Healthcare-associated transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Thai healthcare personnel who receive 2 doses of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine: A call for considering a booster dose.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Apisarnthanarak A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376843 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10549208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among 283 symptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2, 51 (18%) were positive. Among those 51 HCP, self reported loss of smell and taste were present in 51% and 52.9%, respectively, with either present in 60.8%. These symptoms had high specificity (93% each, 96% for either) for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
| S-EPMC7454440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify characteristics associated with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in healthcare personnel.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA multihospital healthcare system.ParticipantsEmployees who reported SARS-CoV-2 exposures and/or symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between March 30, 2020, and September 20, 2020, and were subsequently referred for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.MethodsData from exposure and/or symptom reports were linked to the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result. Employee demographic characteristics, occupational characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 exposure history, and symptoms were evaluated as potential risk factors for having a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test.ResultsAmong 6,289 employees who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, 873 (14%) had a positive test. Independent risk factors for a positive PCR included: working in a patient care area (relative risk [RR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.40), having a known SARS-CoV-2 exposure (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37), reporting a community versus an occupational exposure (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.49-2.34), and having an infected household contact (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89). Nearly all HCP (99%) reported symptoms. Symptoms associated with a positive PCR in a multivariable analysis included loss of sense of smell (RR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.09-3.24) or taste (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.40-2.20), cough (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.40-2.20), fever, and muscle aches.ConclusionsIn this cohort of >6,000 healthcare system and academic medical center employees early in the pandemic, community exposures, and particularly household exposures, were associated with greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than occupational exposures. This work highlights the importance of COVID-19 prevention in the community and in healthcare settings to prevent COVID-19.
| S-EPMC9727206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrior studies of universal masking have not measured face-mask compliance. We performed a quality improvement study to monitor and improve face-mask compliance among healthcare personnel (HCP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.DesignMixed-methods study.SettingTertiary-care center in West Haven, Connecticut.PatientsHCP including physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff.MethodsFace-mask compliance was measured through direct observations during a 4-week baseline period after universal masking was mandated. Frontline and management HCP completed semistructured interviews from which a multimodal intervention was developed. Direct observations were repeated during a 14-week period following implementation of the multimodal intervention. Differences between units were evaluated with χ2 testing using the Bonferroni correction. Face-mask compliance between baseline and intervention periods was compared using time-series regression.ResultsAmong 1,561 observations during the baseline period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 82.2% (range, 80.8%-84.4%). Semistructured interviews were performed with 16 HCP. Qualitative analysis informed the development of a multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership. Among 2,651 observations during the intervention period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 92.6% (range, 84.6%-97.9%). There was no difference in weekly face-mask compliance between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units. The multimodal intervention was associated with an increase in face-mask compliance (β = 0.023; P = .002).ConclusionsFace-mask compliance remained suboptimal among HCP despite a facility-wide mandate for universal masking. A multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership was effective in increasing face-mask compliance among HCP.
| S-EPMC8144836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe the association between job roles and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare personnel. A wide range of hazard ratios were observed across job roles. Medical assistants had higher hazard ratios than nurses, while attending physicians, food service workers, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, residents and fellows, and temporary workers had lower hazard ratios.
| S-EPMC9726628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the increasing spread and mortality of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, it is essential for the healthcare community to be prepared per the international standards. This study is focused on assessing the preparedness of healthcare personnel and the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve this preparedness in those dealing with the COVID-19 infection. A prospective, multicenter audit cycle was conducted on 400 healthcare professionals (271 junior doctors, 90 nurses, 39 non-clinical hospital workers) sampled through stratified random sampling. A questionnaire that was based on “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC's) checklist for healthcare personnel's preparedness for transport and arrival of patients with confirmed or possible COVID-19” was sent to the participants after which an informative document, framed on the information provided by World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and local guidelines from the Government of Pakistan's website, was distributed through social media platforms. The questionnaire was repeated after 2 weeks to close the audit loop. Chi-Square test and paired sample t-test were used to test significance. In the pre-intervention portion of the study, it was found out that the doctors and nurses had higher knowledge scores compared to the non-clinical hospital staff (p ? 0.05). A statistically significant improvement was seen after the educational intervention was deployed (p ? 0.05). The study concludes that the non-clinical staff, being a vital part of the healthcare framework, need to be educated and effective approaches for official inclusion of relevant information need to be incorporated into clinical practice to limit the transmission of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7517286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo characterize associations between exposures within and outside the medical workplace with healthcare personnel (HCP) SARS-CoV-2 infection, including the effect of various forms of respiratory protection.DesignCase-control study.SettingWe collected data from international participants via an online survey.ParticipantsIn total, 1,130 HCP (244 cases with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, and 886 controls healthy throughout the pandemic) from 67 countries not meeting prespecified exclusion (ie, healthy but not working, missing workplace exposure data, COVID symptoms without lab confirmation) were included in this study.MethodsRespondents were queried regarding workplace exposures, respiratory protection, and extra-occupational activities. Odds ratios for HCP infection were calculated using multivariable logistic regression and sensitivity analyses controlling for confounders and known biases.ResultsHCP infection was associated with non-aerosol-generating contact with COVID-19 patients (adjusted OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.04-1.9; P = .03) and extra-occupational exposures including gatherings of ?10 people, patronizing restaurants or bars, and public transportation (adjusted OR range, 3.1-16.2). Respirator use during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) was associated with lower odds of HCP infection (adjusted OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.8, P = .005), as was exposure to intensive care and dedicated COVID units, negative pressure rooms, and personal protective equipment (PPE) observers (adjusted OR range, 0.4-0.7).ConclusionsCOVID-19 transmission to HCP was associated with medical exposures currently considered lower-risk and multiple extra-occupational exposures, and exposures associated with proper use of appropriate PPE were protective. Closer scrutiny of infection control measures surrounding healthcare activities and medical settings considered lower risk, and continued awareness of the risks of public congregation, may reduce the incidence of HCP infection.
| S-EPMC7542323 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This consensus statement by the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) and the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA), the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology and Infection Control (APIC), the HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society (PIDS), and the Society of Infectious Diseases Pharmacists (SIDP) recommends that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination should be a condition of employment for all healthcare personnel in facilities in the United States. Exemptions from this policy apply to those with medical contraindications to all COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States and other exemptions as specified by federal or state law. The consensus statement also supports COVID-19 vaccination of nonemployees functioning at a healthcare facility (eg, students, contract workers, volunteers, etc).
| S-EPMC8376851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and aimsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has become a global pandemic and led to increased mortality and morbidity. Vaccines against the etiologic agent; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) were approved for emergency use on different platforms. In the early phase of the pandemic, Thai healthcare workers (HCWs) received CoronaVac, an inactivated vaccine, as the first vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, followed by ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, a viral vector-based vaccine, or BNT162b2, an mRNA vaccine, as a booster dose. This preliminary study evaluated the immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and BNT162b2 as a booster dose in HCWs who previously received two doses of CoronaVac.MethodsTen HCW participants received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and another 10 HCWs received BNT162b2 as a booster dose after two doses of CoronaVac. Anti-RBD IgG, neutralizing antibodies (NAb), and cellular immunity, including interferon-gamma (IFN-γ)-releasing CD4, CD8, double negative T cells, and NK cells, were measured at 3 and 5 months after the booster dose.ResultsThere was no significant difference in anti-RBD IgG levels at 3 and 5 months between the two different types of booster vaccine. The levels of anti-RBD IgG and NAb were significantly decreased at 5 months. HCWs receiving BNT162b2 had significantly higher NAb levels than those receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at 5 months after the booster dose. IFN-γ release from CD4 T cells was detected at 3 months with no significant difference between the two types of booster vaccines. However, IFN-γ-releasing CD4 T cells were present at 5 months in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group only.ConclusionChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 can be used as a booster dose after completion of the primary series primed by inactivated vaccine. Although the levels of immunity decline at 5 months, they may be adequate during the first 3 months after the booster dose.
| S-EPMC11250167 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntradermal (ID) vaccination may alleviate COVID-19 vaccine shortages and vaccine hesitancy.MethodsPersons aged ≥65 years who were vaccinated with 2-dose ChAdOx1 12-24 weeks earlier were randomized to receive a booster vaccination by either ID (20 µg mRNA-1273 or 10 µg BNT162b2) or intramuscular (IM) (100 µg mRNA-1273 or 30 µg BNT162b2) route. Anti-receptor-binding domain (RBD) immunoglobulin G (IgG), neutralizing antibody (NAb), and interferon gamma (IFN-γ)-producing cells were measured at 2-4 weeks following vaccination.ResultsOf 210 participants enrolled, 70.5% were female and median age was 77.5 (interquartile range, 71-84) years. Following booster dose, both ID vaccinations induced 37% lower levels of anti-RBD IgG compared with IM vaccination of the same vaccine. NAb titers against ancestral and Omicron BA.1 were highest following IM mRNA-1273 (geometric mean, 1718 and 617), followed by ID mRNA-1273 (1212 and 318), IM BNT162b2 (713 and 230), and ID BNT162b2 (587 and 148), respectively. Spike-specific IFN-γ responses were similar or higher in the ID groups compared with IM groups. ID route tended to have fewer systemic adverse events (AEs), although more local AEs were reported in the ID mRNA-1273 group.ConclusionsFractional ID vaccination induced lower humoral but comparable cellular immunity compared to IM and may be an alternative for older people.Clinical trials registrationTCTR20220112002.
| S-EPMC10547455 | biostudies-literature