Effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and the CoronaVac vaccines and boosters in healthcare workers.

The evidence on the waning protection of COVID-19 vaccines has been reviewed by the World Health Organization and has led to consideration of the need for booster doses. This study aimed to evaluate vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19, and the COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers who received various types (inactive or m-RNA) and doses (2 to 4 doses) of the COVID-19 vaccine. The study was conducted with a total of 3,009 healthcare workers between August 1 and November 30, 2021 at a university hospital. Six different vaccination statuses were evaluated in the study. The effectiveness for COVID-19 infection, after adjusting for age, sex, and position, was highest in those who received two doses of CoronaVac and two doses of BNT162b2 (89.3%, 95% CI 72.2-95.9%) and was lowest in those who received two doses of CoronaVac (29%, 95% CI - 8-53%). The adjusted effectiveness of two doses of CoronaVac for COVID-19 infection was not significant (21.0%, 95% CI - 20.7-48.3%) but increased significantly with a booster dose of CoronaVac or BNT162b2. One or two doses of the BNT162b2 booster demonstrated higher effectiveness in comparison to a single dose of the CoronaVac booster. These results indicate the need for a booster dose, and heterologous boosting with BNT162b2 may be a better option for higher effectiveness for those who received two doses of CoronaVac. Future studies should evaluate the need for further booster doses and their long-term effects.

Long-term neurodevelopmental effects of exclusively high cord lactate levels in term newborn.

INTRODUCTION: Cord arterial blood gas analysis (ABGA) results are used as diagnostic criteria for hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy in newborns with suspected perinatal asphyxia. This study evaluated the effect of cord ABGA lactate level on the long-term neurodevelopment of newborns without any clinical signs of perinatal asphyxia. METHODS: This clinical observation study was designed among term babies born between 2018 and 2019 in our unit. Cases with a 5-min Apgar score <7 and signs of fetal distress in their antenatal follow-up were excluded. The cases (n = 1438) were divided into two groups those with high cord lactate levels (above 5 mmol/L, n = 92) and those with low lactate levels (below 2 mmol/L, n = 255). An Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Third Edition (ASQ-3) developmental screening questionnaire was sent to all parents. Patients with a chronological age between 24 and 42 months and for whom the parents fulfilled the questionnaire (low lactate group, n = 29, and high lactate group, n = 45) were evaluated. RESULTS: No difference was observed between the two groups in terms of demographic characteristics such as age (p = .1669), male gender (p = .906), mother's working situation (p = .948), mother's education level (p = .828), father's education level (p = .507), and family's total income (p = .642). Mean ACQ-3 developmental screening test scores were significantly lower in the high lactate group compared to the low lactate group concerning; fine motor (40 vs. 60, p = .001), problem-solving (50 vs. 60, p = .002), and personal social development (45 vs. 60, p = .003). No difference was observed in terms of communication and gross motor total scores. DISCUSSION: In general practice, routine cord ABGA is not generally recommended for patients with normal Apgar scores and no suspected hypoxia. However, in this study, we observed that cases with a normal 5-min Apgar score, no suspected perinatal asphyxia, and a cord lactate value of ≥5 fell behind their peers when evaluated with the ACQ-3 developmental screening questionnaire.

Evaluation of Short-Term Outcomes of Preterm Infants in 2 Periods: Vermont Oxford Network Results of a Developing Country's Single- Center Level IIIC Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Experience.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes of infants from our level IIIC neonatal intensive care unit in 2 different periods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this cohort study, data from preterm infants (≤29 weeks and birth weight <1500 g) registered in the Vermont Oxford Network system were divided into 2 periods, the first period between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2009, and the second between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. RESULTS: There was no difference in the distribution of preterm infants according to their gestational age subgroups (P = .169). Although the survival rate increased significantly in the second period (48.1% vs. 64.3% (P < .001), there was no difference in terms of survival without morbidity (P = .480). The frequency of antenatal care (P < .001), antenatal maternal steroid use (P < .001), cesarean section (P = .025), and small for gestational age (P < .003) increased in the second period. Surfactant treatment in the delivery room (P < .003), neonatal intensive care unit (P < .001), and nasal continuous positive airway pressure use before intubation as a part of initial resuscitation (P < .001), nosocomial infections (P = .001), patent ductus arteriosus requiring medical treatment (P = .011), and necrotizing enterocolitis (P = .014) were significantly more common, but early neonatal sepsis (P = .002) and discharge home with only formula (P = .010) were less in the second period. CONCLUSION: Differences were noted in the prognosis and treatment choices of preterm infants in the same unit between 2 periods. The analysis of neonatal intensive care unit data, through rigorous methods, may provide opportunities for the development of quality improvement projects to improve the quality of health care in developing countries.

An assessment on loss of workforce due to COVID-19 among healthcare personnel: A university hospital experience.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare personnel are among the COVID-19 risk groups. For this reason, increased absence from work affects the loss of labor. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the workforce loss amongst health personnel working in our hospital due to COVID-19 in a one-year period. METHODS: Workforce loss of healthcare workers was assessed via absenteeism and life expectancy. Loss of workforce for COVID-19 PCR positive or PCR negative but CT findings compatible with COVID-19 and personnel with high-risk exposure for COVID-19 were determined with absenteeism. Healthcare personnel who passed away due to COVID-19 was determined with the consideration of the retirement age and expected life years. RESULTS: Total lost time from work was 14635 days (excluding deaths). Loss of workforce rates resulting from COVID-19 positivity for male employees was greater in comparison to the results for females (p = 0.018). High-risk exposure of healthcare personnel working in clinical sciences was higher than those in other departments (p < 0.001). Total loss in workforce for 3 people passed away was 14 years 5 months, and total life expectancy was 64 years. Healthcare personnel under the age of 40 had less absenteeism than those over 40 years (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that all occupational groups working at the hospital were impacted by COVID-19. The two most important factors that influenced absenteeism were the reason for being affected (positivity and high risk) and age. Absenteeism and daily case tracing of healthcare personnel working on the frontlines will aid in both the pandemic control and management of workload for those left behind.

Waning effectiveness of CoronaVac in real life: A retrospective cohort study in health care workers.

BACKGROUND: Real-world studies showed varying levels of effectiveness of CoronaVac vaccine against COVID-19 disease. This study aimed to assess the association between the vaccination with CoronaVac and the COVID-19 infections among the health care workers in a university hospital and to determine the vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 in a period when alpha variant was dominant. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in a university hospital in Istanbul, Turkey employs 4067 health care workers. The follow-up period was defined as starting 14 days after receiving the second dose for fully vaccinated group. Health care workers were censored when have a positive PCR test result or at the end of the study. Unvaccinated health care workers were censored if they receive any COVID-19 vaccine doses. The incidence rate ratio and Cox regression were used to estimate the unadjusted and adjusted effectiveness of the vaccine. FINDINGS: Seventy-one percent of the health care workers were fully vaccinated whereas 29% percent did not receive any doses. The incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 133.7 vs 70.7 per 100.000 person-days in the unvaccinated and fully vaccinated groups, respectively. The unadjusted effectiveness against COVID-19 infection was 47% (95% CI 31-59%) whereas adjusted effectiveness was 39% (95% CI 20-64%). INTERPRETATION: This real life study conducted in health care workers demonstrated that the effectiveness of two doses of the CoronaVac vaccine (39%) was lower than that determined in clinical trials. Due to reduce in protection over time or against variants, booster doses may be needed.

COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Healthcare Personnel: A University Hospital Experience.

Healthcare workers are among risk groups in the COVID-19. Even if they are not infected with the disease, they witness the effects of the pandemic. The aim of the study is to determine the factors affecting COVID-19 vaccination status and reasons for vaccine hesitancy of healthcare personnel in our hospital. Firstly, the vaccination status and demographic characteristics of all healthcare personnel was evaluated. After that, a survey was applied to 408 vaccinated and 297 nonvaccinated personnel. Within the first month after the beginning of vaccination, 66% of 3937 healthcare personnel received a COVID-19 vaccine. The number of vaccinated personnel was higher among doctors, master graduates or higher educational levels and basic science-laboratory unit workers. In the surveyed group, being under the age of 50 (OR:1.85), being nondoctor healthcare personnel (nurse/midwife OR:1.78, administrative personnel OR:3.42, patient attendant/cleaning staff OR:4.11, security guard/other OR:2.96), having had the disease before (OR:2.36), not having the flu vaccine (OR:3.24) and hesitancy about other vaccines (OR:6.61) were found to be independent risk factors for not having a COVID-19 vaccine or having it late. The three most common reasons for not getting vaccinated were doubt on the efficacy of the vaccine, distrust of its content, and fear of side effects. Taking steps by considering the main factors of hesitancy among healthcare personnel will increase the vaccine acceptance.