Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Epidemiol Infect ; 151: e190, 2023 Nov 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37929620

RESUMO

Skin and Soft Tissue Infections (SSTIs) are common bacterial infections. We hypothesized that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SSTI rates would significantly decrease due to directives to avoid unneeded care and attenuated SSTIs risk behaviours. We retrospectively examined all patients with an ICD-10 diagnosis code in the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, the second largest U.S. safety net healthcare system between 16 March 2017 and 15 March 2022. We then compared pre-pandemic with intra-pandemic SSTI rates using an interrupted time series analysis. We found 72,118 SSTIs, 46,206 during the pre-pandemic period and 25,912 during the intra-pandemic period. Pre-pandemic SSTI rate was significantly higher than the intra-pandemic rate (3.27 vs. 2.31 cases per 1,000 empanelled patient-months, P < 0.0001). The monthly SSTI cases decreased by 1.19 SSTIs/1,000 empanelled patient-months between the pre- and intra-pandemic periods (P = 0.0003). SSTI subgroups (inpatient, observation unit, emergency department, and outpatient clinics), all had significant SSTI decreases between the two time periods (P < 0.05) except for observation unit (P = 0.50). Compared to the pre-COVID-19 pandemic period, medically attended SSTI rates in our large U.S. safety net healthcare system significantly decreased by nearly 30%. Whether findings reflect true SSTI decreases or decreased health system utilization for SSTIs requires further examination.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles , Humanos , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles/epidemiologia , Infecções dos Tecidos Moles/microbiologia , Pandemias , Estudos Retrospectivos , Incidência , COVID-19/epidemiologia
2.
Front Immunol ; 14: 1139915, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37153624

RESUMO

Introduction: SARS-CoV-2 is the etiologic agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Questions remain regarding correlates of risk and immune protection against COVID-19. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 200 participants with a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 occupational exposure at a U.S. medical center between December 2020 and April 2022. Participant exposure risks, vaccination/infection status, and symptoms were followed longitudinally at 3, 6, and 12 months, with blood and saliva collection. Serological response to the SARS-CoV-2 spike holoprotein (S), receptor binding domain (RBD) and nucleocapsid proteins (NP) were quantified by ELISA assay. Results: Based on serology, 40 of 200 (20%) participants were infected. Healthcare and non-healthcare occupations had equivalent infection incidence. Only 79.5% of infected participants seroconverted for NP following infection, and 11.5% were unaware they had been infected. The antibody response to S was greater than to RBD. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with 2-fold greater incidence of infection despite vaccination in this cohort. Discussion: Overall, our findings demonstrate: 1) variability in the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection despite similar exposure risk; 2) the concentration of binding antibody to the SARS-CoV-2 S or RBD proteins is not directly correlated with protection against infection in vaccinated individuals; and 3) determinants of infection risk include Hispanic ethnicity despite vaccination and similar occupational exposure.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Vacinação , Humanos , Anticorpos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Etnicidade , Hispânico ou Latino , Proteínas do Nucleocapsídeo , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Exposição Ocupacional
3.
J Prim Care Community Health ; 14: 21501319231159814, 2023.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36941757

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Vaccine hesitancy among essential workers remains a significant public health challenge. We examined psychological constructs of perceived susceptibility, threat, and self-efficacy and their associations with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among a racially and ethnically diverse essential workforce population. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of essential workers from September-December 2020 at a large Los Angeles safety-net medical center as part of a program offering free COVID-19 serology testing. Program participants completed a standardized survey at the time of phlebotomy. Hierarchical logistic regression was utilized to determine factors independently associated with vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS: Among 1327 persons who had serology testing, 1235 (93%) completed the survey. Of these, 958 (78%) were healthcare workers. Based on expressed intent, 22% were vaccine-hesitant 78% were vaccine acceptors. In our multivariate model, vaccine hesitancy was associated with female gender [aOR = 2.09; 95% CI (1.44-3.05)], African American race [aOR = 4.32; (2.16-8.62)], LatinX ethnicity [aOR = 2.47; 95% CI (1.51-4.05)] and history of not/sometimes receiving influenza vaccination [aOR = 4.39; 95% CI (2.98-6.48)]. Compared to nurses, vaccine hesitancy was lower among physicians [aOR = 0.09; 95% CI (0.04-0.23)], non-nursing/non-physician healthcare workers [aOR = 0.55; 95% CI (0.33-0.92)], and non-healthcare care workers [aOR = 0.53; 95% CI (0.36-0.78)]. CONCLUSIONS: Among a racially/ethnically diverse group of safety net medical center essential workers, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with racial/ethnic minority groups, employment type, and prior influenza vaccination hesitancy. Interestingly, we found no association with the Health Belief Model construct measures of perceived susceptibility, threat, and self-efficacy. Psychological constructs not assessed may be drivers of vaccine hesitancy in our population.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Influenza Humana , Feminino , Humanos , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Estudos Transversais , Etnicidade , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Grupos Minoritários , Vacinação
4.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 9(5): ofac141, 2022 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35450081

RESUMO

Background: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) are very common bacterial infections. There are few data on the microbiome of persons with and without SSTIs and the effects of systemic antibiotic therapy. Methods: We sampled the skin microbiome from 10 outpatients with acute suppurative SSTI before and after systemic antibiotic therapy and enrolled 10 matched controls. Samples were collected at 6 skin body sites (occipital scalp, axilla, interdigital hand web spaces, gluteal crease, inguinal creases, and popliteal fossa), 2 mucosal sites (throat, anterior nares), and the site of skin infection (for case subjects) at baseline and a week later after abscess incision, drainage, and oral antibiotics. Result: Among 10 SSTI cases, mean age was 41.5 years and 3 had diabetes mellitus. The gluteal crease at baseline had higher α-diversity in controls vs cases (P = .039); ß-diversity analysis showed significant differences in overall bacterial community composition (P = .046). However, at other body sites there were no significant differences by either α- or ß-diversity. Systemic antibiotic use did not affect body site diversity indices except at the SSTI site (α-diversity increased, P = .001). Conclusions: We surprisingly found no significant differences in microbiome comparing noninfected skin sites before and after systemic SSTI antibiotic therapy nor significant differences at noninfected skin sites between SSTI cases and uninfected controls. We also found minimal significant differences between microbiome diversity and bacterial signatures at noninfected skin sites between patients with acute skin infection and uninfected controls. Our findings challenge the dogma that systemic antibiotics impact the skin microbiome.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...