Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 39
Filter
1.
Vaccine ; 2024 May 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38760269

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccines in preventing infection and hospitalization among healthcare workers (HCWs) in the Valencian Community (Spain), considering vaccination timing, dose number, and predominant variant. METHODS: A test-negative case-control design estimated vaccine effectiveness against symptomatic disease and hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2. HCWs who underwent PCR or antigen testing for SARS-CoV-2 from January 2021 to March 2022 were included. Cases had a positive diagnostic test, while controls had negative tests. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) was calculated using the formula: aVE = (1 - Odds ratio) × 100. RESULTS: During the Delta variant's predominance, aVE against infection within 12-120 days post-second dose was 64.8 % (BNT162b2) and 59.4 % (mRNA-1273), declining to 21.2 % and 42.2 %, respectively, after 120 days. For the Omicron variant, aVE within 12-120 days post-second dose was 61.1 % (BNT162b2) and 85.1 % (mRNA-1273), decreasing to 36.7 % and 24.9 %, respectively, after 120 days. After a booster dose of mRNA-1273, aVE was 64.0 % (BNT162b2 recipients) and 65.9 % (initial mRNA-1273 recipients). Regardless of variant, aVE for hospitalization prevention after 2 doses was 87.0 % (BNT162b2) and 89.0 % (mRNA-1273). CONCLUSION: The administration of two doses of Moderna-mRNA-1273 against SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs proved to be highly effective in preventing infections and hospitalizations in the first 120 days after the second dose during the predominance of the Omicron variant. The decline in VE after 120 days since the administration of the second dose was significantly restored by the booster dose administration. This increase in VE was greater for the Pfizer vaccine. COVID-19 hospitalization prevention remained stable with both mRNA vaccines throughout the study period.

2.
Vaccines (Basel) ; 12(4)2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38675752

ABSTRACT

Influenza is a health problem and vaccination is the most effective measure to prevent it. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccination coverage (VC) against influenza in healthcare workers (HCWs). A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Dr. Balmis University General Hospital in the province of Alicante (Spain), in which vaccination data were collected retrospectively. Adverse effects (AEs) were detected via telephone call between 15 and 30 days after vaccination. The existence of significant changes in VC between the different seasons studied was evaluated using Chi square with a statistical significance level of p < 0.05. A total of 8403 HCWs vaccinated throughout the different seasons were studied. The vaccination coverage of HCWs for influenza pre-COVID-19 pandemic (2019/20 season) was 51.9%; increased during the pandemic to 67.9% (2020/21 season) and 65.5% (2021/22 season); and, after the pandemic, it decreased to 42.7% (2022/23 season) (p < 0.05). The most frequent reason for vaccination during the periods evaluated was "self-protection", followed by "protection of patients" and "protection of family members". Of all HCWs evaluated, 26.6% (1460/5493) reported at least one AE. During the COVID-19 pandemic, HCWs' influenza vaccination coverage fluctuated considerably. There has been an increase in VC during the most critical moments of the pandemic, both in the 2020/21 and 2021/22 seasons, which has, subsequently, decreased in the 2022/2023 season, to levels below pre-pandemic (2019/2020 season), which justifies implementing specific measures to recover VC in Spain.

3.
Epidemiol Infect ; 152: e69, 2024 Apr 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38557427

ABSTRACT

Hand hygiene (HH) is the paramount measure used to prevent healthcare-associated infections. A repeated cross-sectional study was undertaken with direct observation of the degree of compliance on HH of healthcare personnel during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Between, 2018-2019, 9,083 HH opportunities were considered, and 5,821 in 2020-2022. Chi squared tests were used to identify associations. The crude and adjusted odds ratios were used along with a logistic regression model for statistical analyses. Compliance on HH increased significantly (p < 0.001) from 54.5% (95% CI: 53.5, 55.5) to 70.1% (95% CI: 68.9, 71.2) during the COVID-19 pandemic. This increase was observed in four of the five key moments of HH established by the World Health Organization (WHO) (p < 0.05), except at moment 4. The factors that were significantly and independently associated with compliance were the time period considered, type of healthcare-personnel, attendance at training sessions, knowledge of HH and WHO guidelines, and availability of hand disinfectant alcoholic solution in pocket format. Highest HH compliance occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting a positive change in healthcare-personnel's behaviour regarding HH recommendations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Guideline Adherence , Hand Hygiene , Health Personnel , Humans , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/epidemiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Hand Hygiene/statistics & numerical data , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , Hand Disinfection
4.
Enferm. infecc. microbiol. clín. (Ed. impr.) ; 42(4): 195-201, Abr. 2024. tab, graf, ilus
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-232174

ABSTRACT

Introducción: El objetivo del manuscrito es describir la vía clínica de tratamiento precoz de pacientes con infección aguda por SARS-CoV-2 y evaluar los primeros resultados de su implementación. Métodos: Estudio descriptivo y retrospectivo de la implementación de una vía clínica de tratamiento en pacientes no hospitalizados (del 1 de enero al 30 de junio de 2022). Elaboración de vía clínica: sistemas de detección y derivación desde Atención Primaria, Servicio de Urgencias, especialidades médicas y sistema de detección automatizada; evaluación clínica y administración de tratamiento en hospital de día COVID-19, y seguimiento clínico posterior. Variables explicativas: demográficas, comorbilidad, estado vacunal, vías de derivación y administración de tratamiento. Variables de resultado: hospitalización y muerte a los 30 días, toxicidad grado 2-3 relacionada con el tratamiento. Resultados: Se administró tratamiento a 262 pacientes (53,4% mujeres, mediana de edad 60 años). Criterio de indicación de tratamiento: inmunosupresión (68,3%), y la combinación de edad, estado vacunal y comorbilidad en el resto. El 47,3% de los pacientes recibieron remdesivir, el 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, el 13,4% sotrovimab y el 2,4% tratamiento combinado, con una mediana de 4 días tras el inicio de síntomas. El 6,1% de los pacientes precisó ingreso hospitalario, el 3,8% por progresión de COVID-19. Ningún paciente falleció. El 18,7% presentaron toxicidad grado 2-3: 89,8% disgeusia y sabor metálico relacionado con nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Siete pacientes interrumpieron tratamiento por toxicidad. Conclusión: La creación e implementación de una vía clínica para pacientes no hospitalizados con infección por SARS-CoV-2 es efectiva y permite la accesibilidad temprana y la equidad de los tratamientos actualmente disponibles.(AU)


Introduction: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. Methods: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30, 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. Outcome variables: hospitalization and death within 30 days, grade 2–3 toxicity related to treatment. Results: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53.4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosuppression (68.3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest; 47.3% of the patients received remdesivir, 35.9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13.4% sotrovimab and 2.4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6.1% of the patients, 3.8% related to COVID-19 progression. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2–3 toxicity was reported in 18.7%, 89.8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. Conclusion: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.(AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , /epidemiology , Critical Pathways , Epidemiology, Descriptive , Retrospective Studies , Communicable Diseases
5.
Emergencias ; 36(2): 97-103, 2024 Apr.
Article in Spanish, English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38597616

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To study differences in the emergency department treatment of acute poisoning according to biological sex of patients and to assess adherence to care quality indicators. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective observational study including all cases of acute poisoning diagnosed in patients over the age of 14 years treated in a tertiary care hospital emergency department over a period of 4 years. We analyzed demographic variables, substance type and reason for acute poisoning, degree of adherence to quality indicators, and discharge destination. RESULTS: A total of 1144 cases were included; 710 patients (62.1%) were female and 434 (37.9%) were male. The proportion of deliberate self-poisoning was higher in females (52.3% vs 41.4% in males; P .001); unintentional poisoning was less frequent in females (in 24.9% vs in 30.3% of males; P = .047). Benzodiazepine poisoning was more frequent in females (in 49.6% vs 41.2%; P = .007). Street drug and alcohol poisoning was less common in females. Adherence to quality indicators was high (> 85%) for both sexes. CONCLUSION: The epidemiologic profile of poisoning is different in females and males. General emergency department adherence to quality indicators can be considered optimal. We detected no qualitative sex-related differences in the care of patients with acute poisoning.


OBJETIVO: Estudiar las diferencias dependiendo del sexo en la atención de pacientes con intoxicaciones agudas en urgencias y en el grado de cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad (IC). METODO: Estudio observacional y retrospectivo, que incluyó todos los casos de intoxicación aguda de pacientes mayores de 14 años atendidos en el servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario durante 4 años. Se analizaron variables demográficas, tipo de tóxicos y causa de la intoxicación, el grado de cumplimiento de los IC y destino al alta. RESULTADOS: Se registraron 1.144 casos, un 62,1% (n = 710) eran mujeres. Las mujeres tuvieron mayor número de intoxicaciones voluntarias (52,3% vs 41,4%; p 0,001) y menos de manera accidental (24,9% vs 30,3%; p = 0,047). Los fármacos más frecuentes en mujeres fueron las benzodiacepinas (49,6% vs 41,2%; p = 0,007), y las intoxicaciones por drogas de abuso y alcohol fueron menores que en hombres. Hubo un alto grado de cumplimiento en la mayoría de los IC (> 85%) en ambos sexos. CONCLUSIONES: El perfil epidemiológico de la intoxicación aguda en mujeres es diferente al de los hombres. En general se puede considerar como óptimo el cumplimiento de los IC en urgencias. No existen diferencias cualitativas en la asistencia del paciente intoxicado con respecto a su sexo.


Subject(s)
Emergency Service, Hospital , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Adolescent , Female , Humans , Male , Emergency Treatment , Retrospective Studies
6.
Emergencias (Sant Vicenç dels Horts) ; 36(2): 1-7, Abr. 2024. tab
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-231794

ABSTRACT

Objetivos. Estudiar las diferencias dependiendo del sexo en la atención de pacientes con intoxicaciones agudas en urgencias y en el grado de cumplimiento de los indicadores de calidad (IC). Método. Estudio observacional y retrospectivo, que incluyó todos los casos de intoxicación aguda de pacientes mayores de 14 años atendidos en el servicio de urgencias de un hospital terciario durante 4 años. Se analizaron variables demográficas, tipo de tóxicos y causa de la intoxicación, el grado de cumplimiento de los IC y destino al alta. Resultados. Se registraron 1.144 casos, un 62,1% (n = 710) eran mujeres. Las mujeres tuvieron mayor número de intoxicaciones voluntarias (52,3% vs 41,4%; p < 0,001) y menos de manera accidental (24,9% vs 30,3%; p = 0,047). Los fármacos más frecuentes en mujeres fueron las benzodiacepinas (49,6% vs 41,2%; p = 0,007), y las intoxicaciones por drogas de abuso y alcohol fueron menores que en hombres. Hubo un alto grado de cumplimiento en la mayoría de los IC (> 85%) en ambos sexos. Conclusiones. El perfil epidemiológico de la intoxicación aguda en mujeres es diferente al de los hombres. En general se puede considerar como óptimo el cumplimiento de los IC en urgencias. No existen diferencias cualitativas en la asistencia del paciente intoxicado con respecto a su sexo. (AU)


Objective. To study differences in the emergency department treatment of acute poisoning according to biological sex of patients and to assess adherence to care quality indicators. Methods. Retrospective observational study including all cases of acute poisoning diagnosed in patients over the age of 14 years treated in a tertiary care hospital emergency department over a period of 4 years. We analyzed demographic variables, substance type and reason for acute poisoning, degree of adherence to quality indicators, and discharge destination. Results. A total of 1144 cases were included; 710 patients (62.1%) were female and 434 (37.9%) were male. The proportion of deliberate self-poisoning was higher in females (52.3% vs 41.4% in males; P < .001); unintentional poisoning was less frequent in females (in 24.9% vs in 30.3% of males; P = .047). Benzodiazepine poisoning was more frequent in females (in 49.6% vs 41.2%; P = .007). Street drug and alcohol poisoning was less common in females. Adherence to quality indicators was high (> 85%) for both sexes. Conclusions. The epidemiologic profile of poisoning is different in females and males. General emergency department adherence to quality indicators can be considered optimal. We detected no qualitative sex-related differences in the care of patients with acute poisoning. (AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Poisoning , Emergency Service, Hospital , Sex , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Toxic Substances , Mortality, Premature , Retrospective Studies , Spain
7.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed) ; 42(3): 140-145, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38342648

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Influenza poses a significant burden in terms of morbidity and mortality, with vaccination being one of the most effective measures for its prevention. Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of the influenza vaccine in preventing cases of severe influenza in patients admitted to a tertiary hospital during the 2022/23 season. METHODS: Case-control study. All hospitalised patients with a positive result in an RT-PCR for influenza were included. Those who met the criteria for a severe case (pneumonia, sepsis, multi-organ failure, admission to ICU or exitus) were considered cases. Those who did not meet these criteria were considered controls. Vaccine effectiveness (VE) to prevent severe cases and its 95% confidence interval were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients were admitted with confirmed influenza. Of these, 98 (24.3%) developed severe influenza. Of the total, 50.6% were men and 47.1% were over 65 years of age. VE adjusted for influenza type, age and certain comorbidities was 40.6% (-21.9 to 71.1). In a segmented analysis, influenza vaccine was effective in preventing severe cases in all categories. It was particularly relevant in the 65+ age group (VEa = 60.9%; -2.0 to 85.0) and in patients with influenza A (VEa = 56.7%; 1.5-80.9). CONCLUSION: Influenza vaccination markedly reduced the occurrence of severe cases of influenza in hospitalised patients, therefore, it remains the main strategy to reduce morbidity and mortality and associated costs.


Subject(s)
Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Male , Humans , Female , Influenza, Human/epidemiology , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Seasons , Vaccination
8.
Rev. esp. salud pública ; 98: e202402001, Feb. 2024.
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-231344

ABSTRACT

Desde el inicio de la pandemia de la COVID-19 en marzo de 2020, el uso de la mascarilla ha constituido un pilar fundamental para el control de la transmisión del SARS-CoV-2 en diferentes ámbitos. Su obligatoriedad ha sido regulada por diferentes normativas, y la efectividad de la misma para la reducción de la transmisión del SARS-CoV-2 y de otros virus respiratorios ha sido fuertemente probada. Al respecto, destaca el impacto beneficioso en los centros sanitarios en los que ha demostrado reducir la transmisión de las infecciones respiratorias, tanto en pacientes como en profesionales sanitarios. Este documento plantea una propuesta de recomendaciones para el uso de la mascarilla en los centros sanitarios en el momento actual en el que nos encontramos con un cese de la obligatoriedad de su uso en España. Están dirigidas a profesionales sanitarios, pacientes y acompañantes/visitantes y pretenden protegerles de adquirir infecciones respiratorias agudas como consecuencia de las complejas relaciones establecidas en el ámbito sanitario.(AU)


Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the use of masks has been a fundamental pillar for controlling the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different areas. Its mandatory nature has been regulated by different regulations, and its effectiveness in reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses has been strongly proven. In this regard, the beneficial impact stands out in healthcare centers where it has been shown to reduce the transmission of respiratory infections, both in patients and healthcare professionals. This document proposes recommendations for the use of masks in health centers at the current time when we find ourselves with an end to the mandatory use of masks in Spain. They are aimed at healthcare professionals, patients and companions/visitors and aim to protect them from acquiring acute respiratory infections as a result of the complex relationships established in the healthcare field.(AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Masks , Health Facilities , Disease Prevention , Communicable Disease Control , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , /prevention & control , Spain , Public Health , /epidemiology
9.
Rev Esp Salud Publica ; 982024 Feb 01.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38333916

ABSTRACT

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, the use of masks has been a fundamental pillar for controlling the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different areas. Its mandatory nature has been regulated by different regulations, and its effectiveness in reducing the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and other respiratory viruses has been strongly proven. In this regard, the beneficial impact stands out in healthcare centers where it has been shown to reduce the transmission of respiratory infections, both in patients and healthcare professionals. This document proposes recommendations for the use of masks in health centers at the current time when we find ourselves with an end to the mandatory use of masks in Spain. They are aimed at healthcare professionals, patients and companions/visitors and aim to protect them from acquiring acute respiratory infections as a result of the complex relationships established in the healthcare field.


Desde el inicio de la pandemia de la COVID-19 en marzo de 2020, el uso de la mascarilla ha constituido un pilar fundamental para el control de la transmisión del SARS-CoV-2 en diferentes ámbitos. Su obligatoriedad ha sido regulada por diferentes normativas, y la efectividad de la misma para la reducción de la transmisión del SARS-CoV-2 y de otros virus respiratorios ha sido fuertemente probada. Al respecto, destaca el impacto beneficioso en los centros sanitarios en los que ha demostrado reducir la transmisión de las infecciones respiratorias, tanto en pacientes como en profesionales sanitarios. Este documento plantea una propuesta de recomendaciones para el uso de la mascarilla en los centros sanitarios en el momento actual en el que nos encontramos con un cese de la obligatoriedad de su uso en España. Están dirigidas a profesionales sanitarios, pacientes y acompañantes/visitantes y pretenden protegerles de adquirir infecciones respiratorias agudas como consecuencia de las complejas relaciones establecidas en el ámbito sanitario.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Tract Infections , Humans , Spain , Pandemics/prevention & control , COVID-19/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2
10.
Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin (Engl Ed) ; 42(4): 195-201, 2024 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37003904

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest 47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Pathways , Lactams , Leucine , Nitriles , Proline , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Infant , Male , Ritonavir , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
11.
Antibiotics (Basel) ; 13(1)2023 Dec 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38275312

ABSTRACT

Healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) present a global public health challenge, contributing to high morbidity and mortality and substantial economic burdens. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) ranks as the second most prevalent HAI in intensive care units (ICUs), emphasizing the need for economic analyses in this context. This retrospective cohort study, conducted at the General Hospital of Alicante from 2012 to 2019, aimed to assess additional costs related to VAP by comparing the extended length of stay for infected and non-infected ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV) for more than 48 h. Employing propensity score association, 434 VAP patients were compared to an equal number without VAP. The findings indicate a significantly longer mechanical ventilation period for VAP patients (17.40 vs. 8.93 days, p < 0.001), resulting in an extra 13.56 days of stay and an additional cost of EUR 20,965.28 per VAP episode. The study estimated a total cost of EUR 12,348,965.28 for VAP during the study period, underscoring the economic impact of VAP. These findings underscore the urgent need for rigorous infection surveillance, prevention, and control measures to enhance healthcare quality and reduce overall expenditures.

12.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36506459

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this report is to describe the clinical pathway for early treatment of patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 infection and to evaluate the first results of its implementation. METHODS: This is a descriptive and retrospective study of the implementation of a clinical pathway of treatment in outpatients (January 1 to June 30 2022). Clinical pathway: detection and referral systems from Primary Care, Emergency services, hospital specialities and an automated detection system; clinical evaluation and treatment administration in the COVID-19 day-hospital and subsequent clinical follow-up. Explanatory variables: demographics, comorbidity, vaccination status, referral pathways and treatment administration. OUTCOME VARIABLES: hospitalization and death with 30 days, grade 2-3 toxicity related to treatment. RESULTS: Treatment was administered to 262 patients (53,4% women, median age 60 years). The treatment indication criteria were immunosupression (68,3%), and the combination of age, vaccination status and comorbidity in the rest47,3% of the patients s received remdesivir, 35,9% nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, 13,4% sotrovimab and 2,4% combined treatment with a median of 4 days after symptom onset. Hospital admission was required for 6,1% of the patients, 3,8% related to progression COVID-19. No patient died. Toxicity grade 2-3 toxicity was reported in 18,7%, 89,8% dysgeusia and metallic tasted related nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. Seven patients discontinued treatment due to toxicity. CONCLUSION: The creation and implementation of a clinical pathway for non-hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection is effective and it allows early accessibility and equity of currently available treatments.

13.
Front Cardiovasc Med ; 9: 941512, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36337886

ABSTRACT

Background: Carbohydrate antigen 125 (CA125) is an indicator of inflammation, immune response, and impaired cardiac function. The aim was to investigate whether CA125 behaves as a biomarker of severity and poor clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: Serum CA125 [Elecsys CA125 II assay-(Roche Diagnostics GmbH)] was measured in stored biobank samples from COVID-19 hospitalized patients between 01 March 2020 and 17 October 2021. Multiple logistic regression models were built to explore the association between CA125 and clinical outcomes [in-hospital all-cause mortality, need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), or non-invasive respiratory support (non-IRS)], estimating odds ratios (ORs; 95% CI). The gradient of risk of CA125 was evaluated by fractional polynomials. Results: A total of 691 patients were included, median age of 63 years (50-76), men (57.2%), with high comorbidity. At admission, 85.8% had pneumonia. Median CA125 was 10.33 U/ml (7.48-15.50). The in-hospital mortality rate was 7.2%. After adjusting for confounding factors, CA125 ≥ 15.5 U/ml (75th percentile) showed an increased risk of death [OR 2.85(1.21-6.71)], as age ≥ 65 years, diabetes, and immunosuppression. Furthermore, CA125 as a continuous variable was positive and significantly associated with the risk of death after multivariate adjustment. The mean hospital stay of the patients with CA125 ≥ 15.5 U/ml was longer than the rest of the study population. Conclusion: CA125 in the first 72 h of hospital admission seems a useful biomarker of mortality in hospitalized patients with moderate-severe COVID-19. If our findings are confirmed, the wide availability of this biomarker would make easy its widespread implementation in clinical practice.

14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36360764

ABSTRACT

The duration of protection of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection has been evaluated in previous studies, but uncertainty remains about the persistence of effectiveness over time and the ideal timing for booster doses. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate BNT162b2 vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers (HCWs) at a tertiary hospital depending on time elapsed since the completion of a two-dose vaccination regimen. We conducted a case-control with negative test study between 25 January and 12 December 2021 that included 1404 HCWs who underwent an active infection diagnostic test (AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection due to COVID-19 suspicion or prior close contact with patients diagnosed with COVID-19. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccination regimen was 91.9%. Then, aVE decreased to 63.7% between 121 to 240 days after completing the full two-dose regimen and to 37.2% after 241 days since the second dose. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs remains highly effective after 12 to 120 days have elapsed since the administration of two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine; however, effectiveness decreases as time elapses since its administration.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Vaccine Efficacy , SARS-CoV-2 , Health Personnel
15.
Prev Med ; 163: 107237, 2022 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36057393

ABSTRACT

The objective was to understand the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 in health professionals(HPs) in the Valencian Autonomous Community(Spain) who had completed a full vaccination regimen, both in terms of preventing infections and avoiding hospitalisations, according to the time elapsed since the vaccine administration. Case-controlled study with negative test results. HPs who had undergone at least one PCR or antigen(Ag) active infection diagnostic test(AIDT) to rule out SARS-CoV-2 infection between 25 January and 18 July 2021 were included. HPs with positive AIDT result were considered as cases and those with a negative result controls. Adjusted vaccine effectiveness(VEa) to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its 95% confidence interval(95% CI) were calculated using the formula VEa = (1 - OR) × 100. The VEa for the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection 12 to 120 days after completing the full two-dose vaccine regimen was 91.6%(95%CI[89.6%,93.2%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 95.2%(95%CI[88.3%,98.1%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. After 120 days the VEa was 71.5%(95%CI[67.0%,75.5%]) for the BNT162b2 vaccine and 88.3%(95%CI[75.7,94.4%]) for the mRNA-1273 vaccine. The VEa for prevention of hospitalisation for COVID-19 for the complete two-dose regimen of mRNA vaccines (BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273) was 96.8%(95%CI[76.1%,99.6%]). The administration of the complete regimen of the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was highly effective for the prevention of COVID-19 cases in HPs when 12 to 120 days had elapsed since the second dose. However, said effectiveness decreased as time from the vaccine administration elapsed, although it was maintained for the prevention of hospitalisation of HPs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Viral Vaccines , 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273 , BNT162 Vaccine , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitalization , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain/epidemiology , Vaccines, Synthetic , mRNA Vaccines
16.
Gac. sanit. (Barc., Ed. impr.) ; 36(5): 484-487, Sept.–Oct. 2022. tab
Article in Spanish | IBECS | ID: ibc-212573

ABSTRACT

Objetivo: Conocer la efectividad de la vacuna BNT162b2 en personal sanitario de un departamento de salud. Método: Estudio de casos y controles con prueba negativa. Se incluyó personal sanitario con sospecha de COVID-19 y personal sanitario que fue contacto estrecho de casos de COVID-19 entre el 25 de enero y el 6 de junio de 2021. Se les realizó prueba de reacción en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR) para SARS-CoV-2; aquellos con PCR positiva fueron considerados casos y aquellos con PCR negativa fueron considerados controles. Se calculó la efectividad vacunal ajustada (EVa) para prevenir casos de COVID-19 y su intervalo de confianza del 95% (IC95%), mediante la fórmula EV = (1 − odds ratio) × 100. Resultados: Se incluyeron 624 profesionales sanitarios; de ellos, 43 (6,9%) casos y 581 (93,1%) controles. La EVa de la pauta completa fue del 96,3% (IC95%: 82,5-99,2) y la de la pauta incompleta del 68,0% (IC95%: 30,0-85,4). Conclusiones: La administración de la pauta completa de vacuna es efectiva para la prevención de casos de COVID-19 en el personal sanitario. (AU)


Objective: To assess the effectiveness of the vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 (BNT162b2) in healthcare personnel of a health department. Method: Test-negative case̶control study. Healthcare personnel with suspected COVID-19 and healthcare personnel close contacts of COVID-19 cases were included between January 27th and June 6 th, 2021. They were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2; those with positive PCR were considered cases and those with negative PCR were considered controls. The adjusted vaccine effectiveness (aVE) to prevent COVID-19 cases and their 95% confidence interval (95%CI) were calculated using the formula VE = (1 − odds ratio) × 100. Results: 624 healthcare personnel were included, of which 43 (6.9%) were considered cases and 581 (93.8%) controls. The aVE of the complete regimen was 96.3% (95%CI: 82.5̶99.2). The aVE of the incomplete pattern was 68.0% (95%CI: 30.0̶85.4). Conclusions: The administration of the complete pattern of BNT162b2 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 is effective for the prevention of cases of COVID-19 in healthcare personnel. (AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Pandemics , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Mass Vaccination , Health Personnel , Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus , Case-Control Studies , Interviews as Topic
17.
Am J Infect Control ; 50(4): 435-439, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35369937

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA) is the third leading aetiological agent in healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) and the one most frequently found in patients with pneumonia associated with mechanical ventilation. In intensive care units (ICU), its appearance is associated with higher mortality, an increase in the days spent on ventilation, and hospital stay length and costs. Thus, evaluating strategies for preventing these infections is essential for their control. Therefore, our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of the systematic use of antimicrobial filters in preventing PA infections in critical care units. METHODS: This was an open experimental crossover study. A total of 2,156 patients admitted for more than 24 hours in critical care units were included, 1,129 of them in units with filters, and 1,027 in units without filters. The study groups were followed-up for 24 months and HAIs were checked for the presence of PA. Chi-squared test were used to compare the rate of HAIs between groups and we calculated 95% confidence intervals adjusted by Poisson regression for the rate ratio (RR) of the association magnitude. RESULTS: Both groups were homogeneous in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic patient factors. The incidence of PA infections in the units with filters was 5.5 cases/1,000 hospitalized days and 5.4/1,000 hospitalized days for the units without water filters (RR = 1.09 [0.67-1.79]). CONCLUSIONS: Routine placing antimicrobial filters in the water taps in critical care units was not an effective means of preventing the emergence of HAIs caused by PA.


Subject(s)
Anti-Infective Agents , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Critical Care , Cross-Over Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Water
18.
J Clin Med ; 11(6)2022 Mar 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35330006

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Even after two years of pandemic, there are still uncertainties on how to proceed when we schedule endoscopic procedures. During the COVID-19 pandemic, some scientific societies recommended universal preprocedural testing for all patients. However, other societies recommended against and considered enough to maintain strict infection control strategies. Our aim was to evaluate this approach in order to see if it was safe for both patients and healthcare workers to proceed with the endoscopies without performing a systematic PCR on all patients. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing endoscopy without preprocedural COVID testing at our center from March 2020 to May 2021. PCR tests performed in the patients receiving an endoscopic procedure were analyzed, and patients who tested positive between 14 days before and after the endoscopic procedure were selected. The registry of the endoscopy unit members participating in these procedures was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 10,132 procedures were performed in the unit with 26 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nineteen of these procedures were performed in patients with unknown SARS-CoV-2 carrier status. In 23 (88.5%) cases, transmission occurred through social or familial contact, and in 3 (11.5%), transmission occurred in the hospital. Four health care workers became infected during this period and none of them were related to the endoscopic procedures performed in patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 positive testing in asymptomatic ambulatory patients is rare and the adequate use of individual protective measures emerges as the main way to control the spread of COVID-19 infection in endoscopy centers.

19.
Neurologia ; 2022 Feb 14.
Article in Spanish | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35185237

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: There is early evidence about Valproic acid (VPA) antiviral effect. Our aim was to investigate the incidence and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection in VPA users as compared with the general population. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A case-control study nested within a cohort, carried out between March 1 and December 17, 2020. Retrospectively, we identified confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection patients exposed to VPA in our health department (defined as case). We ascertained VPA regimen (all the time (AT)(292 days) or at least 20% of the study period (notAT)(≥58 days) and if VPA levels were in therapeutic range (ATR) (50-100 mcg/mL) in the last 24 months. We calculated the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospital admission in the cases, comparing it with the general unexposed VPA population (controls). RESULTS: During the study period, 6183 PCR+ were detected among 281035 inhabitants, of these, 746 were hospitalized. 691 patients were on VPA notAT and 628 (90.1%) AT. The indication for VPA use was epilepsy in 54.9%. The incidence of PCR+ was 1.736 % (OR 0.785 (95%CI 0.443-1.390) and 1.910 % (OR 0.865 (95%CI 0.488-1.533), on VPA notAT and VPA AT patients, respectively vs. 2.201% in people without VPA regimen. Those patients with VPA ATR had a lower risk of PCR + (OR 0.233 (95%CI 0.057-0.951) notAT; OR 0.218 (95%CI 0.053-0.890) AT). Hospital admission incidence was lower in patient on VPA (OR was 0.543 (95% CI 0.076 to 3.871). CONCLUSION: Patients with VPA within the therapeutic range had a reduction of SARS-Cov-2 infection incidence greater than 75%. There is a downward trend in the risk of COVID-19 admission by SARS-CoV-2 in patients on VPA therapy. These findings warrant further investigation.

20.
Int J Infect Dis ; 118: 89-94, 2022 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35172182

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe breakthrough COVID-19 infection in patients who needed hospitalization and the factors associated with poor outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between December 27, 2020, and October 17, 2021, with either a complete vaccination (CV) scheme (diagnosed 2 weeks after the second dose of the Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca or first dose of the Janssen vaccine was administered) or a partial vaccination (PV) scheme. The main outcomes were all-cause mortality and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The baseline factors associated with the outcomes were analyzed by multiple logistic regression to estimate the odds ratios (odds ratio [OR]; 95% confidence interval [CI]). RESULTS: A total of 145 (101 CV) patients were included. The CV subgroup was mainly composed of older males with high comorbidity (Charlson Index ≥3, 72%; immunosuppression, 20%) and with bilateral pneumonia in 63.4%. Limited therapeutic effort (LTE) was agreed upon for 28% of the patients. In the CV subgroup, endotracheal intubation was required in 10.9% of patients, reaching 15.3% when excluding LTE patients; the global mortality was 22.8%, reaching 41.4% in the subgroup with LTE. Although the patients with PV were younger and had fewer comorbidities, the main outcomes did not differ significantly between the CV and PV groups. The predictors of poor outcomes were age ≥ 65 years, confusion, ferritin > 500 mg/L, extensive lung infiltrates, and a Charlson Index ≥ 3. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CV hospitalized because of breakthrough COVID-19 infection tend to be older persons, with comorbidities, and have a high mortality.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Vaccines , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Retrospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...