SARS-CoV-2 COLLECTIVE IMMUNITY AMONG THE POPULATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has become a substantial global health crisis, unparalleled in world history. Infection dynamics can have specific characteristics in different countries due to social, economic, climatic, or geographic factors. Aim(s): to study features of SARS-CoV-2 collective immunity among the Armenian population. Materials and methods. A cross-sectional, randomized study of collective immunity was carried out according to a program developed by Rospotrebnadzor and the St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute, taking into account WHO recommendations. The study was approved by the ethics committees of the National Center for Infectious Diseases (Armenia) and the St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute (Russia). A volunteer cohort was formed (N = 6057), randomized by age and region. The study's analysis included: shares and distributions of antibodies (Abs) to nucleocapsid (Nc) antigen (Ag) and receptor binding domain (RBD) S-1 Ag in the cohort;and quantitative determination of these Abs by ELISA. During the survey, a history of vaccination was indicated by 4395 people. Results. Overall seropositivity formed in the whole cohort (by April 14, 2022) was 98.6% (95% CI: 98.1-98.7). It did not depend on age, place of residence, or occupation. When quantifying Nc and RBD Abs, the proportions of volunteers with Nc Ab levels of 1-17 BAU/ml and RBD Ab levels of 22.6-220 BAU/ml were the smallest, amounting to 6.9% (95% CI: 6.2-7.5) and 20.4% (95% CI: 19.4-21.4), respectively. With increasing serum concentrations (Nc > 667 BAU/ml, RBD > 450 BAU/ml), the proportions of individuals with the corresponding levels were 20.2% for Nc (95% CI: 19.2-21.3) and 54.2% for RBD (95% CI: 52.9-55.5). Vaccination coverage was 72.6% (95% CI: 71.5-73.7). The most frequently used were Sinopharm/BIBP (32.4%), AZD1222 (22.3%), and Gam-COVID-Vac (21%). The remaining vaccines (CoronaVac, mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, CoviVac) were used by 24.3% of vaccinated individuals. When summing vaccines by platform, it was found that: vector vaccines were used in 40.34% (95% CI: 33.57-42.39) of cases;whole-virion vaccines were used in 26.83% (95% CI: 24.76-32.20);and mRNA vaccines were used in 6.33% (95% CI: 4.84-8.91). Conclusion. The epidemic situation in Armenia by April 2022 was characterized by a high level of collective immunity, independent of age or regional factors. Vector and whole-virion vaccines have been used most widely.Copyright © Popova A.Yu. et al., 2023.

Assessing Implementation of Prevention and Infection Control Programs in Armenian Hospitals during the Covid-19 Pandemic

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601-800 points), intermediate (401-600 points), basic (201-400 points) and inadequate (0-200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0 +/- 7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate" level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) - to the average category and 3 (2.7%) - to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) - 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) - 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) - 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.

ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTION AND INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS IN ARMENIAN HOSPITALS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601-800 points), intermediate (401-600 points), basic (201-400 points) and inadequate (0-200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0+/-7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate" level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) - to the average category and 3 (2.7%) - to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) - 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) - 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) - 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.Copyright © 2022 Saint Petersburg Pasteur Institute. All rights reserved.

ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTION AND INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS IN ARMENIAN HOSPITALS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC.

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601-800 points), intermediate (401-600 points), basic (201-400 points) and inadequate (0-200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0+/-7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate" level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) - to the average category and 3 (2.7%) - to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) - 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) - 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) - 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.Copyright © 2022 Saint Petersburg Pasteur Institute. All rights reserved.

ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF PREVENTION AND INFECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS IN ARMENIAN HOSPITALS DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Aim of the study was to assess the current state of implementating key aspects of infection prevention and control (IPC) in Armenian hospitals, defined by the main WHO components, using the survey tool IPCAF (Infection Prevention and Control Assessment Framework). Materials and methods. 113 hospitals were involved in the study. All participants filled out the IPCAF questionnaire, consisting of 8 sections (each rated up to 100 points) devoted to various IPC aspects. Depending on the total final score, IPC programs were divided into the following categories: advanced (601–800 points), intermediate (401–600 points), basic (201–400 points) and inadequate (0–200 points). The study conducted a descriptive analysis of the overall IPCAF score as well as score evaluation of the relevant core components and some selected questions of particular interest. Results. The 2021 total average score for all IPCAF components for all hospitals in Armenia is 578.0±7.9 points, which is currently regarded as an "intermediate” level. At the same time, 47 (41.6%) hospitals were assigned to the advanced category, 63 (55.7%) — to the average category and 3 (2.7%) — to the basic category. Analysis of the main IPC components (CC, Core component) revealed that the maximum average scores were obtained for the components CC2 (IPC Guidelines) — 80.8 points, CC8 (Creating a safe environment in medical premises, as well as materials and equipment for IPC) — 75.5 points and CC7 (Workload, staffing and number of beds) — 75.2 points. The lowest average scores were obtained for the key components: CC4 (Surveillance for healthcare-associated infections) with 54.7 points and CC3 (IPC education and training) with 59.5 points. Conclusion. Legislative and practical changes implemented in the real world during the novel coronavirus infection (COVID-19) pandemic have significantly contributed to improved scores for many key components of IPC programs. The study found that the IPCAF is a useful tool for assessing IPC standards and identifying gaps, regardless of a country economic development level. In our opinion, the re-use of IPCAF in all medical institutions should be encouraged, which is important for monitoring changes and trends in IPC, as well as proposing individual strategies in the development and improvement of IPC.