Dataset Information

Comprehensive infection control measures prevent hospital-acquired severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection: A single-center prospective cohort study and seroprevalence survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is associated with a high mortality rate in older adults; therefore, it is important for medical institutions to take measures to prevent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. This study aimed to assess the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) and the effectiveness of infection control measures.

Methods

This study had a cross-sectional component and a prospective cohort component. The cross-sectional component comprised an anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody survey among HCWs at a medical center in Saitama City, Japan. In the prospective cohort component, HCWs at the same medical center were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies monthly over a 3-month period (May to July 2020) to assess the effectiveness of infection prevention measures, including personal protective equipment use. All participants in the cohort study also participated in the antibody survey. The primary outcome was anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody (measured using Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2) positivity based on whether participants were engaged in COVID-19-related medical care. Other risk factors considered included occupational category, age, and sex.

Results

In total, 607 HCWs participated in the antibody survey and 116 doctors and nurses participated in the cohort study. Only one of the 607 participants in the survey tested positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. All participants in the cohort study were anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody negative at baseline and remained antibody negative. Engaging in the care of COVID-19 patients did not increase the risk of antibody positivity. During the study period, a total of 30 COVID-19 in-patients were treated in the hospital.

Conclusions

The infection control measures in the hospital protected HCWs from nosocomially acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection; thus, HCWs should engage in COVID-19-related medical care with confidence provided that they adhere to infectious disease precautions.

SUBMITTER: Hori H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8504754 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundImmunosuppressive therapies proposed for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) management may predispose to secondary infections. We evaluated the association of immunosuppressive therapies with bloodstream-infections (BSIs) in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis was an institutional review board-approved retrospective, multicenter, cohort study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 over a 5-month period. We obtained clinical, microbiologic and laboratory data from electronic medical records. Propensity-score-matching helped create balanced exposure groups. Demographic characteristics were compared across outcome groups (BSI/no BSI) using two-sample t-test and Chi-Square test for continuous and categorical variables respectively, while immunosuppressive therapy use was compared using McNemar's test. Conditional logistic regression helped assess the association between immunosuppressive therapies and BSIs.Results13,007 patients were originally included, with propensity-score-matching producing a sample of 6,520 patients. 3.74% and 3.97% were diagnosed with clinically significant BSIs in the original and propensity-score-matched populations respectively. COVID-19 patients with BSIs had significantly longer hospitalizations, higher intensive care unit admission and mortality rates compared to those without BSIs. On univariable analysis, combinations of corticosteroids/anakinra [odds-ratio (OR) 2.00, 95% confidence intervals (C.I.) 1.05-3.80, P value.0342] and corticosteroids/tocilizumab [OR 2.13, 95% C.I. 1.16-3.94, P value .0155] were significantly associated with BSIs. On multivariable analysis (adjusting for confounders), combination corticosteroids/tocilizumab were significantly associated with any BSI [OR 1.97, 95% C.I. 1.04-3.73, P value.0386] and with bacterial BSIs [OR 2.13, 95% C.I. 1.12-4.05, p-value 0.0217].ConclusionsCombination immunosuppressive therapies were significantly associated with BSI occurrence in COVID-19 patients; their use warrants increased BSI surveillance. Further studies are needed to establish their causative role.

Project description:ObjectivesSARS-CoV-2 may cause acute lung injury, and secondary infections are thus relevant complications in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. However, detailed information on community- and hospital-acquired infections among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia is scarce.MethodsWe identified 220 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients hospitalized at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland (between 25 February and 31 May 2020). We excluded patients who declined the general consent (n = 12), patients without clinical evidence of pneumonia (n = 29), and patients hospitalized for < 24 h (n = 17). We evaluated the frequency of community- and hospital-acquired infections using respiratory and blood culture materials with antigen, culture-based, and molecular diagnostics. For ICU patients, all clinical and microbial findings were re-evaluated interdisciplinary (intensive care, infectious disease, and clinical microbiology), and agreement reached to classify patients with infections.ResultsIn the final cohort of 162 hospitalized patients (median age 64.4 years (IQR, 50.4-74.2); 61.1% male), 41 (25.3%) patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, 34/41 (82.9%) required mechanical ventilation, and 17 (10.5%) of all hospitalized patients died. In total, 31 infections were diagnosed including five viral co-infections, 24 bacterial infections, and three fungal infections (ventilator-associated pneumonia, n = 5; tracheobronchitis, n = 13; pneumonia, n = 1; and bloodstream infection, n = 6). Median time to respiratory tract infection was 12.5 days (IQR, 8-18) and time to bloodstream infection 14 days (IQR, 6-30). Hospital-acquired bacterial and fungal infections were more frequent among ICU patients than other patients (36.6% vs. 1.7%). Antibiotic or antifungal treatment was administered in 71 (43.8%) patients.ConclusionsCommunity-acquired viral and bacterial infections were rare among COVID-19 pneumonia patients. By contrast, hospital-acquired bacterial or fungal infections were frequently complicating the course among ICU patients.

Project description:BackgroundEffective prevention against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is currently limited to nonpharmaceutical strategies. Laboratory and observational data suggested that hydroxychloroquine had biological activity against SARS-CoV-2, potentially permitting its use for prevention.ObjectiveTo test hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 infection.DesignHousehold-randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine postexposure prophylaxis. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04328961).SettingNational U.S. multicenter study.ParticipantsClose contacts recently exposed (<96 hours) to persons with diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection.InterventionHydroxychloroquine (400 mg/d for 3 days followed by 200 mg/d for 11 days) or ascorbic acid (500 mg/d followed by 250 mg/d) as a placebo-equivalent control.MeasurementsParticipants self-collected mid-turbinate swabs daily (days 1 to 14) for SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. The primary outcome was PCR-confirmed incident SARS-CoV-2 infection among persons who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at enrollment.ResultsBetween March and August 2020, 671 households were randomly assigned: 337 (407 participants) to the hydroxychloroquine group and 334 (422 participants) to the control group. Retention at day 14 was 91%, and 10 724 of 11 606 (92%) expected swabs were tested. Among the 689 (89%) participants who were SARS-CoV-2 negative at baseline, there was no difference between the hydroxychloroquine and control groups in SARS-CoV-2 acquisition by day 14 (53 versus 45 events; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.66]; P > 0.20). The frequency of participants experiencing adverse events was higher in the hydroxychloroquine group than the control group (66 [16.2%] versus 46 [10.9%], respectively; P = 0.026).LimitationThe delay between exposure, and then baseline testing and the first dose of hydroxychloroquine or ascorbic acid, was a median of 2 days.ConclusionThis rigorous randomized controlled trial among persons with recent exposure excluded a clinically meaningful effect of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection.Primary funding sourceBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.