Dataset Information

Healthcare institutions' recommendation regarding the use of FFP-2 masks and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers: a multicenter longitudinal cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health care workers (HCW) are heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 from the beginning of the pandemic. We aimed to analyze risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion among HCW with a special emphasis on the respective healthcare institutions' recommendation regarding the use of FFP-2 masks.

Methods

We recruited HCW from 13 health care institutions (HCI) with different mask policies (type IIR surgical face masks vs. FFP-2 masks) in Southeastern Switzerland (canton of Grisons). Sera of participants were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 6 months apart, after the first and during the second pandemic wave using an electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA, Roche Diagnostics). We captured risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection by using an online questionnaire at both time points. The effects of individual COVID-19 exposure, regional incidence and FFP-2 mask policy on the probability of seroconversion were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 99 of 2794 (3.5%) HCW at baseline and in 376 of 2315 (16.2%) participants 6 months later. In multivariable analyses the strongest association for seroconversion was exposure to a household member with known COVID-19 (aOR: 19.82, 95% CI 8.11-48.43, p < 0.001 at baseline and aOR: 8.68, 95% CI 6.13-12.29, p < 0.001 at follow-up). Significant occupational risk factors at baseline included exposure to COVID-19 patients (aOR: 2.79, 95% CI 1.28-6.09, p = 0.010) and to SARS-CoV-2 infected co-workers (aOR: 2.50, 95% CI 1.52-4.12, p < 0.001). At follow up 6 months later, non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (aOR: 2.54, 95% CI 1.66-3.89 p < 0.001) and the local COVID-19 incidence of the corresponding HCI (aOR: 1.98, 95% CI 1.30-3.02, p = 0.001) were associated with seroconversion. The healthcare institutions' mask policy (surgical masks during usual exposure vs. general use of FFP-2 masks) did not affect seroconversion rates of HCW during the first and the second pandemic wave.

Conclusion

Contact with SARS-CoV-2 infected household members was the most important risk factor for seroconversion among HCW. The strongest occupational risk factor was exposure to COVID-19 patients. During this pandemic, with heavy non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the mask policy of HCIs did not affect the seroconversion rate of HCWs.

SUBMITTER: Szajek K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8744038 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Quantifying occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers can inform efforts to improve healthcare worker and patient safety and reduce transmission. This study aimed to quantify demographic, occupational, and community risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers in a large metropolitan healthcare system. We analyzed data from a cross-sectional survey conducted from April through June of 2020 linking risk factors for occupational and community exposure to COVID-19 with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. A multivariable logistic regression model was fit to quantify risk factors for infection. Participants were employees and medical staff members who elected to participate in SARS-CoV-2 serology testing offered to all healthcare workers as part of a quality initiative, and who completed a survey on exposure to COVID-19 and use of personal protective equipment. Exposures of interest included known demographic risk factors for COVID-19, residential zip code incidence of COVID-19, occupational exposure to PCR test-positive healthcare workers or patients, and use of personal protective equipment. The primary outcome of interest was SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was estimated to be 5.7% (95% CI: 5.2%-6.1%) among 10,275 healthcare workers. Community contact with a person known or suspected to have COVID-19 (aOR=1.9, 95% CI:1.4-2.5) and zip code level COVID-19 incidence (aOR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.0-2.0) increased the odds of infection. Black individuals were at high risk (aOR=2.0, 95% CI:1.6-2.4). Overall, occupational risk factors accounted for 27% (95% CI: 25%-30%) of the risk among healthcare workers and included contact with a PCR test-positive healthcare worker (aOR=1.2, 95% CI:1.0-1.6). Community risk factors, including contact with a COVID-19 positive individual and residential COVID-19 incidence, are more strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare workers than exposure in the workplace.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks. SETTING:14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam. PARTICIPANTS:1607 hospital HCWs aged ?18?years working full-time in selected high-risk wards. INTERVENTION:Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection. RESULTS:The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group. Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%. CONCLUSIONS:This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.

Project description:The United States is implementing plans to immunize 500,000 hospital-based healthcare workers against smallpox. Vaccination is voluntary, and it is unknown what factors drive vaccine acceptance. This study's aims were to estimate the proportion of workers willing to accept vaccination and to identify factors likely to influence their decisions.The survey was conducted among physicians, nurses, and others working primarily in emergency departments or intensive care units at 21 acute-care hospitals in 10 states during the two weeks before the U.S. national immunization program for healthcare workers was announced in December 2002. Of the questionnaires distributed, 1,165 were returned, for a response rate of 81%. The data were analyzed by logistic regression and were adjusted for clustering within hospital and for different number of responses per hospital, using generalized linear mixed models and SAS's NLMIXED procedure.Sixty-one percent of respondents said they would definitely or probably be vaccinated, while 39% were undecided or inclined against it. Fifty-three percent rated the risk of a bioterrorist attack using smallpox in the United States in the next two years as either intermediate or high. Forty-seven percent did not feel well-informed about the risks and benefits of vaccination. Principal concerns were adverse reactions and the risk of transmitting vaccinia. In multivariate analysis, four variables were associated with willingness to be vaccinated: perceived risk of an attack, self-assessed knowledge about smallpox vaccination, self-assessed previous smallpox vaccination status, and gender.The success of smallpox vaccination efforts will ultimately depend on the relative weight in people's minds of the risk of vaccine adverse events compared with the risk of being exposed to the disease. Although more than half of the respondents thought the likelihood of a bioterrorist smallpox attack was intermediate or high, less than 10% of the group slated for vaccination has actually accepted it at this time. Unless new information about the threat of a smallpox attack becomes available, healthcare workers' perceptions of the vaccine's risks will likely continue to drive their ongoing decisions about smallpox vaccination.