Humoral response after a fourth dose of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in immunocompromised patients. Results of a systematic review.

Background and objective: The fourth dose the COVID-19 vaccine was first proposed to immunocompromised patients. The aim of the article is to systematically review the literature and report the humoral response and outcomes after the fourth dose administration in people with impaired immune system. Methods: Published studies on the humoral response, efficacy and safety of the fourth dose of the COVID-19 vaccine were analyzed in various settings of immunocompromised patients. We conducted systematic searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library and WHO COVID-19 Research Database for series published through January 31, 2023, using the search terms "fourth dose" or "second booster" or "4th dose" and "Coronavirus" or "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2." All articles were selected according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results: A total of 24 articles including 2,838 patients were comprised in the systematic review. All the studies involved immunocompromised patients, including solid organ transplant recipients, patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease, patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and patients with blood cancers or diseases. Almost all patients received BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as fourth dose. All the studies demonstrated the increase of antibody titers after the fourth dose, both in patients who had a serological strong response and in those who had a weak response after the third dose. No serious adverse events after the 4th dose have been reported by 13 studies. COVID-19 infection after the fourth dose ranged from 0 to 21%. Conclusion: The present review highlights the importance of the fourth dose of covid-19 vaccines for immunocompromised patients. Across the included studies, a fourth dose was associated with improved seroconversion and antibody titer levels. In particular, a fourth dose was associated with increasing immunogenicity in organ transplant recipients and patients with hematological cancers, with a very low rate of serious side effects.

Potential Use of a Combined Bacteriophage-Probiotic Sanitation System to Control Microbial Contamination and AMR in Healthcare Settings: A Pre-Post Intervention Study.

Microbial contamination in the hospital environment is a major concern for public health, since it significantly contributes to the onset of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs), which are further complicated by the alarming level of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of HAI-associated pathogens. Chemical disinfection to control bioburden has a temporary effect and can favor the selection of resistant pathogens, as observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, probiotic-based sanitation (probiotic cleaning hygiene system, PCHS) was reported to stably abate pathogens, AMR, and HAIs. PCHS action is not rapid nor specific, being based on competitive exclusion, but the addition of lytic bacteriophages that quickly and specifically kill selected bacteria was shown to improve PCHS effectiveness. This study aimed to investigate the effect of such combined probiotic-phage sanitation (PCHSφ) in two Italian hospitals, targeting staphylococcal contamination. The results showed that PCHSφ could provide a significantly higher removal of staphylococci, including resistant strains, compared with disinfectants (-76%, p < 0.05) and PCHS alone (-50%, p < 0.05). Extraordinary sporadic chlorine disinfection appeared compatible with PCHSφ, while frequent routine chlorine usage inactivated the probiotic/phage components, preventing PCHSφ action. The collected data highlight the potential of a biological sanitation for better control of the infectious risk in healthcare facilities, without worsening pollution and AMR concerns.

Assessing Doubts, Knowledge, and Service Appreciation among Pregnant Women Who Received the COVID-19 Vaccination in an Italian Research Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic is considered one of the deadliest pandemics in history. Pregnant women are more susceptible to developing serious diseases during COVID-19 than their non-pregnant peers. Pregnant women often express doubt about accepting the vaccination, especially in regard to their security and safety. This study aims to investigate the appreciation of the vaccination offer, and if there are any determinants impacting vaccine hesitancy. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of pregnant women who had just received their immunization against COVID-19 at the vaccination service of a teaching hospital in Rome, from October 2021 to March 2022. A high appreciation of the vaccination services was found, both for the logistic organization and the healthcare personnel, with mean scores above 4 out of 5. The degree of pre-vaccinal doubt was low (41%) or medium (48%) for the largest part of the sample, while the degree of COVID-19 vaccine knowledge was high for 91% of the participants. Physicians were the most decisive information source for the vaccination choice. Our results highlighted that a supportive approach could increase appreciation and improve the setting of vaccinations. Healthcare professionals should aim for a more comprehensive and integrated role of all figures.

BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine Safety among Healthcare Workers of a Tertiary Hospital in Italy.

Millions of people have died because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The vaccination campaign helped tackle the pandemic and saved millions of lives. In a retrospective pharmacovigilance study, we explored the safety of the BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) vaccine among healthcare workers (HCWs) in a large Italian teaching hospital, and 2428 Adverse Events Reports (AERs) filed by HCWs after the administration of the first dose of vaccine were collected and analyzed, reporting the results quantitively and comparing them to the vaccine Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). Spearman's correlation coefficients were computed to investigate the correlation among reported adverse effects, and recurrent clusters of symptoms were investigated through the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and k-means Cluster Analysis. The BNT162b2 vaccine's safety profile was favorable, with predominant reports of early onset, mild, non-serious and short-term resolved symptoms. We observed higher than the expected frequency for various non-serious undesirable effects, especially among those listed and classified as less common in the SPC. Furthermore, we identified three clusters of adverse effects that were frequently reported together, defined by the presence/absence of fatigue, malaise, localized pain, chills, pyrexia, insomnia, nausea and injection site pain. Post-marketing pharmacovigilance activities, together with targeted public health interventions, can be valuable tools to promote vaccination and improve the control of the spread of the pandemic, especially in sensitive settings and populations such as hospitals and healthcare professionals.

Risk of Infection and Duration of Protection after the Booster Dose of the Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine BNT162b2 among Healthcare Workers in a Large Teaching Hospital in Italy: Results of an Observational Study.

The efficacy of the first schedule of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines has decreased after the surge of the Delta variant, posing the need to administer a booster dose to enhance the neutralising immune response. This study aims at evaluating the duration of protection given by the booster dose of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in healthcare workers (HCWs) of a large teaching hospital in Rome and to analyse the factors associated with post-booster vaccination infections. Data about vaccinations of HCWs with the BNT162b2 vaccine and nasal swabs positive for SARS-CoV-2 were extracted from the digital archives of the hospital from 27 September 2021 to 31 May 2022. In total, 5770 HCWs were observed. The cumulative risk of becoming infected by SARS-CoV-2 increased with time (2.5% at 4 weeks, 17% at 12 weeks and 40% at 24 weeks) and was significantly higher for females, younger classes of patients and for those who had developed a hybrid immunity (natural infection plus one dose, namely the primary schedule, added to the booster dose) compared to those who had completed the three doses. This study describes the duration and the determinants of the protection against infections after the booster dose of COVID-19 vaccine, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring of vaccine-induced immunogenicity.

A real opportunity to modify cardiovascular risk through primary care and prevention: A pilot study.

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) represent a major threat to health and primary prevention outstands as the most effective instrument to face this issue, addressing multiple risk factors at a time and influencing behavioral patterns. Community nurses have been involved in many interdisciplinary prevention activities, resulting in effective control of CV risk factors. We conducted a pilot study aiming at describing the impact on the CV risk profile of an 18-month interdisciplinary intervention on lifestyle habits. From September 2018 to May 2020, four general practitioners (GPs) working in the Roman neighborhood of Torresina recruited patients having a cardiovascular risk score (CRS) equal to or higher than 3% and lower than 20%; those patients were included in a nutritional, physical, and psychological counseling program. Assessments of patients' health status were led at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months by a nutritionist, a physiotherapist, a psychologist, their GPs, and a community nurse. The CRS was estimated at every examination, based on the Italian Progetto Cuore algorithm. A total of 76 patients were included (mean age of 54.6 years; 33 men and 43 women). Mean CRS showed a significant reduction between baseline and 12 months (from 4.9 to 3.8); both total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly decreased at 6 months of follow-up (respectively, from 211.1 to 192 and from 133.1 to 123.1). Nonetheless, the reduction was later maintained only for SBP. However, during the last 6 months of the intervention, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, thus, it is not possible to know how much the results achieved at 18 months were influenced by the restrictive measures introduced by the Italian government. When stratifying according to the presence of hypertension/diabetes and physical activity, no differences in the CRS could be highlighted between the two groups. Our pilot study proved that an interdisciplinary counseling intervention program can improve CV risk profile and could be further spread to people that, according to their CRS, would benefit more from changes in lifestyles.

A real opportunity to modify cardiovascular risk through primary care and prevention: A pilot study

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) represent a major threat to health and primary prevention outstands as the most effective instrument to face this issue, addressing multiple risk factors at a time and influencing behavioral patterns. Community nurses have been involved in many interdisciplinary prevention activities, resulting in effective control of CV risk factors. We conducted a pilot study aiming at describing the impact on the CV risk profile of an 18-month interdisciplinary intervention on lifestyle habits. From September 2018 to May 2020, four general practitioners (GPs) working in the Roman neighborhood of Torresina recruited patients having a cardiovascular risk score (CRS) equal to or higher than 3% and lower than 20%;those patients were included in a nutritional, physical, and psychological counseling program. Assessments of patients' health status were led at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months by a nutritionist, a physiotherapist, a psychologist, their GPs, and a community nurse. The CRS was estimated at every examination, based on the Italian Progetto Cuore algorithm. A total of 76 patients were included (mean age of 54.6 years;33 men and 43 women). Mean CRS showed a significant reduction between baseline and 12 months (from 4.9 to 3.8);both total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure (SBP) significantly decreased at 6 months of follow-up (respectively, from 211.1 to 192 and from 133.1 to 123.1). Nonetheless, the reduction was later maintained only for SBP. However, during the last 6 months of the intervention, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, thus, it is not possible to know how much the results achieved at 18 months were influenced by the restrictive measures introduced by the Italian government. When stratifying according to the presence of hypertension/diabetes and physical activity, no differences in the CRS could be highlighted between the two groups. Our pilot study proved that an interdisciplinary counseling intervention program can improve CV risk profile and could be further spread to people that, according to their CRS, would benefit more from changes in lifestyles.

Medical Residents' Behaviours toward Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccination in a Tertiary Hospital in Italy.

To maintain safety conditions in the provision of care and assistance, and to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients, the Italian government required compulsory COVID-19 vaccination for HCWs, including medical residents (MRs). The aim of this study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage in MRs in a large tertiary hospital in Italy, before and after the introduction of compulsory vaccination, according to demographic characteristics and specific residency. A database on COVID-19 vaccination status and infection of resident medical doctors was created. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were carried out on the data. A total of 1894 MRs were included in the study. Being vaccinated in the same hospital as the residency program was significantly related to the year of residency and being enrolled in a frontline residency. A significant association between compliance with the compulsory primary cycle vaccination and vaccination in the hospital residency was observed. Being enrolled in the second, third, and last years of residency, and in a frontline residency, were predictive of being vaccinated in the residency hospital. Almost 100% of the MRs participating in the study were vaccinated against COVID-19. Compulsory vaccination of HCWs, alongside greater and clearer information about the risks and benefits of vaccination, represents an important booster to ensure public health and to promote quality and safety of care.

Effect of Lockdowns on Hospital Staff in a COVID Center: A Retrospective Observational Study.

At the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, individual and social measures were strengthened through restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions, labelled with the term "lockdown". In Italy, there were two lockdowns (9 March 2020-3 May 2020 and 3 November 2020-27 March 2021). As part of preventive measures, healthcare workers and the administrative staff population of Policlinico A. Gemelli underwent nasopharyngeal swab tests from 1 March 2020 to 9 February 2022, a long time interval that includes the two aforementioned lockdowns. The population included 8958 people from 1 March 2020 to 31 December 2020; 8981 people from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021; and 8981 people from 1 January 2022 to 9 February 2022. We then analysed pseudo-anonymized data, using a retrospective observational approach to evaluate the impact of the lockdown on the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections within the population. Given the 14 day contagious period, the swab positivity rate (SPR) among the staff decreased significantly at the end of the first lockdown, every day prior to 18 May 2020, by 0.093 (p < 0.0001, CI = (-0.138--0.047)). After the fourteenth day post the end of the first lockdown (18 May 2020), the SPR increased daily at a rate of 0.024 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = (0.013-0.034)). In addition, the SPR appeared to increase significantly every day prior to 17 November 2020 by 0.024 (p < 0.0001, CI = (0.013-0.034)). After the fourteenth day post the start of the second lockdown (17 November 2020), the SPR decreased daily at a rate of 0.039 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = (-0.050--0.027)). These data demonstrate that, in our Institution, the lockdowns helped to both protect healthcare workers and maintain adequate standards of care for COVID and non-COVID patients for the duration of the state of emergency in Italy.

Factors Influencing the Choice to Advise for or against COVID-19 Vaccination in the Physicians and Dentists of an Italian Region.

Healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly physicians, are a relevant and trusted source of information for patients, especially when health-related choices such as vaccination are concerned. Between July and November 2022, we administered a web-based survey to physicians and dentists living in the Latio region of Italy to explore whether their background might affect their willingness to recommend the COVID-19 vaccination to their patients (RCVtoPat) and their relatives (RCVtoRel). We performed a multivariable logistic regression to study the association between the two outcomes (RCVtoPat and RCVtoRel) and their potential determinants in our sample (n = 1464). We found that being a dentist, an increasing fear of COVID-19, and having been previously vaccinated against flu are positively associated with both RCVtoPat and RCVtoRel, while a better self-rated knowledge of COVID-19 vaccines is associated only with RCVtoRel. No role was found for age, sex, civil status, education level, information sources, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and chronic diseases. A sub-group analysis of physicians alone (n = 1305) demonstrated a positive association with RCVtoRel of being specialized in diagnostic/therapeutic services and a negative effect on RCVtoPat of being trained in general practice. We provide useful insights about the factors that should be addressed to ensure HCWs exert a positive influence on their patients and communities.

The Preventive Health Professions in Italy: The Efficient Use of Resources, Skills and Best Practice during the Pandemic.

Health visitors (HVs) and environmental health officers (EHOs) are the healthcare workers (HCWs) who, in the Italian National Health Service, mainly operate in the prevention departments of local health authorities, guaranteeing the territorial activities specifically declared with the respective professional profiles. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was necessary to reallocate all HCWs supporting Hygiene and Public Health Services involved on the front lines of the emergency, in order to perform preventive activities and to take immediate action to fight the spread of the virus. By means of an IT survey consisting of three sections, this study investigated how 960 HVs and EHOs dealt with this reallocation, with the shifting in service assignment, and with the perceived level of fatigue and pressure, through the application of skills acquired from university training. The synergy among the preventive health professions, the ability to work in a multi-professional team, and the complementary training of HCWs represent the main strengths for overcoming future public health challenges, aimed at protecting human health.

Knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward COVID-19 vaccination in a sample of Italian healthcare workers.

Vaccine hesitancy in healthcare workers (HCWs) has been studied for various contagious diseases, but there is still insufficient knowledge about this phenomenon for COVID-19. We developed and validated a knowledge, attitude, and practice survey of 39 questions to assess Italian HCWs' hesitancy toward vaccination in general (general hesitancy), COVID-19 vaccination (COVID-19 hesitancy), and public health injunctive measures (refusal of obligations). The survey was administered through a web platform between July and November 2021. Three multivariable logistic regressions were performed to evaluate the association between the explored dimensions of hesitancy and the potential determinants investigated. Out of 2,132 respondents with complete answers, 17.0% showed to be generally hesitancy toward vaccination, 32.3% were hesitant on COVID-19 vaccination, while 18.8% were categorized as refusing obligations. A significant protective effect against all three dimensions of hesitancy was found for increasing fear of COVID-19, advising COVID-19 vaccination to relatives and patients, having received flu vaccination in the previous year and having higher levels of education. Better self-rated knowledge about COVID-19 vaccines and reading up institutional sources were significantly protective against general and COVID-19 hesitancy, while being a physician rather than another healthcare professional was protective only against COVID-19 hesitancy. Conversely, increasing age and referring to colleagues to expand knowledge about COVID-19 were positively associated with COVID-19 hesitancy. The determinants of general hesitancy, COVID-19 hesitancy and the refusal of obligations are mostly overlapping. Given the great influence they exert on patients and communities, it is pivotal to limit HCWs vaccine hesitancy through appropriate training activities.

Knowledge and beliefs about vaccination in pregnant women before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Vaccine hesitancy threatens the health of populations and challenges Public Health professionals. Strategies to reduce it aim to improve people's risk perception about vaccine-preventable diseases, fill knowledge gaps about vaccines and increase trust in healthcare providers. During pregnancy, educational interventions can provide a proper knowledge about safety and efficacy of maternal and childhood vaccinations. Fighting hesitancy and clarifying doubts is fundamental during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected people's knowledge and beliefs toward vaccination. This study aimed at assessing if the advent of the pandemic was associated with changes in pregnant women's knowledge and beliefs toward vaccination, and trust in healthcare services. Methods A repeated cross-sectional study was conducted through self-reported questionnaires in a Roman teaching hospital, where educational classes about vaccinations are routinely held as part of a birthing preparation course. Data were collected on a sample of pregnant women before and during the pandemic. Free-of-charge flu vaccinations were offered to all course participants and adherence to flu vaccination was assessed. Results The proportion of pregnant women reporting that vaccines have mild side effects and that are sufficiently tested increased from 78.6 to 92.0% (p = 0.001) and from 79.4 to 93.2% (p = 0.001), respectively. There was a reduction from 33.0 to 23.3% (p = 0.065) in the proportion of those declaring that healthcare workers (HCWs) give information only on the benefits and not on the risks of vaccines, and a reduction from 27.3 to 12.1% (p = 0.001) in those reporting that vaccines are an imposition and not a free choice of mothers. Trust in National Health Service (NHS) operators slightly decreased. Among participants, the monthly flu vaccination adherence ranged from 50.0% in November to 29.2% January for 2019–20 flu season, and from 56.3% in September to 14.5% in January for 2020–21 flu season, showing a higher vaccination acceptance in the earlier months of 2020-21 flu season. Conclusions The pandemic may have positively affected pregnant women's knowledge and opinions about vaccinations and trust in HCWs, despite a possible negative impact on their perceptions about NHS operators. This should inspire Public Health professionals to rethink their role as health communicators.

Flu and COVID-19 Vaccination: What Happens to the Flu Shot When the Campaigns Overlap? Experience from a Large Italian Research Hospital.

Influenza represents a threat to global health and health care workers (HCWs) have an increased risk of contracting the influenza virus in the workplace. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought back the importance of influenza vaccination, as the influenza virus can circulate together with SARS-CoV-2. The aim of this report is to describe the actual flu vaccination coverage among healthcare workers of a research hospital and the trend changes, with respect to the past flu vaccination campaigns, in light of the present pandemic and COVID-19 vaccination. A Pearson's χ2 test was used to test the correlation of flu vaccination coverage, across all professional categories, between the last two years. A linear regression model was adopted to predict the total vaccination coverage of this year. A statistically significant decrease (p < 0.01) was observed in vaccination coverage among all the professional categories with a 50% reduction in vaccination trends between the last two years. Analyzing the data from the previous six flu vaccination campaigns, the expected value, according to the linear regression model, was estimated to be 38.5% while the observed value was 24%. The decrease in vaccination coverage may be due to the fear of the pandemic situation and especially to the uncertainty related to the consequences of a concurrent administration which may overload the immune system or may be more reactogenic. The COVID-19 pandemic represents an opportunity to promote and support large-scale influenza vaccination among HCWs through structured programs, adequate funding, and tailored communication strategies.

Queueing Theory and COVID-19 Prevention: Model Proposal to Maximize Safety and Performance of Vaccination Sites

Introduction COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 19) has rapidly spread all around the world. Vaccination represents one of the most promising counter-pandemic measures. There is still little specific evidence in literature on how to safely and effectively program access and flow through specific healthcare settings to avoid overcrowding in order to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Literature regarding appointment scheduling in healthcare is vast. Unpunctuality however, especially when targeting healthcare workers during working hours, is always possible. Therefore, when determining how many subjects to book, using a linear method assuming perfect adhesion to scheduled time could lead to organizational problems. Methods This study proposes a “Queuing theory” based approach. A COVID-19 vaccination site targeting healthcare workers based in a teaching hospital in Rome was studied to determine real-life arrival rate variability. Three simulations using Queueing theory were performed. Results Queueing theory application reduced subjects queueing over maximum safety requirements by 112 in a real-life based vaccination setting, by 483 in a double-sized setting and by 750 in a mass vaccination model compared with a linear approach. In the 3 settings, respectively, the percentage of station's time utilization was 98.6, 99.4 and 99.8%, while the average waiting time was 27.2, 33.84, and 33.84 min. Conclusions Queueing theory has already been applied in healthcare. This study, in line with recent literature developments, proposes the adoption of a Queueing theory base approach to vaccination sites modeling, during the COVID-19 pandemic, as this tool enables to quantify ahead of time the outcome of organizational choices on both safety and performance of vaccination sites.

Public Health Regulations and Policies Dealing with Preparedness and Emergency Management: The Experience of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy.

Worldwide, the management of health emergencies requires a high degree of preparedness and resilience on the part of governments and health systems. Indeed, disasters are becoming increasingly common, with significant health, social, and economic impacts. Living in a globalized world also means that emergencies that occur in one country often have an international, in some cases global, spread: the COVID-19 pandemic is a cogent example. The key elements in emergency management are central governance, coordination, investment of resources before the emergency occurs, and preparedness to deal with it at all levels. However, several factors might condition the response to the emergency, highlighting, as for Italy, strengths and weaknesses. In this context, policies and regulation of actions to be implemented at international and national level must be up-to-date, clear, transparent and, above all, feasible and implementable. Likewise, the allocation of resources to develop adequate preparedness plans is critical. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the European Commission proposed the temporary recovery instrument NextGenerationEU, as well as a targeted reinforcement of the European Union's long-term budget for the period 2021-2027. The pandemic highlighted that it is necessary to interrupt the continuous defunding of the health sector, allocating funds especially in prevention, training and information activities: indeed, a greater and more aware public attention on health risks and on the impacts of emergencies can help to promote virtuous changes, sharing contents and information that act as a guide for the population.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Safety of the BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine in the Vaccination Campaign among the Health Workers of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS.

Health workers, especially those in patient-facing roles, had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, having serious outcomes, and risking spreading the virus to patients and staff. Vaccination campaign planning suggests allocating initial supplies of BNT162b2 vaccine to health workers given the importance of early protection to safeguard the continuity of care to patients. The aim of the study is to assess the effectiveness and safety of BNT162b2 vaccine among the health workers of Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli IRCCS (FPG). The retrospective cohort study was conducted among health staff working at the FPG. Vaccination data were collected from hospital records. The primary end points were vaccine effectiveness and safety. A total of 6649 health workers were included, of whom 5162 received injections. There were 14 cases of COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after the second dose among vaccinated health workers and 45 cases among unvaccinated ones. BNT162b2 was 91.5% effective against COVID-19 (95% credible interval, 84.7% to 95.3%). The safety profile of BNT162b2 vaccine consisted of short-term, non-serious events. The promotion and boost of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign represents a key public health measure useful to curb the spread of the pandemic especially in vulnerable contexts, such as hospitals, where health workers carry out a paramount role for the entire community, and requires further protection with a possible booster dose in view of autumn-winter 2021.

Influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations are not associated to COVID-19 outcomes among patients admitted to a university hospital.

In order to reduce the burden on healthcare systems and to support differential diagnosis with COVID-19, influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations were strongly recommended during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially in vulnerable groups. However, no univocal and conclusive evidence on the relationship between influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations and COVID-19 outcomes exists. We evaluated the association between such vaccinations, COVID-19 hospitalization, intensive care unit admissions and deaths in a cohort (N = 741) of COVID-19 patients who had access to the emergency room of a large Italian University hospital between March 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020. Results show that influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations did not affect hospitalization, intensive care unit admission and deaths in COVID-19 patients in the overall sample and in those ≥65 years. The same pattern of results was confirmed considering timing of influenza vaccine administration, vaccination type, and number of uptakes in the last five vaccination campaigns. In conclusion, our study does not support an impact of influenza and pneumococcal vaccinations on COVID-19 outcomes.

Is COVID-19 a Real Incentive for Flu Vaccination? Let the Numbers Speak for Themselves.

Seasonal flu vaccination is one of the most important strategies for preventing influenza. The attitude towards flu vaccination in light of the COVID-19 pandemic has so far been studied in the literature mostly with the help of surveys and questionnaires. Whether a person chooses to be vaccinated or not during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, speaks louder than any declaration of intention. In our teaching hospital, we registered a statistically significant increase in flu vaccination coverage across all professional categories between the 2019/2020 and the 2020/2021 campaign (24.19% vs. 54.56%, p < 0.0001). A linear regression model, based on data from four previous campaigns, predicted for the 2020/2021 campaign a total flu vaccination coverage of 30.35%. A coverage of 54.46% was, instead, observed, with a statistically significant difference from the predicted value (p < 0.0001). The COVID-19 pandemic can, therefore, be considered as an incentive that significantly and dramatically increased adherence to flu vaccination among our healthcare workers.

COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests.

Healthcare workers are at the forefront against COVID-19, worldwide. Since Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS was enlisted as a COVID-19 hospital, the healthcare workers deployed to COVID-19 wards were separated from those with limited/no exposure, whereas the administrative staff were designated to work from home. Between 4 June and 3 July 2020, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies among the employees of the FPG using point-of-care (POC) and venous blood tests. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs as the diagnostic gold standard. The participants enrolled amounted to 4777. Seroprevalence was 3.66% using the POC test and 1.19% using the venous blood test, with a significant difference (p < 0.05). The POC test sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 63.64% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.20% to 65.04%) and 96.64% (95% CI: 96.05% to 97.13%), while those of the venous blood test were, respectively, 78.79% (95% CI: 77.58% to 79.94%) and 99.36% (95% CI: 99.07% to 99.55%). Among the low-risk populations, the POC test's predictive values were 58.33% (positive) and 98.23% (negative), whereas those of the venous blood test were 92.86% (positive) and 98.53% (negative). According to our study, these serological tests cannot be a valid alternative to diagnose COVID-19 infection in progress.