RESUMEN
ObjectivesHealthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of contracting coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) than the general population. This study assessed the roles of various exposures and personal protective equipment (PPE) use on that risk for HCWs working in primary care, long-term-care facilities (LTCFs) or hospitals. MethodsWe conducted a matched case-control (1:1) study (10 April-9 July 2021). Cases (HCWs with confirmed COVID-19) and controls (HCWs without any COVID-19-positive test or symptoms) recruited by email were invited to complete an online questionnaire on their exposures and PPE use. Questions covered the 10 days preceding symptom onset for cases (or testing if asymptomatic) or inclusion for controls. ResultsA total of 4152 matched cases and controls were included. The multivariable conditional logistic regression analysis retained exposure to an infected person outside work (adjusted odds ratio, 19.9 [95% confidence intervaI, 12.4-31.9]), an infected colleague (2.26 [1.53-3.33]) or COVID-19 patients (2.37 [1.66-3.40]), as independent predictors of COVID-19 in HCWs, while partial or complete immunization was protective. Eye protection (0.57 [0.37-0.87]) and wearing a gown (0.58 [0.34-0.97]) during COVID-19 patient care were protective, while wearing an apron slightly increased the risk of infection (1.47 [1.00-2.18]). N95-respirator protection was comparable to that of surgical masks. Results were consistent across healthcare-facility categories. ConclusionsHCWs were more likely to get COVID-19 in their personal sphere than during occupational activities. Our results suggest that eye protection for HCWs during patient care should be actively promoted.
RESUMEN
Purpose@#Anal dysplasia is caused by chronic infection with the human papillomavirus and exposes to the risk of anal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of dysplasia anal grade among patients operated on for multiple anal condylomas with no macroscopic differences. @*Methods@#This is a cross-sectional study of patients operated on for multiple anal condylomas including a mapping of dysplasia by performing systematically for each patient one biopsy on visible lesion from each of the 4 quadrants on anal margin and in anal canal. All biopsies were read independently by 2 different pathologists. @*Results@#Among 72 patients, 60 were men and 48 were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected with a median age of 37.5 years. The proportion of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) was higher in the anal canal (41.7%) compared to the margin (20.8%) (P = 0.004). HSIL frequency did not differ according to the quadrant (anterior, posterior, right, and left) of the 2 areas. HSIL on anal canal was not associated with HSIL on anal margin and vice versa (P = 0.390). Neither age nor sex was associated to HSIL but HIV positivity increased the risk of HSIL on the anal margin (P = 0.010). @*Conclusion@#Anal dysplasia is heterogeneously distributed in the anal canal as well as between anal canal and anal margin. The diagnostic of the grade of dysplasia for a person should require multiple biopsies on the canal and anal margin.
RESUMEN
Purpose@#Anal dysplasia is caused by chronic infection with the human papillomavirus and exposes to the risk of anal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of dysplasia anal grade among patients operated on for multiple anal condylomas with no macroscopic differences. @*Methods@#This is a cross-sectional study of patients operated on for multiple anal condylomas including a mapping of dysplasia by performing systematically for each patient one biopsy on visible lesion from each of the 4 quadrants on anal margin and in anal canal. All biopsies were read independently by 2 different pathologists. @*Results@#Among 72 patients, 60 were men and 48 were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected with a median age of 37.5 years. The proportion of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) was higher in the anal canal (41.7%) compared to the margin (20.8%) (P = 0.004). HSIL frequency did not differ according to the quadrant (anterior, posterior, right, and left) of the 2 areas. HSIL on anal canal was not associated with HSIL on anal margin and vice versa (P = 0.390). Neither age nor sex was associated to HSIL but HIV positivity increased the risk of HSIL on the anal margin (P = 0.010). @*Conclusion@#Anal dysplasia is heterogeneously distributed in the anal canal as well as between anal canal and anal margin. The diagnostic of the grade of dysplasia for a person should require multiple biopsies on the canal and anal margin.
RESUMEN
Objective: We aimed to estimate the risk of infection in Healthcare workers (HCWs) following a high-risk exposure without personal protective equipment (PPE). Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort in HCWs who had a high-risk exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected subject without PPE. Daily symptoms were self-reported for 30 days, nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR were performed at inclusion and at days 3, 5, 7 and 12, SARS-CoV-2 serology was assessed at inclusion and at day 30. Confirmed infection was defined by positive RT-PCR or seroconversion, and possible infection by one general and one specific symptom for two consecutive days. Results: Between February 5th and May 30th, 2020, 154 HCWs were enrolled within 14 days following one high-risk exposure to either a hospital patient (70/154; 46.1%) and/or a colleague (95/154; 62.5%). At day 30, 25.0% had a confirmed infection (37/148; 95%CI, 18.4%; 32.9%), and 43.9% (65/148; 95%CI, 35.9%; 52.3%) had a confirmed or possible infection. Factors independently associated with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection were being a pharmacist or administrative assistant rather than being from medical staff (adjusted OR (aOR)=3.8, CI95%=1.3;11.2, p=0.01), and exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected patient rather than exposure to a SARS-CoV-2-infected colleague (aOR=2.6, CI95%=1.2;5.9, p=0.02). Among the 26 HCWs with a SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal swab, 7 (26.9%) had no symptom at the time of the RT-PCR positivity. Conclusions: The proportion of HCWs with confirmed or possible SARS-CoV-2 infection was high. There were less occurrences of high-risk exposure with patients than with colleagues, but those were associated with an increased risk of infection.
RESUMEN
Background. Molecular assays on nasopharyngeal swabs remain the cornerstone of COVID-19 diagnostic. Despite massive worldwide efforts, the high technicalities of nasopharyngeal sampling and molecular assays, as well as scarce resources of reagents, limit our testing capabilities. Several strategies failed, to date, to fully alleviate this testing process (e.g. saliva sampling or antigen testing on nasopharyngeal samples). We assessed the performances of a new ELISA microplate assay quantifying SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antigen (N-antigen) in serum or plasma. Methods. The specificity of the assay, determined on 63 non-COVID patients, was 98.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.3 to 100). Performances were determined on 227 serum samples from 165 patients with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection included in the French COVID and CoV-CONTACT cohorts. Findings. Sensitivity was 132/142, 93.0% (95% CI, 84.7 to 100), within the first two weeks after symptoms onset. A subset of 73 COVID-19 patients had a serum collected within 24 hours following or preceding a positive nasopharyngeal swab. Among patients with high nasopharyngeal viral loads, Ct value below 30 and 33, only 1/50 and 4/67 tested negative for N-antigenemia, respectively. Among patients with a negative nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, 8/12 presented positive N-antigenemia. The lower respiratory tract was explored for 6/8 patients, showing positive PCR in 5 cases. Interpretation. This is the first demonstration of the N-antigen antigenemia during COVID-19. Its detection presented a robust sensitivity, especially within the first 14 days after symptoms onset and high nasopharyngeal viral loads. These findings have to be confirmed with higher representation of outpatients. This approach could provide a valuable new option for COVID-19 diagnosis, only requiring a blood draw and easily scalable in all clinical laboratories.
