per asymptomatic case, prevalence estimates, number of asymptomatic cases per study arm, ratio of symptomatic to asymptomatic cases per study arm, participant satisfaction. Additional study components (not part of the trial) include cost effectiveness of each of the four surveillance strategies compared to passive monitoring (i.e. status quo), development of a prognostic model to predict hospital utilization caused by SARS-CoV-2, time from test shipment to test application and time from test shipment to test result, and perception and preferences of the persons to be tested with regard to test strategies. RANDOMISATION: Samples are drawn in three batches of three continuous weeks. Randomisation follows a two-stage process. First, a total of 220 sampling points have been allocated to the three different batches. To obtain an integer solution, the Cox-algorithm for controlled rounding has been used. Afterwards, sample points have been drawn separately per batch, following a probability proportional to size (PPS) random sample. Second, for each cluster the same number of residential addresses is randomly sampled from the municipal registries (self-weighted sample of individuals). The 28,125 addresses drawn per municipality are then randomly allocated to the four study arms A1, A2, B1, and B2 in the ratio 5 to 2.5 to 14 to 7 based on the expected response rates in each arm and the sensitivity and specificity of the pre-screening tool as applied in strategy B1 and B2. Based on the assumptions, this allocation should yield 2500 saliva samples in each strategy. Although a municipality can be sampled by multiple batches and the overall number of addresses per municipality might vary, the number of addresses contacted in each arm is kept constant. BLINDING (MASKING): The design is single-blinded, meaning the staff conducting the SARS-CoV-2 tests are unaware of the study arm assignment of each single participant and test sample. SAMPLE SIZES: Total sample size for the trial is 10,000 saliva samples equally allocated to the four study arms (i.e. 2,500 participants per arm). For the qualitative component, up to 60 in-depth interviews will be conducted with about 30 study participants (up to 15 in each arm A and B) and 30 participation refusers (up to 15 in each arm A and B) purposefully selected from the quantitative study sample to represent a variety of gender and ages to explore experiences with admission or rejection of study participation. Up to 25 asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 positive study participants will be purposefully selected to explore the way in which asymptomatic men and women diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 give meaning to their diagnosis and to the dialectic between feeling concurrently healthy and yet also being at risk for transmitting COVID-19. In addition, 100 randomly selected study participants will be included to explore participants' perspective on testing processes and implementation. TRIAL STATUS: Final protocol version is "Surveillance_Studienprotokoll_03Nov2020_v1_2" from November 3, 2020. Recruitment started November 18, 2020 and is expected to end by or before December 31, 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is currently being registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), DRKS00023271 ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial . HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00023271). Retrospectively registered 30 November 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol 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 Nucleic Acid Testing/economics , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/economics , Health Care Costs , Molecular Diagnostic Techniques/economics , Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques/economics , SARS-CoV-2/genetics , Saliva/virology , Surveys and Questionnaires/economics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Population Surveillance , Predictive Value of Tests , Prevalence , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Reproducibility of Results , Single-Blind Method
8.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(Suppl 1): S65-S73, 2021 07 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1364771

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nasopharyngeal specimens (NPS) are commonly used for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing but can be uncomfortable for patients. Self-collected saliva specimens (SS) or anterior nasal specimens (ANS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection are less invasive, but the sensitivity of these specimen types has not been thoroughly evaluated. METHODS: During September-November 2020, 730 adults undergoing SARS-CoV-2 testing at community testing events and homeless shelters in Denver provided self-collected SS and ANS before NPS collection and answered a short survey about symptoms and specimen preference. Specimens were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by means of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR); viral culture was performed on a subset of specimens positive by rRT-PCR. The sensitivity of SS and ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR was measured against that of NPS. Subgroup analyses included test outcomes by symptom status and culture results. RESULTS: Sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 detection by rRT-PCR appeared higher for SS than for ANS (85% vs 80%) and higher among symptomatic participants than among those without symptoms (94% vs 29% for SS; 87% vs 50% for ANS). Among participants with culture-positive SARS-CoV-2 by any specimen type, the sensitivities of SS and ANS by rRT-PCR were 94% and 100%, respectively. SS and ANS were equally preferred by participants; most would undergo NPS collection again despite this method's being the least preferred. CONCLUSIONS: SS were slightly more sensitive than ANS for SARS-CoV-2 detection with rRT-PCR. With both SS and ANS, SARS-CoV-2 was reliably detected among participants with symptoms. Self-collected SS and ANS offer practical advantages, are preferred by patients, and might be most useful for testing people with coronavirus disease 2019 symptoms.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adult , COVID-19 Testing , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Nasopharynx , Saliva , Specimen Handling
9.
Eur J Dermatol ; 31(2): 199-204, 2021 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352754

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, wearing face masks is mandatory not only for health care workers (HCWs) but also for the general population in many countries around the globe. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the onset of adverse facial skin reactions due to compulsory face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic in HCWs and non-HCWs, and draw awareness of this new dermatological condition and its preventive measures. MATERIALS & METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to 550 patients and HCWs from the Department of Dermatology and Allergy of the University Hospital Munich (LMU), Germany. Participants were surveyed regarding mask type, duration of usage and adverse facial skin reactions. Information on symptoms and the use of skin care products and topical drugs were retrieved. RESULTS: The duration of wearing masks showed a significant impact on the prevalence of symptoms (p < 0.001). Type IV hypersensitivity was significantly more likely in participants with symptoms compared to those without symptoms (p = 0.001), whereas no increase in symptoms was observed in participants with atopic diathesis. HCWs used facial skin care products significantly more often than non-HCWs (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Preventive and therapeutic measures should be established in order to avoid "face mask dermatitis", especially for people with underlying risk factors.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Dermatitis, Contact/etiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/etiology , Facial Dermatoses/etiology , Health Personnel , Masks/adverse effects , Dermatitis, Contact/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Occupational/epidemiology , Facial Dermatoses/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans
10.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(7): 763-772, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337037

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19. METHODS: We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (Steroids in COVID-19; STOIC) of inhaled budesonide, compared with usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The trial was done in the community in Oxfordshire, UK. Participants were randomly assigned to inhaled budsonide or usual care stratified for age (≤40 years or >40 years), sex (male or female), and number of comorbidities (≤1 and ≥2). Randomisation was done using random sequence generation in block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio. Budesonide dry powder was delivered using a turbohaler at a dose of 400 µg per actuation. Participants were asked to take two inhalations twice a day until symptom resolution. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, including emergency department assessment or hospitalisation, analysed for both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The secondary outcomes were self-reported clinical recovery (symptom resolution), viral symptoms measured using the Common Cold Questionnare (CCQ) and the InFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome Questionnaire (FLUPro), body temperature, blood oxygen saturations, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399. FINDINGS: From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned-73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0-50] vs 50% [15-71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference -0·12, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference -0·10, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.


Subject(s)
Budesonide/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Glucocorticoids/administration & dosage , Administration, Inhalation , Adult , Aged , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Time Factors , Young Adult
11.
Lancet Rheumatol ; 3(6): e427-e437, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1307284

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: No trials have tested multifaceted mental health interventions recommended by public health organisations during COVID-19. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effect of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network COVID-19 Home-isolation Activities Together (SPIN-CHAT) Program on anxiety symptoms and other mental health outcomes among people vulnerable during COVID-19 owing to a pre-existing medical condition. METHODS: The SPIN-CHAT Trial was a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel, partially nested, randomised, controlled trial (1:1 allocation to intervention or waitlist). Eligible participants with systemic sclerosis were recruited from the international SPIN COVID-19 Cohort. SPIN COVID-19 Cohort participants were eligible for the trial if they completed baseline measures and had at least mild anxiety symptoms, had not tested positive for COVID-19, and were not currently receiving mental health counselling. SPIN-CHAT is a 4-week (3 sessions per week) videoconference-based group intervention that provided education and practice with mental health coping strategies, and provided social support to reduce isolation. Groups included 6-10 participants. The primary outcome analysed in the intention-to-treat population was anxiety symptoms (PROMIS Anxiety 4a version 1.0) immediately post-intervention. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04335279 and is complete. FINDINGS: Of participants who completed baseline measures between April 9, 2020, and April 27, 2020, 560 participants were eligible and 172 participants were randomly assigned to intervention (n=86) or waitlist (n=86). Mean age was 55·0 years (SD 11·4 years), 162 (94%) were women, and 136 (79%) identified as White. In intention-to-treat analyses, the intervention did not significantly reduce anxiety symptoms post-intervention (-1·57 points, 95% CI -3·59 to 0·45; standardised mean difference [SMD] -0·22 points) but reduced symptoms 6 weeks later (-2·36 points, 95% CI -4·56 to -0·16; SMD -0·31). Depression symptoms were significantly lower 6 weeks post-intervention (-1·64 points, 95% CI -2·91 to -0·37; SMD -0·31); no other secondary outcomes were significant. No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The intervention did not significantly improve anxiety symptoms or other mental health outcomes post-intervention. However, anxiety and depression symptoms were significantly lower 6 weeks later, potentially capturing the time it took for new skills and social support between intervention participants to affect mental health. Multi-faceted interventions such as SPIN-CHAT have potential to address mental health needs in vulnerable groups during COVID-19, yet uncertainty remains about effectiveness. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR; VR4-172745, MS1-173066); McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity Emergency COVID-19 Research Fund; Scleroderma Canada, made possible by an educational grant for patient support programming from Boehringer Ingelheim; the Scleroderma Society of Ontario; Scleroderma Manitoba; Scleroderma Atlantic; Scleroderma Australia; Scleroderma New South Wales; Scleroderma Victoria; Scleroderma Queensland; Scleroderma SASK; the Scleroderma Association of BC; and Sclérodermie Québec.

12.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0253120, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1278185

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In the absence of universal testing, effective therapies, or vaccines, identifying risk factors for viral infection, particularly readily modifiable exposures and behaviors, is required to identify effective strategies against viral infection and transmission. METHODS: We conducted a world-wide mobile application-based prospective cohort study available to English speaking adults with a smartphone. We collected self-reported characteristics, exposures, and behaviors, as well as smartphone-based geolocation data. Our main outcome was incident symptoms of viral infection, defined as fevers and chills plus one other symptom previously shown to occur with SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by daily surveys. FINDINGS: Among 14, 335 participants residing in all 50 US states and 93 different countries followed for a median 21 days (IQR 10-26 days), 424 (3%) developed incident viral symptoms. In pooled multivariable logistic regression models, female biological sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.75, 95% CI 1.39-2.20, p<0.001), anemia (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16-1.81, p = 0.001), hypertension (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08-1.68, p = 0.007), cigarette smoking in the last 30 days (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.35-2.55, p<0.001), any viral symptoms among household members 6-12 days prior (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.67-2.55, p<0.001), and the maximum number of individuals the participant interacted with within 6 feet in the past 6-12 days (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06-1.25, p<0.001) were each associated with a higher risk of developing viral symptoms. Conversely, a higher subjective social status (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.93, p<0.001), at least weekly exercise (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.47-0.70, p<0.001), and sanitizing one's phone (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99, p = 0.037) were each associated with a lower risk of developing viral symptoms. INTERPRETATION: While several immutable characteristics were associated with the risk of developing viral symptoms, multiple immediately modifiable exposures and habits that influence risk were also observed, potentially identifying readily accessible strategies to mitigate risk in the COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Fever/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Self Report/statistics & numerical data , Adult , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Female , Fever/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Multivariate Analysis , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Smartphone , United States/epidemiology
13.
Eur Respir J ; 59(1)2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1277909

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Rapid tests to evaluate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific T-cell responses are urgently needed to decipher protective immunity and aid monitoring vaccine-induced immunity. METHODS: Using a rapid whole blood assay requiring a minimal amount of blood, we measured qualitatively and quantitatively SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T-cell responses in 31 healthcare workers using flow cytometry. RESULTS: 100% of COVID-19 convalescent participants displayed a detectable SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4 T-cell response. SARS-CoV-2-responding cells were also detected in 40.9% of participants with no COVID-19-associated symptoms or who tested PCR-negative. Phenotypic assessment indicated that, in COVID-19 convalescent participants, SARS-CoV-2 CD4 responses displayed an early differentiated memory phenotype with limited capacity to produce interferon (IFN)-γ. Conversely, in participants with no reported symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 CD4 responses were enriched in late differentiated cells, coexpressing IFN-γ and tumour necrosis factor-α and also Granzyme B. CONCLUSIONS: This proof-of-concept study presents a scalable alternative to peripheral blood mononuclear cell-based assays to enumerate and phenotype SARS-CoV-2-responding T-cells, thus representing a practical tool to monitor adaptive immunity due to natural infection or vaccine trials.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Leukocytes, Mononuclear , Phenotype , T-Lymphocytes
14.
Front Public Health ; 9: 643988, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1268315

ABSTRACT

Background: The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and related compulsory measures have triggered a wide range of psychological issues. However, the effect of COVID-19 on mental health in late-middle-aged adults remains unclear. Methods: This cross-sectional, web-based survey recruited 3,730 participants (≥ 50 years old) between February 28 and March 11 of 2020. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Insomnia Severity Index, and Acute Stress Disorder Scale were used to evaluate depression, anxiety, insomnia, and acute stress symptoms. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was fitted to explore risk factors that were associated with the selected outcomes. Results: The mean age of the participants was 54.44 ± 5.99 years, and 2,026 (54.3%) of the participants were female. The prevalence of depression, anxiety, insomnia, and acute stress symptoms among late-middle-aged adults in China during the COVID-19 pandemic was 20.4, 27.1, 27.5, and 21.2%, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that participants who were quarantined had increased odds ratios for the four mental health symptoms, and those with a good understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic displayed a decreased risk for all mental health symptoms among late-middle-aged adults. In addition, participants with a low income and with a risk of COVID-19 exposure at work had a remarkably high risk of depression, anxiety, and acute stress symptoms. Conclusions: Mental health symptoms in late-middle-aged adults in China during the COVID-19 pandemic are prevalent. Population-specific mental health interventions should be developed to improve mental health outcomes in late-middle-aged adults during this public health emergency.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , China/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Depression/epidemiology , Female , Health Status , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Nat Sci Sleep ; 13: 703-712, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262570

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence rate and related factors of insomnia remained unknown after the COVID-19 epidemic had been under control. Therefore, we conducted this survey to investigate the prevalence rate and related factors of insomnia symptoms in the Chinese general public after the COVID-19 had been initially control. METHODS: An online survey was conducted among Chinese citizens through the JD Health APP. The questionnaire was used for collecting demographic data and self-designed questions related to the COVID-19 outbreak. Insomnia Severity Index, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Somatic Symptom Scale-8 and Impact of Events Scale-Revised were used for measuring psychological symptoms. To examine the associations of sociodemographic and psychological factors with insomnia symptoms, a binary logistic regression was used. RESULTS: In total, there were 14,894 eligible participants, and 4601 (30.9%) participants were found to have insomnia symptoms. The regression model revealed that a higher risk of insomnia symptoms was associated with being over the age of 40 years, having history of psychiatric disorders, smoking, having infected friends or colleagues, having depressive or somatic symptoms, experiencing psychological distress and feeling estranged from family members. Meanwhile a lower risk of insomnia symptoms was associated with being female, having closer family relationships, not feeling alienated from others and being satisfied with the available information. CONCLUSION: In our study, 30.9% of the participants in the general public reported insomnia symptoms after the COVID-19 epidemic had been initially controlled. When providing precise interventions for insomnia, extra attention should be paid to the individuals who are male, elderly and smokers, and those with psychiatric disorder history, with infected friends or colleagues, with psychological symptoms and with poor social support.

16.
BMC Infect Dis ; 21(1): 544, 2021 Jun 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1262498

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a recently emerged pandemic coronavirus (CoV) capable of causing severe respiratory illness. However, a significant number of infected people present as asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic. In this prospective assessment of at-risk healthcare workers (HCWs) we seek to determine whether pre-existing antibody or T cell responses to previous seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) infections affect immunological or clinical responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. METHODS: A cohort of 300 healthcare workers, confirmed negative for SARS-CoV-2 exposure upon study entry, will be followed for up to 1 year with monthly serology analysis of IgM and IgG antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and the four major seasonal human coronavirus - HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires that ask about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure risks, and a standardized, validated symptom questionnaire (scoring viral respiratory disease symptoms, intensity and severity) at least twice monthly and any day when any symptoms manifest. SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing will be performed any time participants develop symptoms consistent with COVID-19. For those individuals that seroconvert and/or test positive by SARS-CoV-2 PCR, or receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, additional studies of T cell activation and cytokine production in response to SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools and analysis of Natural Killer cell numbers and function will be conducted on that participant's cryopreserved baseline peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Following the first year of this study we will further analyze those participants having tested positive for COVID-19, and/or having received an authorized/licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, quarterly (year 2) and semi-annually (years 3 and 4) to investigate immune response longevity. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the frequency of asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of at-risk healthcare workers. Baseline and longitudinal assays will determine the frequency and magnitude of anti-spike glycoprotein antibodies to the seasonal HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63, and may inform whether pre-existing antibodies to these human coronaviruses are associated with altered COVID-19 disease course. Finally, this study will evaluate whether pre-existing immune responses to seasonal HCoVs affect the magnitude and duration of antibody and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, adjusting for demographic covariates.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/immunology , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Seroconversion , Vaccination/statistics & numerical data , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , Asymptomatic Infections , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , Coronavirus/immunology , Cross Reactions , Humans , Prospective Studies , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , T-Lymphocytes/immunology
17.
J Interpers Violence ; : 8862605211021968, 2021 Jun 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259117

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic may be experienced as traumatogenic and may fuel or exacerbate psychological distress and trauma-related symptoms. Based on trauma research, one might expect that survivors of childhood abuse would be susceptible to these negative outcomes during the pandemic, and that among this population a stronger relation between emotion regulation difficulties and symptomatology would be found. Aiming to explore these suppositions, an online survey was conducted among 710 Israeli adults. Of them, 370 were childhood abuse survivors. A history of childhood abuse, COVID-19-related stressors, overall psychological distress, and peritraumatic stress symptoms during the pandemic were assessed via self-report measures. Participants with a history of childhood abuse had elevated overall psychological distress as well as peritraumatic stress symptoms during the pandemic, compared to nonabused participants, above and beyond demographic characteristics and COVID-19-related stressors. Emotion regulation difficulties were related to elevated psychological distress and peritraumatic stress symptoms among both childhood abuse survivors and nonabused participants. Nonetheless, a history of childhood abuse moderated the relations between the emotion regulation difficulty of being unable to engage in goal-directed behaviors when distressed (on one hand) and mental outcomes (on the other): Although the associations between inability to engage in goal-directed behaviors, overall psychological distress, and peritraumatic stress symptoms were nonsignificant among nonabused participants, they were significant among childhood abuse survivors. The current findings suggest that a history of childhood abuse might be a risk factor for distress in the face of COVID-19, and that childhood abuse survivors would benefit from clinical interventions that promote emotion regulation skills during this ongoing global health crisis.

18.
Nutrients ; 13(6)2021 May 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1256618

ABSTRACT

The COVID-19 pandemic has been present for many months, influencing diets such as the gluten-free diet (GFD), which implies daily challenges even in non-pandemic conditions. Persons following the GFD were invited to answer online ad hoc and validated questionnaires characterizing self-perceptions of the pandemic, current clinical condition, dietary characteristics, adherence to GFD, anxiety, and depression. Of 331 participants, 87% experienced shortage and higher cost of food and 14.8% lost their jobs. Symptoms increased in 29% and 36.6% failed to obtain medical help. Although 52.3% increased food preparation at home and purchased alternative foodstuffs, 53.8% had consumed gluten-containing foods. The Health Eating Index was intermediate/"needs improvement" (mean 65.6 ± 13.3 points); in 49.9% (perception) and 44.4% (questionnaire), adherence was "bad". Anxiety and depression scores were above the cutoff in 28% and 40.4%, respectively. Adherence and mental health were strongly related. The likelihood of poor adherence was 2.3 times higher (p < 0.004) in participants declaring that pandemic altered GFD. Those suffering depressive symptoms were 1.3 times more likely to have poor adherence (p < 0.000). Depression and faulty GFD (mandatory for treatment) appear, affecting a high proportion of participants, suggesting that support measures aimed at these aspects would help improve the health condition of people that maintain GFD. Comparisons of data currently appearing in the literature available should be cautious because not only cultural aspects but conditions and timing of data collection are most variable.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Celiac Disease/psychology , Diet, Gluten-Free/psychology , Patient Compliance/psychology , Quarantine/psychology , Adult , Anxiety/epidemiology , Anxiety/psychology , Celiac Disease/diet therapy , Depression/epidemiology , Depression/psychology , Diet, Gluten-Free/statistics & numerical data , Diet, Healthy , Female , Food Supply/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Male , Patient Compliance/statistics & numerical data , Quarantine/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires
19.
Clin Infect Dis ; 72(11): e761-e767, 2021 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249288

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has principally been performed through the use of real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Results of such tests can be reported as cycle threshold (Ct) values, which may provide semi-quantitative or indirect measurements of viral load. Previous reports have examined temporal trends in Ct values over the course of a SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: Using testing data collected during a prospective household transmission investigation of outpatient and mild coronavirus disease 2019 cases, we examined the relationships between Ct values of the viral RNA N1 target and demographic, clinical, and epidemiological characteristics collected through participant interviews and daily symptom diaries. RESULTS: We found that Ct values are lowest (corresponding to a higher viral RNA concentration) soon after symptom onset and are significantly correlated with the time elapsed since onset (P < .001); within 7 days after symptom onset, the median Ct value was 26.5, compared with a median Ct value of 35.0 occurring 21 days after onset. Ct values were significantly lower among participants under 18 years of age (P = .01) and those reporting upper respiratory symptoms at the time of sample collection (P = .001), and were higher among participants reporting no symptoms (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: These results emphasize the importance of early testing for SARS-CoV-2 among individuals with symptoms of respiratory illness, and allow cases to be identified and isolated when their viral shedding may be highest.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adolescent , Humans , Prospective Studies , RNA, Viral/genetics , Viral Load
20.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 9(6)2021 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1244157

ABSTRACT

Most countries are currently gravitating towards vaccination as mainstay strategy to quell COVID-19 transmission. Between December 2020 and January 2021, we conducted a follow-up online survey in Somalia to monitor adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures, and COVID-19 vaccine acceptability and reasons for vaccine hesitancy. Adherence was measured via a composite adherence score based on four measures (physical distancing, face mask use, hand hygiene, and mouth covering when coughing/sneezing). We analyzed 4543 responses (mean age: 23.5 ± 6.4 years, 62.4% males). The mean adherence score during this survey was lower than the score during a similar survey in April 2020. A total of 76.8% of respondents were willing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Flu-like symptoms were more frequently reported in the current survey compared to previous surveys. Multiple logistic regression showed that participants who experienced flu-like symptoms, those in the healthcare sector, and those with higher adherence scores had higher odds for vaccine acceptability while being a female reduced the willingness to be vaccinated. In conclusion, our data suggest that the decreasing adherence to COVID-19 preventive measures may have caused increased flu-like symptoms over time. COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in Somalia is relatively high but could be improved by addressing factors that contribute to vaccine hesitancy.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL