Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol ; : 1-4, 2021 Dec 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2299090

RESUMEN

We performed viral culture of nasopharyngeal specimens in individuals aged 79 and older, infected with severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), 10 days after symptom onset. A positive viral culture was obtained in 10 (45%) of 22 participants, including 4 (33%) of 12 individuals with improving symptoms. The results of this small study suggest that infectivity may be prolonged among older individuals.

2.
Ann Intern Med ; 2022 Nov 29.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2203118

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if medical masks offer similar protection against COVID-19 compared with N95 respirators. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical masks are noninferior to N95 respirators to prevent COVID-19 in health care workers providing routine care. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04296643). SETTING: 29 health care facilities in Canada, Israel, Pakistan, and Egypt from 4 May 2020 to 29 March 2022. PARTICIPANTS: 1009 health care workers who provided direct care to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Use of medical masks versus fit-tested N95 respirators for 10 weeks, plus universal masking, which was the policy implemented at each site. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 52 of 497 (10.46%) participants in the medical mask group versus 47 of 507 (9.27%) in the N95 respirator group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.69]). An unplanned subgroup analysis by country found that in the medical mask group versus the N95 respirator group RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 occurred in 8 of 131 (6.11%) versus 3 of 135 (2.22%) in Canada (HR, 2.83 [CI, 0.75 to 10.72]), 6 of 17 (35.29%) versus 4 of 17 (23.53%) in Israel (HR, 1.54 [CI, 0.43 to 5.49]), 3 of 92 (3.26%) versus 2 of 94 (2.13%) in Pakistan (HR, 1.50 [CI, 0.25 to 8.98]), and 35 of 257 (13.62%) versus 38 of 261 (14.56%) in Egypt (HR, 0.95 [CI, 0.60 to 1.50]). There were 47 (10.8%) adverse events related to the intervention reported in the medical mask group and 59 (13.6%) in the N95 respirator group. LIMITATION: Potential acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 through household and community exposure, heterogeneity between countries, uncertainty in the estimates of effect, differences in self-reported adherence, differences in baseline antibodies, and between-country differences in circulating variants and vaccination. CONCLUSION: Among health care workers who provided routine care to patients with COVID-19, the overall estimates rule out a doubling in hazard of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for medical masks when compared with HRs of RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 for N95 respirators. The subgroup results varied by country, and the overall estimates may not be applicable to individual countries because of treatment effect heterogeneity. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, World Health Organization, and Juravinski Research Institute.

3.
Am J Infect Control ; 49(9): 1152-1157, 2021 09.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1208791

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among healthcare workers (HCW) remains poorly understood. We assessed HCWs' willingness to be vaccinated and reasons underlying hesitancy. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey across 17 healthcare institutions. HCWs eligible for vaccination (Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA) in December 2020 were invited to receive immunization. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of acceptance. Reasons for refusal among those who never intended to be vaccinated (ie, firm refusers) and those who preferred delaying vaccination (ie, vaccine hesitants) were assessed. RESULTS: Among 2,761 respondents (72% female, average age, 44), 2,233 (80.9%) accepted the vaccine. Physicians, environmental services workers and healthcare managers were more likely to accept vaccination compared to nurses. Male sex, age over 50, rehabilitation center workers, and occupational COVID-19 exposure were independently associated with vaccine acceptance by multivariate analysis. Factors for refusal included vaccine novelty, wanting others to receive it first, and insufficient time for decision-making. Among those who declined, 74% reported they may accept future vaccination. Vaccine firm refusers were more likely than vaccine hesitants to distrust pharmaceutical companies and to prefer developing a natural immunity by getting COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine hesitancy exists among HCWs. Our findings provide useful information to plan future interventions and improve acceptance.


Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , Personal de Salud , Negativa a la Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunación/psicología , Adulto , COVID-19/prevención & control , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/administración & dosificación , Canadá , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA