Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chandan S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8661690 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8661687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Quantification of asymptomatic infections is fundamental for effective public health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Discrepancies regarding the extent of asymptomaticity have arisen from inconsistent terminology as well as conflation of index and secondary cases which biases toward lower asymptomaticity. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and World Health Organization Global Research Database on COVID-19 between January 1, 2020 and April 2, 2021 to identify studies that reported silent infections at the time of testing, whether presymptomatic or asymptomatic. Index cases were removed to minimize representational bias that would result in overestimation of symptomaticity. By analyzing over 350 studies, we estimate that the percentage of infections that never developed clinical symptoms, and thus were truly asymptomatic, was 35.1% (95% CI: 30.7 to 39.9%). At the time of testing, 42.8% (95% prediction interval: 5.2 to 91.1%) of cases exhibited no symptoms, a group comprising both asymptomatic and presymptomatic infections. Asymptomaticity was significantly lower among the elderly, at 19.7% (95% CI: 12.7 to 29.4%) compared with children at 46.7% (95% CI: 32.0 to 62.0%). We also found that cases with comorbidities had significantly lower asymptomaticity compared to cases with no underlying medical conditions. Without proactive policies to detect asymptomatic infections, such as rapid contact tracing, prolonged efforts for pandemic control may be needed even in the presence of vaccination.
| S-EPMC8403749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTracheostomy is a commonly performed procedure in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). This review aims to investigate the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from patients to healthcare workers (HCWs) when tracheostomies are performed.MethodsThis systematic review used the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis framework. Studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs involved in tracheostomy procedures were included.ResultsSixty-nine studies (between 01/11/2019 and 16/01/2022) reporting 3117 tracheostomy events were included, 45.9% (1430/3117) were performed surgically. The mean time from MV initiation to tracheostomy was 16.7 ± 7.9 days. Location of tracheostomy, personal protective equipment used, and anaesthesia technique varied between studies. The mean procedure duration was 14.1 ± 7.5 minutes; was statistically longer for percutaneous tracheostomies compared with surgical tracheostomies (mean duration 17.5 ± 7.0 versus 15.5 ± 5.6 minutes, p = 0.02). Across 5 out of 69 studies that reported 311 tracheostomies, 34 HCWs tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 and 23/34 (67.6%) were associated with percutaneous tracheostomies.ConclusionsIn this systematic review we found that SARS-CoV-2 transmission to HCWs performing or assisting with a tracheostomy procedure appeared to be low, with all reported transmissions occurring in 2020, prior to vaccinations and more recent strains of SARS-CoV-2. Transmissions may be higher with percutaneous tracheostomies. However, an accurate estimation of infection risk was not possible in the absence of the actual number of HCWs exposed to the risk during the procedure and the inability to control for multiple confounders related to variable timing, technique, and infection control practices.
| S-EPMC9347596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has focused attention on the challenges and risks faced by frontline healthcare workers (HCW). This study aimed to describe the clinical outcomes and risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW.MethodsThree databases were surveyed and 328 articles were identified. Of these, 225 articles did not meet inclusion criteria; therefore, 97 full-text article were reviewed. Finally, after further revision, 30 articles were included in the systematic review and 28 were used for meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty-eight studies were identified involving 119,883 patients. The mean age of the patients was 38.37 years (95% CI 36.72-40.03) and males comprised 21.4% (95% CI 12.4-34.2) of the population of HCW. The percentage of HCW who tested positive for COVID-19 was 51.7% (95% CI 34.7-68.2). The total prevalence of comorbidities in seven studies was 18.4% (95% CI 15.5-21.7). The most prevalent symptoms were fever 27.5% (95% CI 17.6-40.3) and cough 26.1% (95% CI 18.1-36). The prevalence of hospitalisation was 15.1% (95% CI 5.6-35) in 13 studies and of death was 1.5% (95% CI 0.5-3.9) in 12 studies. Comparisons of HCW with and without infection showed an increased relative risk for COVID-19 related to personal protective equipment, workplace setting, profession, exposure, contacts, and testing.ConclusionA significant number of HCW were reported to be infected with COVID-19 during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, with a prevalence of hospitalisation of 15.1% and mortality of 1.5%. Further data are needed to track the continued risks in HCW as the pandemic evolves and health systems adapt.
| S-EPMC7798435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To estimate the proportion of healthcare workers (HCWs) willing to work during an influenza pandemic and identify associated risk factors, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis compliant with PRISMA guidance. Databases and grey literature were searched to April 2013, and records were screened against protocol eligibility criteria. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were undertaken using a piloted form. Random-effects meta-analyses estimated (i) pooled proportion of HCWs willing to work and (ii) pooled odds ratios of risk factors associated with willingness to work. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I(2) statistic, and publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. Data were synthesized narratively where meta-analyses were not possible. Forty-three studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of the proportion of HCWs willing to work was abandoned due to excessive heterogeneity (I(2) = 99.2%). Narrative synthesis showed study estimates ranged from 23.1% to 95.8% willingness to work, depending on context. Meta-analyses of specific factors showed that male HCWs, physicians and nurses, full-time employment, perceived personal safety, awareness of pandemic risk and clinical knowledge of influenza pandemics, role-specific knowledge, pandemic response training, and confidence in personal skills were statistically significantly associated with increased willingness. Childcare obligations were significantly associated with decreased willingness. HCWs' willingness to work during an influenza pandemic was moderately high, albeit highly variable. Numerous risk factors showed a statistically significant association with willingness to work despite significant heterogeneity between studies. None of the included studies were based on appropriate theoretical constructs of population behaviour.
| S-EPMC4415696 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vulnerable patient populations in particular must be protected, and clinics should not become transmission hotspots to avoid delaying medical treatments independent of COVID. Because asymptomatic transmission has been described, routine screening of asymptomatic HCW would potentially be able to interrupt chains of infection through early detection.MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus with regard to non-incident related testing of healthcare workers using polymerase chain reaction on May 4th 2021. Studies since January 2020 were included. An assessment of risk of bias and representativeness was performed.ResultsThe search identified 39 studies with heterogeneous designs. Data collection of the included studies took place from January to August 2020. The studies were conducted worldwide and the sample size of the included HCW ranged from 70 to 9449 participants. In total, 1000 of 51,700 (1.9%) asymptomatic HCW were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR testing. The proportion of positive test results ranged between 0 and 14.3%. No study reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days.Discussion and conclusionsThe heterogeneous proportions might be explained by different regional incidences, lock-downs, and pre-analytical pitfalls that reduce the sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab. The very high prevalence in some studies indicates that screening HCW for SARS-CoV-2 may be important particularly in geographical regions and pandemic periods with a high-incidence. With low numbers and an increasing rate of vaccinated HCW, a strict cost-benefit consideration must be made, especially in times of low incidences. Since we found no studies that reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days, re-evaluation should be done when these are available.
| S-EPMC9250183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe short- and long-term andrological effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been clarified. Our aim is to evaluate the available evidence regarding possible andrological consequences of COVID-19 either on seminal or hormonal parameters. The safety of the COVID-19 vaccines in terms of sperm quality was also investigated.MethodsAll prospective and retrospective observational studies reporting information on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2) mRNA semen and male genitalia tract detection (n = 19), as well as those reporting data on semen analysis (n = 5) and hormonal parameters (n = 11) in infected/recovered patients without any arbitrary restriction were included.ResultsOut of 204 retrieved articles, 35 were considered, including 2092 patients and 1138 controls with a mean age of 44.1 ± 12.6 years, and mean follow-up 24.3 ± 18.9 days. SARS-CoV-2 mRNA can be localized in male genitalia tracts during the acute phase of the disease. COVID-19 can result in short-term impaired sperm and T production. Available data cannot clarify long-term andrological effects. Low T observed in the acute phase of the disease is associated with an increased risk of being admitted to the Intensive Care Unit or death. The two available studies showed that the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines does not affect sperm quality.ConclusionsThe results of our analysis clearly suggest that each patient recovering from COVID-19 should be monitored to rule out sperm and T abnormalities. The specific contribution of reduced T levels during the acute phase of the infection needs to be better clarified.
| S-EPMC9080963 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding the level and characteristics of protection from past SARS-CoV-2 infection against subsequent re-infection, symptomatic COVID-19 disease, and severe disease is essential for predicting future potential disease burden, for designing policies that restrict travel or access to venues where there is a high risk of transmission, and for informing choices about when to receive vaccine doses. We aimed to systematically synthesise studies to estimate protection from past infection by variant, and where data allow, by time since infection.MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we identified, reviewed, and extracted from the scientific literature retrospective and prospective cohort studies and test-negative case-control studies published from inception up to Sept 31, 2022, that estimated the reduction in risk of COVID-19 among individuals with a past SARS-CoV-2 infection in comparison to those without a previous infection. We meta-analysed the effectiveness of past infection by outcome (infection, symptomatic disease, and severe disease), variant, and time since infection. We ran a Bayesian meta-regression to estimate the pooled estimates of protection. Risk-of-bias assessment was evaluated using the National Institutes of Health quality-assessment tools. The systematic review was PRISMA compliant and was registered with PROSPERO (number CRD42022303850).FindingsWe identified a total of 65 studies from 19 different countries. Our meta-analyses showed that protection from past infection and any symptomatic disease was high for ancestral, alpha, beta, and delta variants, but was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant. Pooled effectiveness against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant was 45·3% (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 17·3-76·1) and 44·0% (26·5-65·0) against omicron BA.1 symptomatic disease. Mean pooled effectiveness was greater than 78% against severe disease (hospitalisation and death) for all variants, including omicron BA.1. Protection from re-infection from ancestral, alpha, and delta variants declined over time but remained at 78·6% (49·8-93·6) at 40 weeks. Protection against re-infection by the omicron BA.1 variant declined more rapidly and was estimated at 36·1% (24·4-51·3) at 40 weeks. On the other hand, protection against severe disease remained high for all variants, with 90·2% (69·7-97·5) for ancestral, alpha, and delta variants, and 88·9% (84·7-90·9) for omicron BA.1 at 40 weeks.InterpretationProtection from past infection against re-infection from pre-omicron variants was very high and remained high even after 40 weeks. Protection was substantially lower for the omicron BA.1 variant and declined more rapidly over time than protection against previous variants. Protection from severe disease was high for all variants. The immunity conferred by past infection should be weighed alongside protection from vaccination when assessing future disease burden from COVID-19, providing guidance on when individuals should be vaccinated, and designing policies that mandate vaccination for workers or restrict access, on the basis of immune status, to settings where the risk of transmission is high, such as travel and high-occupancy indoor settings.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, J Stanton, T Gillespie, and J and E Nordstrom.
| S-EPMC9998097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealthcare workers are at risk of acquiring hepatitis B and C virus infections through patients' blood and bodily fluids exposure. So far, there is no pooled data that shows the prevalence of HBV and HCV among health care workers in Africa. This study aimed to determine the pooled prevalence of hepatitis B and C infections among health care workers in Africa.MethodsStudies reporting the prevalence of HBV and HCV were identified from major databases and gray literature. PubMed, CINAHL, POPLINE, ScienceDirect, African Journals Online (AJOL), and Google Scholar were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. A random-effect model was used to estimate the pooled prevalence of hepatitis B and C among health care workers in Africa. The heterogeneity of studies was assessed using Cochran Q statistics and I2 tests. Publication bias was assessed using Begg's tests.ResultIn total, 1885 articles were retrieved, and 44 studies met the inclusion criteria and included in the final analysis. A total of 17,510 healthcare workers were included. The pooled prevalence of hepatitis B virus infection among health care workers in Africa is estimated to be 6.81% (95% CI 5.67-7.95) with a significant level of heterogeneity (I2 = 91.6%; p < 0.001). While the pooled prevalence of hepatitis C virus infection using the random-effects model was 5.58% (95% CI 3.55-7.61) with a significant level of heterogeneity (I2 = 95.1%; p < 0.001).ConclusionOverall, one in fifteen and more than one in twenty healthcare workers were infected by HBV and HCV, respectively. The high burden of HBV and HCV infections remains a significant problem among healthcare workers in Africa.
| S-EPMC8173813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis (TB) is a main concern of health care workers in sub-Saharan Africa. Healthcare workers have the potential to have contact with TB patients and are the main stakeholders in healthcare settings to implement TB infection control, and the poor practice of TB infection control may increase the risk of transmission of TB in healthcare settings. However, there is no consistent conclusion on the TB infection control practice among healthcare workers in Ethiopia. Thus, this study aimed to determine the pooled magnitude of TB infection control practice and associated factors among healthcare workers in Ethiopia.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis will be done by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. The following databases will be used to search for articles: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and grey literatures. The quality of studies will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist. The data from included studies will be extracted using Microsoft Excel V.2016, and the extracted data will be analysed using STATA V.16. Forest plot and I2 statistics will be done for heterogeneity. A funnel plot and Egger's regression test will be conducted to check for publication bias. Potential sources of bias will be identified by subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Any type of study design conducted in Ethiopia and in English language will be included.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required, and the findings will be published in peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42023393580.
| S-EPMC10685950 | biostudies-literature