Characteristics of 1573 healthcare workers who underwent nasopharyngeal swab testing for SARS-CoV-2 in Milan, Lombardy, Italy

Using SCENTinel® to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection: insights from a community sample during dominance of Delta and Omicron variants

Introduction

Based on a large body of previous research suggesting that smell loss was a predictor of COVID-19, we investigated the ability of SCENTinel®, a newly validated rapid olfactory test that assesses odor detection, intensity, and identification, to predict SARS-CoV-2 infection in a community sample.

Methods

Between April 5, 2021, and July 5, 2022, 1,979 individuals took one SCENTinel® test, completed at least one physician-ordered SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, and endorsed a list of self-reported symptoms.

Results

Among the of SCENTinel® subtests, the self-rated odor intensity score, especially when dichotomized using a previously established threshold, was the strongest predictor of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SCENTinel® had high specificity and negative predictive value, indicating that those who passed SCENTinel® likely did not have a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Predictability of the SCENTinel® performance was stronger when the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant was dominant rather than when the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was dominant. Additionally, SCENTinel® predicted SARS-CoV-2 positivity better than using a self-reported symptom checklist alone.

Discussion

These results indicate that SCENTinel® is a rapid assessment tool that can be used for population-level screening to monitor abrupt changes in olfactory function, and to evaluate spread of viral infections like SARS-CoV-2 that often have smell loss as a symptom.

Olfactory Dysfunction in Healthcare Workers with COVID-19: Prevalence and Associated Factors

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic is a real global health crisis. Its clinical presentation has evolved over time with an increasing number of symptoms. Olfactory dysfunction (OD) has recently been recognized as a frequent symptom relevant to screening for COVID-19, especially in pauci-asymptomatic forms. However, the underlying mechanisms of OD are not yet fully understood.

AIM

To determine the prevalence of OD in healthcare workers with SARS-CoV-2 and to identify its associated factors.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional, analytical study, carried out during a period of six months and including all healthcare workers at Farhat Hached Academic Hospital (Tunisia) who were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, RAT, or chest CT scan.

RESULTS

A total of 474 healthcare workers were included, representing a participation rate of 85.4%. The mean age was 41.02±10.67 years with a sex ratio of 0.2. The distribution of this population by department noted that it was mainly maternity (13.9%). The most presented workstation was nursing (31.4%). OD represented 39.2% of the reasons for consultation. Hospitalization was indicated in 16 patients (3.4%). The average duration of hospitalization was 8.87 ± 7.8 days. The average time off work was 17.04 ± 11.6 days. OD persisted for more than 90 days in 35 patients (7.4%). After multiple binary logistic regression, OD was statistically associated with female gender (p =0.001; OR 95% CI: 2.46 [1.4-4.2]) and blue-collar occupational category (p =0.002; OR IC95%:3.1 [1.5-6.5]). A significant association was also noted between OD and professional seniority and absence from work duration (p =0.019; OR 95% CI: 0.97 [0.95-0.99] and p =0.03; OR 95% CI: 0.97 [0.95-0.99]) respectively.

CONCLUSION

OD is common in COVID-19 patients. The identification of its associated factors may contribute to enhancing the understanding of its mechanism and drive therapeutic options.

Effects of genetics on odor perception: Can a quick smell test effectively screen everyone?

SCENTinel, a rapid smell test designed to screen for olfactory disorders, including anosmia (no ability to smell an odor) and parosmia (distorted sense of smell), measures 4 components of olfactory function: detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness. Each test card contains one of 9 odorant mixtures. Some people born with genetic insensitivities to specific odorants (i.e. specific anosmia) may fail the test if they cannot smell an odorant but otherwise have a normal sense of smell. However, using odorant mixtures has largely been found to prevent this from happening. To better understand whether genetic differences affect SCENTinel test results, we asked genetically informative adult participants (twins or triplets, N = 630; singletons, N = 370) to complete the SCENTinel test. A subset of twins (n = 304) also provided a saliva sample for genotyping. We examined data for differences between the 9 possible SCENTinel odors; effects of age, sex, and race on SCENTinel performance, test-retest variability; and heritability using both structured equation modeling and SNP-based statistical methods. None of these strategies provided evidence for specific anosmia for any of the odors, but ratings of pleasantness were, in part, genetically determined (h2 = 0.40) and were nominally associated with alleles of odorant receptors (e.g. OR2T33 and OR1G1; P < 0.001). These results provide evidence that using odorant mixtures protected against effects of specific anosmia for ratings of intensity but that ratings of pleasantness showed effects of inheritance, possibly informed by olfactory receptor genotypes.

The Factors Associated With COVID-19 Infection Among Healthcare Workers at a Tertiary Care Institution in North India: A Case-Control Study

Background and objective Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a higher risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) since they regularly come into direct contact with infected patients and their surroundings. In light of this, it is critical to study the potential risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs to help determine its transmission patterns and prevent infections among HCWs, as well as healthcare-associated COVID-19. Methods We conducted a case-control study at a tertiary healthcare center from December 2020 to August 2021. HCWs who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, by RT-PCR were included as cases and those who tested negative for RT-PCR and SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were recruited as controls. We interviewed 316 HCWs (187 cases and 129 controls) by using the WHO questionnaire titled "Protocol for assessment of potential risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 among health workers in a health care setting" to assess infection prevention and control (IPC) knowledge and practices, including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The odds ratio (OR) for factors associated with infection was determined by multivariable logistic regression. Results The majority (87.2%) of the cases were symptomatic. Adherence to IPC measures was higher among controls as compared to cases. A significantly higher number of controls used PPE compared to cases. The proportions of HCWs involved in cleaning, patient transport, reception, and catering were higher among cases (37.9%) compared to controls (19.1%). In multivariable analysis, undergoing training on care for COVID-19 patients was associated with a lower risk of infection (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.24-0.69). Conclusions Adherence to IPC and use of PPE were significantly higher among controls as compared to cases. Receiving training in COVID-19 patient care and compliance with IPC measures were associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 infection among HCWs in this study.

Mitigating healthcare worker risk during the COVID-19 pandemic - experience from a large tertiary maternity centre in the United Arab Emirates

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, healthcare workers (HCW) have been leading the charge in combating it, in spite of being disproportionately affected by the disease compared to the general population. This study describes the measures instituted at the largest maternity center in the United Arab Emirates during the pandemic to mitigate the risk of HCW contracting COVID-19, as well as the effectiveness of those measures. The incidence of COVID-19 amongst healthcare workers at the facility was compared to that in the general population over a 13-month period from February 2021 to February 2022. Data on population testing was obtained from the database maintained by the regional testing lab, while HCW testing data was obtained from the occupational health department at the hospital. The incidence of COVID-19 in HCWs and the general population was compared using summary statistics and charts. Several mitigation measures were instituted to protect HCW during the pandemic including patient traffic management, adequate provision of personal protective equipment, staff vaccination campaigns, infrastructure enhancement, workforce planning, and structured occupational health policies. During the study period the overall positivity rate in the general population was 5.78% (83,005/1.4 million tests) and that for staff was 1.19% (401/33,228 tests). The peaks and troughs on staff turning positive for COVID-19 coincided with peaks and troughs of the pandemic in the general population. The hospital instituted effective mitigation measures in protecting the staff and keeping COVID-19 rates well below the ones encountered in the general population.

Healthcare workers exposed to COVID-19 patients present an inflammatory status and Th2/Th17/Th22 immune profile: findings from before vaccine application in Brazil

Healthcare workers present an increased risk of contagion for the SARS-CoV-2 virus due to their labor exposure. Here, we describe the clinical, laboratory, and immunological characteristics of healthcare workers, before vaccine application, exposed to SARS-CoV-2-infected patients. We collected sociodemographic, clinical, and laboratory information from 50 professionals who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic at the Clinical Hospital of the Northwest in Brazil. The results showed that most workers are women, over 50 years old, and worked as nursing technicians. Approximately 56% of workers were positive for a previous infection by RT-PCR and/or anti-SARS-CoV-2-immunoglobulin tests. Increased levels of hematocrit, neutrophils, NK lymphocytes, and fibrinogen, were found in positive healthcare workers, suggesting a light inflammatory status. The immunological findings showed an increase in IL-17 production and a Th2/Th17/Th22 profile followed by high serology for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG. Those data reveal the importance of studies with healthcare workers to investigate if the continuous exposition to the virus may result in chronic activation of the immune system and/or pulmonary inflammation in this target group.

Low to moderate genetic influences on the rapid smell test SCENTinel™

SCENTinel™ - a rapid, inexpensive smell test that measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness - was developed for population-wide screening of smell function. SCENTinel™ was previously found to screen for multiple types of smell disorders. However, the effect of genetic variability on SCENTinel™ test performance is unknown, which could affect the test's validity. This study assessed performance of SCENTinel™ in a large group of individuals with a normal sense of smell to determine the test-retest reliability and the heritability of SCENTinel™ test performance. One thousand participants (36 [IQR 26-52] years old, 72% female, 80% white) completed a SCENTinel™ test at the 2021 and 2022 Twins Days Festivals in Twinsburg, OH, and 118 of those completed a SCENTinel™ test on each of the festival's two days. Participants comprised 55% percent monozygotic twins, 13% dizygotic twins, 0.4% triplets, and 36% singletons. We found that 97% of participants passed the SCENTinel™ test. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.57 to 0.71 for SCENTinel™ subtests. Broad-sense heritability, based on 246 monozygotic and 62 dizygotic twin dyads, was low for odor intensity (r=0.03) and moderate for odor pleasantness (r=0.4). Together, this study suggests that SCENTinel™ is a reliable smell test with only moderate heritability effects, which further supports its utility for population-wide screening for smell function.

The challenge of asymptomatic carriers of COVID-19: A rapid review of literature

OBJECTIVES

To describe the epidemiological and sociodemographic characteristics of asymptomatic carriers reported in the literature, and to review the strategies used for diagnosis and control.

METHODS

Systematic literature review approach. As inclusion criteria, all studies published between January 1 and June 26, 2020, conducted in humans, that reported people who remained asymptomatic of COVID-19. Descriptors were adapted to the interfaces of eight bibliographic databases were configured: PubMed, Ovid, SciELO, Ebsco, Scopus, LILACS, Epistemonikos and Embase.

RESULTS

About 45% of the articles reported adult population, thirteen reported mixed population (adult and pediatric). 3 525 asymptomatic people were reported, with an average of 37,1 years [0.5-82 years]. Although the effectiveness of the control and prevention measures was not reported, the identification, isolation and follow-up of contacts stands out as a potential effective mechanism to prevent the transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of this information could be relevant to guide evidence-based public health policies and the protection of populations and the improvement of health care that contributes to stopping this pandemic.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 235 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,015 COVID-19-positive patients, 36.62% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 33.02%-40.39%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 15) versus self-report (n = 220) methodologies (Q = 1.73, df = 1, P = 0.1889). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

The Implementation of a Health Care Worker Screening Program Based on the Advanta RT-qPCR Saliva Assay in a Tertiary Care Referral Hospital in Northern Greece

Health care workers are at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection due to different exposures in the community and in hospital settings. Interventions implemented to avoid nosocomial outbreaks include preventive testing strategies. In this report, we present results from the mass screening program applied in our hospital to all professionals, irrespective of symptoms or risk of exposure. We processed saliva specimens with real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. The total number of samples received was 43,726. Positive results were 672 and average positivity rate was 1.21%. The average positivity rate was similar to the positivity rate in the community in Greece and EU. More specifically, 80.5% of the positive participants care for patients in their daily activities, 31% experienced no symptoms before receiving the positive result, 46.1% reported a close contact with a patient or infected coworkers and 32.8% reported a close contact with infected family members. We believe that the identification of asymptomatic carriers has proved the effectiveness of the screening program by preventing the putative nosocomial spread of the virus and the depletion of workforce. In conclusion, in times of high incidence in the community, the periodic testing of health care personnel is wise and relevant for implementation costs.

Are Healthcare Workers Infected with SARS-CoV-2 at Home or at Work? A Comparative Prevalence Study

Prior to the widespread use of vaccinations, healthcare workers (HCWs) faced the double burden of caring for unprecedented numbers of critically ill COVID-19 patients while also facing the risk of becoming infected themselves either in healthcare facilities or at home. In order to assess whether SARS-CoV-2-positivity rates in HCWs reflected or differed from those in their residential areas, we compared the SARS-CoV-2-positivity rates during 2020 among HCWs in Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Centers (HHUMC), a tertiary medical center in Jerusalem, Israel, to those of the general population in Jerusalem, stratified by neighborhood. Additionally, we compared the demographic and professional parameters in every group. Four percent of the adult population (>18 years) in Jerusalem tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during 2020 (24,529/605,426) compared to 7.1% of HHUMC HCWs (317/4470), rate ratio 1.75 (95% CI 1.57-1.95), with wide variability (range 0.38-25.0) among different neighborhoods. Of the 30 neighborhoods with more than 50 infected HCWs, 25 showed a higher positivity rate for HCWs compared to the general population. The higher risk of HCWs compared to residents representing the general population in most neighborhoods in Jerusalem may be explained by their behavior in and out of the hospital.

Risk Factors for COVID-19 Infection among Healthcare Workers in North-East Nigeria

Healthcare workers (HCWs) face an unprecedented higher risk of COVID-19 infection due to their work and exposure. In this study, we aim to examine the associated risk factors for COVID-19 infection among HCWs in North-East Nigeria. We used data collected retrospectively among a cohort of clinical and non-clinical HCWs in six healthcare facilities in Adamawa State, Nigeria. We estimated the marginal probability of COVID-19 infection among HWCs using alternating logistic regression via the generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach. Among the 318 HCWs, 178 (55.97%) were males, mean (±SD) age was 36.81 (±8.98), 237 (74.76%) were clinical, and 80 (25.24) were non-clinical staff. The overall prevalence of COVID-19 was 16.67% among HCWs. After adjusting for other variables in the model, our results showed that clinical staff had a 5-fold higher risk of COVID-19 infection than non-clinical staff (aOR = 5.07, 95% CI: 1.32–19.52). Moreover, significant exposure risk factors for COVID-19 infection for HCWs increase with age, time spent attending to patients, caring for COVID-19 patients, and having worked with COVID-19 samples, while the risk decreases with the use of an N95 mask. Our findings suggested that the burden of COVID-19 infection is higher for clinical staff than non-clinical staff, and increasing age contributed to the increased risk.

Direct Anterior versus Lateral Approach for Femoral Neck Fracture: Role in COVID-19 Disease

Background: During the COVID-19 emergency, the incidence of fragility fractures in elderly patients remained unchanged. The management of these patients requires a multidisciplinary approach. The study aimed to assess the best surgical approach to treat COVID-19 patients with femoral neck fracture undergoing hemiarthroplasty (HA), comparing direct lateral (DL) versus direct anterior approach (DAA). Methods: A single-center, observational retrospective study including 50 patients affected by COVID-19 infection (30 males, 20 females) who underwent HA between April 2020 to April 2021 was performed. The patients were allocated into two groups according to the surgical approach used: lateral approach and anterior approach. For each patient, the data were recorded: age, sex, BMI, comorbidity, oxygen saturation (SpO2), fraction of the inspired oxygen (FiO2), type of ventilation invasive or non-invasive, HHb, P/F ratio (PaO2/FiO2), hemoglobin level the day of surgery and 1 day post operative, surgical time, Nottingham Hip Fractures Score (NHFS) and American Society of Anesthesiologists Score (ASA). The patients were observed from one hour before surgery until 48 h post-surgery of follow-up. The patients were stratified into five groups according to Alhazzani scores. A non-COVID-19 group of patients, as the control, was finally introduced. Results: A lateral position led to a better level of oxygenation (p < 0.01), compared to the supine anterior approach. We observed a better post-operative P/F ratio and a reduced need for invasive ventilation in patients lying in the lateral position. A statistically significant reduction in the surgical time emerged in patients treated with DAA (p < 0.01). Patients within the DAA group had a significantly lower blood loss compared to direct lateral approach. Conclusions: DL approach with lateral decubitus seems to preserved respiratory function in HA surgery. Thus, the lateral position may be associated with beneficial effects on gas exchange.

Determining SARS-CoV-2 non-infectivity state-A brief overview

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has claimed over 6 million lives, and globally the pandemic rages with detrimental consequences, with the emergence of new more infectious and possibly virulent variants. A clinical obstacle in this battle has been to determine when an infected individual has reached a non-infectious state. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can be transmitted under diverse circumstances, and various rules and regulations, along with different testing methods, have been applied in an attempt to confine the transmission. However, that has proven to be a difficult task. In this review, we take together recently published data on infectivity and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and have combined it with the clinical experience that physicians in Iceland have accumulated from the pandemic. In addition, we suggest guidelines for determining when patients with COVID-19 reach a non-infectious state based on a combination of clinical experience, scientific data, and proficient use of available tests. This review has addressed some of the questions regarding contagiousness and immunity against SARS-CoV-2.

Clinical and occupational risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel

Objective

To identify characteristics associated with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in healthcare personnel.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

A multihospital healthcare system.

Participants

Employees 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.

Methods

Data 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.

Results

Among 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.

Conclusions

In 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.

Seroprevalence Survey of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in a Population of Emilia-Romagna Region, Northern Italy

Italy was the first Western European country to be severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Variations in seroprevalence rates were reported according to geographical and temporal differences of previous surveys, as well as depending on demographic and occupational factors. In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a population of the Emilia-Romagna region in Northern Italy after the first wave in the period from 26 September 2020−26 March 2021. We included 5128 subjects who voluntarily underwent serological tests to determine anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody positivity, including both self-referred individuals (24.2%) and workers adhering to company screening programs (76.8%). Overall, seroprevalence was 11.3%, higher in self-referred (13.8%) than employed-referred (10.5%) individuals. A slightly higher seroprevalence emerged in women compared to men (12.3% and 10.7%), as well as in the extreme age categories (18.6% for 60−69 years, 18.0% for ≥70 years, and 17.1% for <20 years compared to 7.6% for 20−39 years). Healthcare professionals showed the highest prevalence of seropositivity (22.9%), followed by workers in direct contact with customers, such as the communication, finance, and tourism sectors (15.7%). Overall subgroups seroprevalence increased compared to the first wave data but the trends agreed between the first and subsequent waves, except for an increase in the younger age group and in the sector in direct contact with customers. Among the occupational categories, our study confirms that healthcare workers and workers in the sports sector were at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2.

COVID-19 contact tracing in the hospitals located in the North Denmark region: A retrospective review

Background

The Department of Infection Control, at our University Hospital conducted contact tracing of COVID-19 positive patients and staff members at all hospitals in the North Denmark Region.

Aim

To describe the contact tracing performed during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Region and its outcomes.

Methods

Data from each contact tracing were collected prospectively during 14 May 2020–26 May 2021. Data included information about the index case (patient or hospital staff member), presentation (asymptomatic vs symptomatic), probable source of transmission (community-acquired or hospital-acquired), number of close contacts and if any of these were SARS-CoV-2 PCR-test positive.

Findings

362 contact tracing were performed. A total of 573 COVID-19 positive cases were identified among 171 (30%) patients and 402 (70%) staff members. 192 (34%) of all cases were tested due to symptoms of COVID-19, whereas two-third were tested for other reasons including outbreak and systematic screening tests. A total of 1575 close contacts were identified, including 225 (14%) patients and 1350 (86%) staff members. 100 (6%) close contacts, including 24 patients and 76 staff members, were infected with SARS-CoV-2, of which 33 (43%) staff members was positive at day 0 i.e. the same day as being identified as close contacts.

Discussion

We found a three to one of close contacts to each index case, but only 6% became SARS-CoV-2 positive, with a surprisingly high number of those identified at day 0. Our data confirm that regular testing of patients and staff will identify asymptomatic carriers and thereby prevent new cases.

Evaluation of Screening Program and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infections among Hospital Healthcare Workers in Liège, Belgium

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are known to be at higher risk of developing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections although whether these risks are equal across all occupational roles is uncertain. Identifying these risk factors and understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission pathways in healthcare settings are of high importance to achieve optimal protection measures. We aimed to investigate the implementation of a voluntary screening program for SARS-CoV-2 infections among hospital HCWs and to elucidate potential transmission pathways though phylogenetic analysis before the vaccination era. HCWs of the University Hospital of Liège, Belgium, were invited to participate in voluntary reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assays performed every week from April to December 2020. Phylogenetic analysis of SARS-CoV-2 genomes were performed for a subgroup of 45 HCWs. 5095 samples were collected from 703 HCWs. 212 test results were positive, 15 were indeterminate, and 4868 returned negative. 156 HCWs (22.2%) tested positive at least once during the study period. All SARS-CoV-2 test results returned negative for 547 HCWs (77.8%). Nurses (p < 0.05), paramedics (p < 0.05), and laboratory staff handling respiratory samples (p < 0.01) were at higher risk for being infected compared to the control non-patient facing group. Our phylogenetic analysis revealed that most positive samples corresponded to independent introduction events into the hospital. Our findings add to the growing evidence of differential risks of being infected among HCWs and support the need to implement appropriate protection measures based on each individual’s risk profile to guarantee the protection of both HCWs and patients. Furthermore, our phylogenetic investigations highlight that most positive samples correspond to distinct introduction events into the hospital.

Disease Severity and Comorbidities among Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Admissions in South Africa: A Retrospective Analysis

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are among the most vulnerable in regard to contracting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Comorbidities are reported to increase the risk for more severe COVID-19 outcomes, often requiring hospitalization. However, the evidence on disease severity and comorbidities among South African HCWs is lacking. This retrospective study analyzed the prevalence of comorbidities among HCW hospitalized with COVID-19 and its association with the severity of outcomes. Data from public and private hospitals in nine provinces of South Africa were extracted from the national hospital surveillance database for COVID-19 admissions. A total of 10,149 COVID-19 HCWs admissions were reported from 5 March 2020 to 31 December 2021. The risk of disease severity among HCWs increased with age, with those older (≥60 years) having seven times the odds of disease severity (aOR 7.0; 95% CI 4.2–11.8) compared to HCWs in the younger age (20–29 years) group. The most commonly reported comorbidity was hypertension (36.3%), followed by diabetes (23.3%) and obesity (16.7%). Hypertension (aOR 1.3; 95% CI 1.0–1.6), diabetes (aOR 1.6; 95% CI 1.3–2.0), and HIV (aOR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2–2.1) were significantly associated with disease severity. In conclusion, age, gender, and existing comorbidities were strong predictors of the prognosis of severe COVID-19 among HCWs in South Africa. The information is important in the development of occupational health policies and vulnerability risk assessments for HCWs in light of future COVID-19 waves or similar outbreaks.

SARS-CoV-2 surveillance strategy in essential workers of the Madrid City Council during the first epidemic wave in Spain, March-July 2020

OBJECTIVES

To study prevalence of infection in essential workers of Madrid City Council by occupation, related characteristics, use of protective devices, risk perception, and main concerns about COVID-19 during lockdown.

METHODS

A total of 30 231 workers were PCR tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Information was collected on COVID-19-related symptoms, risk factors, preventive equipment, and risk perception. The crude prevalence was calculated for infection, use of protective devices, perceived risk and main concerns. Additionally, adjusted prevalence and prevalence ratios (PR) were estimated for these variables using logistic regression models with age, gender, occupation, epidemiological week and laboratory as confounding factors.

RESULTS

Overall prevalence of infection was 3.2% (95% CI 3.0% to 3.4%), being higher among policemen (4.4%) and bus drivers (4.2%), but lower among emergency healthcare personnel, firefighters, food market workers and burial services (<2%). Lower excess risk was observed in workers reporting occupational contact with COVID-19 cases only (PR=1.42; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.71) compared with household exposure only (PR=2.75; 95% CI 2.32 to 3.25). Infection was more frequent in symptomatic workers (PR=1.28; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.48), although 42% of detected infections were asymptomatic. Use of facial masks (78.7%) and disinfectants (86.3%) was common and associated with lower infection prevalence (PRmasks=0.68; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.79; PRdisinfectants=0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91). Over 50% of workers felt being at high risk of infection and worried about infecting others, yet only 2% considered quitting their work.

CONCLUSIONS

This surveillance system allowed for detecting and isolating SARS-CoV-2 cases among essential workers, identifying characteristics related to infection and use of protective devices, and revealing specific needs for work-safety information and psychological support.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Clinicodemographic profile, intensive care unit utilization and mortality rate among COVID-19 patients admitted during the second wave in Bangladesh

INTRODUCTION

The second wave of COVID-19 arrived in Bangladesh in March 2021. This pilot research from a tertiary care COVID-dedicated hospital observed the clinicodemographic profile, intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, and mortality rate among COVID-19 patients admitted during the second wave.

METHODS

Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction or chest high-resolution computed tomography confirmed 972 COVID-19 cases included in this cross-sectional study from 24 March to 23 June 2021, recruited using convenience sampling. Data regarding clinicodemographic profile, ICU utilization and mortality rate were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean study cohort age was 54.47±12.73 years, with most patients (48.3%) aged 41-60; 64.1% were men. Fever (77.9%) and cough (75.9%) were the most common symptoms, and hypertension (43.6%) and diabetes (42.15%) the most common comorbidities. Nearly half of patients had total lung involvement of 26%-50%, and 23.8% required ICU. Overall mortality was 16.5%, whereas the mortality rate among ICU admitted patients was 56.1%. The most important predictors of mortality were older age, chronic renal illness, the proportion of lung involvement and ICU requirement.

CONCLUSIONS

We found higher mortality and ICU utilization rate and greater total lung involvement during the second wave. The mortality rate among the elderly and ICU patients was also higher than earlier.

SARS-CoV-2 Reverse Transcription-Polymerase Chain Reaction Positivity and Seroprevalence among Health Care Workers in a Referral Cancer Institute: A Cross-sectional Study

BACKGROUND: During the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, healthcare workers (HCWs) are presumed to be at increased risk of infection by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), transmitting the infection to vulnerable patients if they are not timeously isolated. AIM: This study aimed to determine the point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of HCWs providing oncology services. METHODS AND RESULTS: HCWs in a large referral cancer hospital in Egypt were tested using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on nasopharyngeal swabs, and immunochromatography-based rapid serological test (RST). Clinical and epidemiological data were collected. In 2020, 999 HCWs were screened, of whom 86 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR (8.6%) and 127 subjects were seropositive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 by RST (12.8%). Immunoglobulin M seroprevalence demonstrated considerable concordance with RT-PCR positivity (sensitivity 82.14% and specificity 96.71%). Most HCWs (>95%) reported adherence to personal protective equipment. Patient transporters/cleaner were the group with the highest frequency of positive RT-PCR (19%) whereas laboratory and radiology technicians displayed the lowest frequency. Fever, dry cough, rhinorrhea, shortness of breath, fatigue and diarrhea were significantly associated with RT-PCR positivity, with increased likelihood of being positive with the presence of five or six simultaneous symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in screened HCWs is 8.6% by RT-PCR and seroprevalence is 12.8% by RST. Strict measures should be implemented to minimize transmission within healthcare settings and to the community. Our data support the importance of HCWs screening for SARS-CoV-2, taking in account the significant proportion of asymptomatic carriers.

Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening in Healthcare Workers and Its Correlation with Clinical Presentation in Tertiary Care Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal, from November 2020 to January 2021

Background

Antibody titer and the life span of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 have been found to be associated with the clinical presentation in individuals. The extent of exposure of healthcare workers and the general public to SARS-CoV-2 needs to be assessed to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study is an attempt in assessing the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody in health care workers.

Methods

This laboratory-based cross-sectional study was performed in Manmohan Memorial Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu from November 2020 to January 2021. A total of 185 HCWs were enrolled in this study. Their serum samples were screened for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and a structured questionnaire was administered to collect further information. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening was performed using lateral flow immunoassay. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.

Results

Among 185 HCWs that participated in the study, 41 (22.2%) tested positive for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. Of these 41 HCWs, 37 tested positive for IgG only and 4 of them tested positive for both IgM and IgG antibodies. The presence of the previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection (p < 0.001), the presence of flu-like symptoms within the last 6 months (p < 0.001), and the presence of positive contact history (p=0.002) were statistically significant with the presence of the antibody among HCWs.

Conclusion

Healthcare workers carry a high burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection and are at risk of acquiring infection from their workplace. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening among healthcare workers is highly recommended in multiple healthcare settings as it can help in monitoring transmission dynamics and evaluation of infection control policies.

Clinical characteristics of healthcare workers with SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination with BNT162b2 vaccine

Background

The pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), had a significant impact worldwide. Vaccines against COVID-19 appear as a tool able to curb out mortality and reduce the circulation of the virus. Little is known so far about the clinical characteristics of individuals who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection after having received the vaccination, as well as the temporal relationship between vaccine administration and symptoms onset.

Methods

Retrospective cohort study among the 3219 healthcare workers (HCWs) of the Fondazione IRCCS Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico of Milano who received a full immunization with the BNT162b2 vaccine and who developed SARS-CoV-2 infection (documented through positive RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab) in March–April 2021.

Results

Overall, we have identified 15 HCWs with SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination, 7 (46.7%) of them were male and the mean age was 38.4 years (SD 14). In 4 of them, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies was assessed before vaccination and resulted positive in 1 case. In all HCWs the presence of SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (anti-S1) antibodies was assessed, on average 42.2 days after the completion of vaccination, with a mean value of 2055 U/mL (SD 1927.3). SARS-CoV-2 infection was ascertained on average 56.2 days after vaccination. The mean cycle threshold (Ct) of SARS-CoV-2 PCR was 26.4, the lineage was characterized in 9 HCWs. None of the HCWs reported a primary or secondary immunodeficiency. Regarding symptoms, they were reported only by 7 (46.7%) HCWs and appeared on average 55 days after the second dose of vaccination. Of those who reported symptoms, one (14.3%) had fever, 7 (100%) rhinitis/conjunctivitis, 4 (57.1%) taste and smell alterations, none had respiratory symptoms, 4 headache/arthralgia (57.1%) and 1 gastrointestinal symptom (14.3%). All symptoms disappeared in a few days and no other unclassified symptoms were reported.

Conclusions

Infections occurring after vaccination with the BNT162b2 vaccine are mostly asymptomatic and are not associated with the serum titre of anti-S1 antibodies. We did not find a predominance of specific viral variants, with several lineages represented.

A SARS-CoV-2 Infection High-Uptake Program on Healthcare Workers and Cancer Patients of the National Cancer Institute of Naples, Italy

Background: From the beginning of 2020, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) quickly spread worldwide, becoming the main problem for the healthcare systems. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of infection and can be a dangerous vehicle for the spread of the virus. Furthermore, cancer patients (CPs) are a vulnerable population, with an increased risk of developing severe and lethal forms of Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19). Therefore, at the National Cancer Institute of Naples, where only cancer patients are treated, a surveillance program aimed to prevent the hospital access of SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects (HCWs and CPs) was implemented. The study aims to describe the results of the monitoring activity for the SARS-CoV-2 spread among HCWs and CPs, from March 2020 to March 2021. Methods: This surveillance program included a periodic sampling through nasopharyngeal molecular swabs for SARS-CoV-2 (Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction, RT-PCR). CPs were submitted to the molecular test at least 48 h before hospital admission. Survival analysis and multiple logistic regression models were performed among HCWs and CPs to assess the main SARS-CoV-2 risk factors. Results: The percentages of HCWs tested with RT-PCR for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, according to the first and the second wave, were 79.7% and 91.7%, respectively, while the percentages for the CPs were 24.6% and 39.6%. SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 20 (1.7%) HCWs of the 1204 subjects tested during the first wave, and in 127 (9.2%) of 1385 subjects tested in the second wave (p < 0.001); among CPs, the prevalence of patients tested varied from 100 (4.6%) during the first wave to 168 (4.9%) during the second wave (p = 0.8). The multivariate logistic analysis provided a significant OR for nurses (OR = 2.24, 95% CI 1.23–4.08, p < 0.001) compared to research, administrative staff, and other job titles. Conclusions: Our findings show that the positivity rate between the two waves in the HCWs increased over time but not in the CPs; therefore, the importance of adopting stringent measures to contain the shock wave of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the hospital setting was essential. Among HCWs, nurses are more exposed to contagion and patients who needed continuity in oncological care for diseases other than COVID-19, such as suspected cancer.

Asymptomatic RT-PCR positive COVID-19 patients in orthopaedic pre-operative evaluation during the peak of the second wave

Introduction

Asymptomatic COVID-19 patients are the most challenging and feared obstacles in resuming these surgical procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the proportion of asymptomatic carriers detected by RT-PCR in pre-operative orthopaedic evaluation during the peak of the second wave.

Methods

514 asymptomtomatic COVID-19 patients, negative for TOCC (Travel, Profession, Cluster, Contact) risk factors were observed retrospectively. A nasopharyFngeal RT-PCR test was obtained 48 to 72 h before the surgery in all cases. Possible risk factors for a positive test was identified.

Results

The detected asymptomatic COVID-19 infection rate during the peak of the second wave among the pre-operative orthopaedic patients was 12.3%. Younger age, female gender, longer duration of admission to RT-PCR test interval were found to be significant (p= < 0.05) risk factors for asymptomatic RT-PCR to be positive. The hazard ratio (HR) for being asymptomatic RT-PCR positive was 4.3 (p = 0. 025), while the RT-PCR was performed at 14 days, but the HR increased to 9.2 (p = 0.049) when the test was performed after 45 days.

Conclusion

According to our findings, pre-operative testing to rule out COVID-19 should be regarded as a critical step in preventing the disease clusters in hospitals.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection among healthcare workers in a tertiary public hospital in Curitiba, Brazil

BACKGROUND:

We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare workers (HCWs) in Curitiba, Brazil.

METHODS:

Upper respiratory samples from 1077 HCWs were tested for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction from June 16, 2020 to December 9, 2020.

RESULTS:

Overall, 32.7% of HCWs were infected. The positivity rates in symptomatic and asymptomatic HCWs were 39.2% and 15.9%, respectively. Hospital departments categorized as high-risk for exposure had the highest number of infected HCWs.

CONCLUSIONS:

Early diagnosis and isolation of infected HCWs remain key in controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission because HCWs in close contact with COVID-19 patients are more likely to be infected than those who are not.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19 taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Drawing on previous studies and guided by early meta-analyses, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct measures of taste are at least as sensitive as those obtained by self-report and that the preponderance of evidence confirms taste loss is a symptom of COVID-19. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% confidence interval: 35.34%-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, P = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females, and taste loss was highest among middle-aged adults. Thus, taste loss is likely a bona fide symptom of COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

SARS-CoV-2 positivity rates in asymptomatic workers at a cancer referral center in Mexico City: A prospective observational study in the context of adapting hospitals back to regular practice

BACKGROUND

Healthcare workers are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The positivity rates in hospitals that do not receive patients with COVID-19, such as the National Cancer Institute (INCan) in Mexico, and the associated factors are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the incidence and factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection in health workers at INCan.

METHODS

A cohort study of 531 workers who were followed for 6 months. RT-PCR analysis of saliva and nasopharyngeal swab samples were used in the baseline and to confirm cases during follow-up The incidence rate ratio was calculated according to the measured characteristics and the associated factors were calculated using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Out of 531 workers, 9.6% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, Being male (RR: 2.07, 95% CI: 1.1-3.8, P = .02), performing administrative tasks (RR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.0-3.9, P = .04), and having relatives also working at INCan (RR: 3.7, 95% CI: 1.4-9.5, P < .01) were associated with higher positivity rates.

DISCUSSION

Incidence of positive cases in health workers were similar to that reported in non-COVID hospitals from other countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though active surveillance helped to detect a significant number of asymptomatic infections, it is still necessary to reinforce preventive measures in non-medical staff to prevent nosocomial transmission.

Global Percentage of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infections Among the Tested Population and Individuals With Confirmed COVID-19 Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

Asymptomatic infections are potential sources of transmission for COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the percentage of asymptomatic infections among individuals undergoing testing (tested population) and those with confirmed COVID-19 (confirmed population).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE, and ScienceDirect were searched on February 4, 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, case series studies, and case series on transmission reporting the number of asymptomatic infections among the tested and confirmed COVID-19 populations that were published in Chinese or English were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

This meta-analysis was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled percentage and its 95% CI. Three researchers performed the data extraction independently.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested and confirmed populations.

RESULTS

Ninety-five unique eligible studies were included, covering 29 776 306 individuals undergoing testing. The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the tested population was 0.25% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.27%), which was higher in nursing home residents or staff (4.52% [95% CI, 4.15%-4.89%]), air or cruise travelers (2.02% [95% CI, 1.66%-2.38%]), and pregnant women (2.34% [95% CI, 1.89%-2.78%]). The pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections among the confirmed population was 40.50% (95% CI, 33.50%-47.50%), which was higher in pregnant women (54.11% [95% CI, 39.16%-69.05%]), air or cruise travelers (52.91% [95% CI, 36.08%-69.73%]), and nursing home residents or staff (47.53% [95% CI, 36.36%-58.70%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this meta-analysis of the percentage of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among populations tested for and with confirmed COVID-19, the pooled percentage of asymptomatic infections was 0.25% among the tested population and 40.50% among the confirmed population. The high percentage of asymptomatic infections highlights the potential transmission risk of asymptomatic infections in communities.

Exploring the Clinical Utility of Gustatory Dysfunction (GD) as a Triage Symptom Prior to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory dysfunction (GD) in a patient with upper respiratory tract symptoms might increase the clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

AIMS

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of using GD as a triage symptom prior to RT-PCR.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 June 2021. Studies published in English were included if they compared the frequency of GD in COVID-19 adult patients (proven by RT-PCR) to COVID-19 negative controls in case control or cross-sectional studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

21,272 COVID-19 patients and 52,298 COVID-19 negative patients were included across 44 studies from 21 countries. All studies were of moderate to high risk of bias. Patients with GD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19: DOR 6.39 (4.86-8.40), LR+ 3.84 (3.04-4.84), LR- 0.67 (0.64-0.70), pooled sensitivity 0.37 (0.29-0.47) and pooled specificity 0.92 (0.89-0.94). While history/questionnaire-based assessments were predictive of RT-PCR positivity (DOR 6.62 (4.95-8.85)), gustatory testing was not (DOR 3.53 (0.98-12.7)). There was significant heterogeneity among the 44 studies (I2 = 92%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

GD is useful as a symptom to determine if a patient should undergo further testing, especially in resource-poor regions where COVID-19 testing is scarce. Patients with GD may be advised to quarantine while repeated testing is performed if the initial RT-PCR is negative.

FUNDING

None.

Occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel: results from an early systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 infection has become a global public health concern globally. Even though Healthcare Workers (HCWs) are supposedly at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection, to date no pooled evidence has been collected.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched online electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, medRxiv.org for pre-prints) for all available contribution (up to May 20, 2019). Two Authors independently screened articles and extracted the data. The pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was analyzed using the random-effects model. The possible sources of heterogeneity were analyzed through subgroup analysis, and meta-regression.

RESULTS

The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was 3.5% (95%CI 1.8-6.6) for studies based on molecular assays, 5.5% (95%CI 2.1-14.1) for studies based on serological assays, and 6.5% (95%CI 2.5-15.6) for point-of-care capillary blood tests. Among subgroups, serological tests identified higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in physicians than in nurses (OR 1.436, 95%CI 1.026 to 2.008). Regression analysis indicated the possible presence of publication bias only for molecular tests (t -3.3526, p-value 0.002648).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall pooled prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was lower than previously expected, but available studies were affected by significant heterogeneity, and the molecular studies by significant publication bias. Therefore, further high-quality research in the field is warranted.

Measurement of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Humoral and Cellular Immunity in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Convalescent Health Care Workers in Iraq

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) belongs to the Coronaviridae family which led to a global pandemic. However, available knowledge on adaptive immunity in convalescent individuals is limited. The present study was conducted on 191 convalescent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) health care workers (HCW); moreover, it evaluated the cell-mediated immunity of 122 recovered HCW and the level of anti-receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG antibodies of 181 recovered HCW. Cellular and humoral immune responses were identified over time from one to eight months post recovery with varying disease severity using MTT proliferation assay and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Analysis of lymphocyte proliferation with S1 protein in mild-moderate and severe HCW revealed an insignificant difference with an increase in the maximum and third quartile (Q3) from one to eight months after COVID-19 recovery. Antibody levels in mild-moderate and severe recovered HCW were insignificantly different from post-COVID 19 recovery (P>0.05); in addition, the median, maximum, and Q3 values of anti-RBD IgG were close to each other over the time intervals from one to eight months post recovery. These data suggest that many convalescent HCW enrolled in this study were re-exposed to the virus without the development of symptoms indicating the role of cell-mediated and humoral immunity in preventing symptomatic reinfection. This study reveals that a robust immunity developed after mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19 that could last for several months post recovery.

Self-reported olfactory and gustatory dysfunction and psychophysical testing in screening for Covid-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

A substantial proportion of coronavirus disease‐2019 (COVID‐19) patients demonstrate olfactory and gustatory dysfunction (OGD). Self‐reporting for OGD is widely used as a predictor of COVID‐19. Although psychophysical assessment is currently under investigation in this role, the sensitivity of these screening tests for COVID‐19 remains unclear. In this systematic review we assess the sensitivity of self‐reporting and psychophysical tests for OGD.

Methods

A systematic search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception until February 16, 2021. Studies of suspected COVID‐19 patients with reported smell or taste alterations were included. Data were pooled for meta‐analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were reported in the outcomes.

Results

In the 50 included studies (42,902 patients), self‐reported olfactory dysfunction showed a sensitivity of 43.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.8%‐50.2%), a specificity of 91.8% (95% CI, 89.0%‐93.9%), and a DOR of 8.74 (95% CI, 6.67‐11.46) for predicting COVID‐19 infection. Self‐reported gustatory dysfunction yielded a sensitivity of 44.9% (95% CI, 36.4%‐53.8%), a specificity of 91.5% (95% CI, 87.7%‐94.3%), and a DOR of 8.83 (95% CI, 6.48‐12.01). Olfactory psychophysical tests analysis revealed a sensitivity of 52.8% (95% CI, 25.5%‐78.6%), a specificity of 88.0% (95% CI, 53.7%‐97.9%), and a DOR of 8.18 (95% CI, 3.65‐18.36). One study used an identification test for gustatory sensations assessment.

Conclusion

Although demonstrating high specificity and DOR values, neither self‐reported OGD nor unvalidated and limited psychophysical tests were sufficiently sensitive in screening for COVID‐19. They were not suitable adjuncts in ruling out the disease.

A cross-sectional study of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among asymptomatic healthcare workers in a tertiary healthcare centre: Assessing the impact of PPE guidelines

Purpose

The present study estimates the seroprevalence of SARS-COV-2 among asymptomatic HCWs and assess the impact of various categories of PPE.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of asymptomatic HCW using different levels of PPE as per their risk profile was undertaken between 18th and 24th September 2020. Participant demographics and other relevant details including the levels of PPE used were recorded using a customized questionnaire. IgG antibodies against SARS-COV-2 were detected by chemiluminescence method & used as a surrogate marker for incomplete protection.

Results

Out of 1033 HCWs tested, overall SARS-COV-2 sero-prevalence was 25.8%. Univariate and multivariate analysis both demonstrated that ancillary workers including security staff (OR 5.589, P ​< ​0.001) and sanitary workers (OR 3.946, P ​< ​0.001) were at significantly higher risk of seropositivity irrespective of the PPE used as per guidelines, whereas doctors were at significantly lower risk of seropositivity (OR 0.307, P ​= ​0.005). Staff working in office areas was associated with reduced risk of seropositivity (OR 0.21, P ​= ​0.045).

Conclusions

We document high seroprevalence of SARS-COV-2 antibodies in asymptomatic HCWs. Doctors who are at the highest risk had the lowest seropositivity and seroprevalence among office staff having a risk level comparable to the general community was lower than that reported in general population, supporting the efficacy of PPE practices as per guidelines in these groups. In contrast, much higher rates of seropositivity were seen among ancillary workers despite the availability of adequate PPE. Active screening, proper PPE use as per guidelines, and regular infection control trainings including Covid appropriate behaviour are therefore essential to contain COVID-19 spread among HCW & preventing them to transfer infection to the patients.

Epidemiology of COVID-19 among health personnel in long-term care centers in Seville

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, spreads swiftly in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, leading to a high degree of lethality. The data generated by an epidemiological surveillance program allow for obtaining valid information on the diseases’ epidemiology and possible prevention methods.

Objective

This work aims to analyze COVID-19 epidemiology among healthcare staff based in the Seville healthcare district (Spain) and evaluate its role in outbreaks in nursing homes.

Methods

This is an observational, descriptive study of 88 assisted living facilities located in the city of Seville from March 1 to May 23, 2020. Data were obtained via epidemiological surveys on staff at centers where there were outbreaks (n = 732 in 14 nursing homes). The cumulative incidence, epidemic curves, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and delays in isolation and notification of cases were calculated. For the statistical analysis, measures of central tendency and dispersion were used as well as confidence intervals and statistical hypothesis tests.

Results

There were 124 cases in staff members (cumulative incidence 16.9%), 79.0% of which were in women. The majority presented with mild symptoms (87.1%). The most common symptoms were fever (31.5%) and cough (49.2%). The median number of days from onset of symptoms to isolation was three.

Conclusions

A high incidence in nursing home staff along with delays in isolation were observed, which could affect the dynamics of transmission in outbreaks. It is necessary to review disease identification and isolation practices among staff as well as emphasize rapid implementation of prevention measures.

Systematic review of productivity loss among healthcare workers due to Covid-19

Objective

To assess existing evidence on the effects of COVID‐19 on healthcare workers (HCWs) using the health‐related productivity loss approach.

Methods

A systematic search of online databases including PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, Web of Science, and EMBASE was conducted up to 25 August 2020. Following two screening stages, studies related to the effects of COVID‐19 on healthcare workers were included in the study.

Results

82 studies were included in the analysis. The COVID‐19 related death rate among HCWs ranged from 0.00‐0.7%, while the positive test incidence varied between 0.00 and 24.4%. 39 evidences assessed psychological disorders. A wide range of psychological disorders observed among HCWs: 5.2 to 71.2% in anxiety, 1.00 to 88.3% in stress, 8.27 to 61.67% in insomnia, and 4.5 to 50.4% in depression.

Conclusions

The early evidence suggests that healthcare workers are one of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to positive COVID‐19 infection, mortality, and mental illness.

Screening of health workers exposed to SARS-CoV-2 in a university hospital in the south of France

Introduction

SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, is a virus that has caused a global pandemic. Health workers (HWs) are major players in the fight against this infection and are occupationally exposed to the virus in the course of their work. In this context, this study presents surveillance data on 1714 workers in a hospital center in the south of France for the period from March 17 to April 20, 2020.

Materials and methods

Symptomatic HWs, contact cases and those with high anxiety were tested. Diagnosis of COVID-19 was performed by RT-PCR after nasopharyngeal sampling.

Results

During this period, 30.4% of hospital staff received 3028 nasal swabs. Of these, 8.0% were infected with SARS-CoV-2. Among the SARS-CoV-2 positive HWs, 24.3% were asymptomatic. Among COVID unit and non COVID unit, the positive HWs for SARS-CoV-2 were, respectively, 5.8% and 8.2% (p = 0.2). HWs over 50 years of age were less likely to be positive for SARS-CoV-2 (3.8%) than other younger HWs (9.1%) (p < 0.001). No serious cases of COVID-19 were reported in our population during this period.

Discussion

Our study suggests that HWs who tested positive for COVID-19 are often asymptomatic. Therefore, PPE is pivotal to prevent HWs to patients and HWs to HWs transmission during workshifts. Contact tracing and screening is essential to limit the spread of the virus within the hospital. On the other hand, HWs working in COVID-19 units are not more often infected probably because they have a higher risk awareness than other HWs.

Taste loss as a distinct symptom of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chemosensory scientists have been skeptical that reports of COVID-19 taste loss are genuine, in part because before COVID-19, taste loss was rare and often confused with smell loss. Therefore, to establish the predicted prevalence rate of taste loss in COVID-19 patients, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 376 papers published in 2020-2021, with 241 meeting all inclusion criteria. Additionally, we explored how methodological differences (direct vs. self-report measures) may affect these estimates. We hypothesized that direct prevalence measures of taste loss would be the most valid because they avoid the taste/smell confusion of self-report. The meta-analysis showed that, among 138,897 COVID-19-positive patients, 39.2% reported taste dysfunction (95% CI: 35.34-43.12%), and the prevalence estimates were slightly but not significantly higher from studies using direct (n = 18) versus self-report (n = 223) methodologies (Q = 0.57, df = 1, p = 0.45). Generally, males reported lower rates of taste loss than did females and taste loss was highest in middle-aged groups. Thus, taste loss is a bona fide symptom COVID-19, meriting further research into the most appropriate direct methods to measure it and its underlying mechanisms.

Sero-prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers: A multicenter study from Egypt

Background

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at a high risk for disease exposure. Given the limited availability of nucleic acid testing by PCR in low resource settings, serological assays can provide useful data on the proportion of HCWs who have recently or previously been infected. Therefore, in this study, we conducted an immunologic study to determine the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in two university hospitals in Egypt.

Methods

in this cross sectional study, HCWs who were working in SARS-CoV-2 Isolation Hospitals were interviewed. Estimating specific antibodies (IgM and IgG) against SARS-CoV-2 was carried out using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay targeting the Spike antigen of SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Results

Out of 111, 82 (74%) HCWs accepted to participate with a mean age of 31.5 ± 8.5 years. Anti-SARS-COV2 antibodies were detected in 38/82 (46.3%) of cases with a mean age of 31 years and female HCWs constituted 57.6% of cases. The highest rate of seropositivity was from the nurses (60.5%), and physicians (31.6%) with only (7.9%) technicians. Only 28/82 (34.1%) HCWs reported previous history of COVID19. We reported a statistically significant difference in the timing of exposure (p = 0.010) and the frequency of contact with COVID-19 cases (p = 0.040) between previously infected and on-infected HCWs. Longer time of recovery was reported from IgG positive HCWs (p = 0.036).

Conclusion

The high frequency of seropositive HCWs in investigated hospitals is alarming, especially among asymptomatic personnel. Confirmation of diseased HCWs (among seropositive ones) are warranted.

Implementation of a hospital-at-home (HAH) unit for hematological patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: safety and feasibility

Background

“Hospital-at-home” (HAH) programs have been shown to optimize resource utilization, shorten hospitalization and prevent nosocomial infection.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data regarding implementation of an HAH unit for caring patients with hematological malignancies in our center, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

Between January and November 2020, 105 patients were treated in the HAH unit for a total of 204 episodes. Nine patients with multiple myeloma (MM) received autologous HSCT (auto-HSCT). Three patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) received consolidation therapy, 32 patients underwent clinical and analytical monitoring, 20 were transplant recipients early discharged (5 auto-HSCT and 15 allo-HSCT) and 2 had received CART cells therapy. Azacitidine, bortezomib and carfilzomib were administered at home to 54 patients with AML, myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) or MM. A median of 17 (IQR 13–19) days of admission per patient and a total of 239 visits to the Hematology day-care hospital were avoided. Overall, 28 patients (14% of all episodes) needed admission to the hospital, 4 of them due to COVID-19.

Conclusions

Implementation of a Hematology HAH unit was feasible and safe, and provided thorough advanced care to a high-risk population. Advanced care-at-home strategies can be crucial during times of COVID-19 to minimize treatment interruptions and reduce the risk of cross-infections.

Impact and Management of COVID-19 Among Healthcare Workers in Two Acute Care Hospitals and Two Associated Long-term Care Centres in Barcelona, Spain

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics of COVID-19-related episodes in healthcare workers (HCW) of two hospitals.

METHODS

Prospective study of HCW with COVID-like symptoms and/or who were close contacts of confirmed COVID-19. The percentage of positive PCRs among those with symptoms was calculated, and symptom's positive predictive value and negative predictive value. The characteristics of contacts were described, as well as the secondary clinical attack rate.

RESULTS

We registered 1222 episodes of HCW with COVID-like symptoms; 340 (27.8%) had a positive PCR. In 885 episodes, a HCW was a close contact of a confirmed case. In 45.5% of these, the HCW had contact with another HCW. The secondary clinical attack rate of contacts of HCW was 14.5%.

CONCLUSION

We found a high prevalence of disease and transmission between HCW during the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Características de profissionais de saúde acometidos por Covid-19: revisão integrativa da literatura

RESUMO O objetivo do estudo consistiu em identificar as características de profissionais de saúde acometidos por Covid-19. Trata-se de uma revisão integrativa da literatura guiada por seis etapas e que pesquisou cinco fontes de dados. Após o estabelecimento do fluxo de seleção do material levantado (N=5.522), determinou-se a amostra de artigos analisada (n=30). Desta, foram sintetizadas informações a respeito das características dos trabalhadores e relativas ao acometimento por Covid-19. Entre os estudos selecionados, foram compilados dados de 10.760 trabalhadores de saúde, predominantemente da equipe de enfermagem (27,3%) e médicos (13,2%). A maior parte (n=20; 66,6%) dos estudos atestou que os profissionais de saúde foram contaminados no ambiente de trabalho, principalmente hospitalar. A testagem por RT-PCR foi o principal método diagnóstico. Alguns estudos (n=16; 53,3%) relataram comorbidades prévias entre os trabalhadores. Os principais sintomas da Covid-19 nos profissionais de saúde acometidos foram: febre, tosse, fadiga e mialgia. Constataram-se características que remontam em perfil concentrado de enfermeiras e médicos contaminados no hospital. Essa realidade foi focalizada entre pesquisas transversais chinesas, italianas e estadunidenses.

Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Nasopharyngeal Testing among Healthcare Workers (HCWs) of a Large University Hospital in Milan, Italy during Two Epidemic Waves of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

since October 2020, a second SARS-CoV-2 epidemic wave has hit Italy. We investigate the frequency of positive nasopharyngeal swabs among HCWs during the two waves and the association with occupation and demographic characteristics.

METHODS

this is a retrospective, observational study conducted in a large university hospital in Milan, Northern Italy. We defined two epidemic waves: 1st (February 2020-July 2020) and 2nd (August 2020-January 2021). Occupational and demographic characteristics of HCWs who underwent nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 were collected.

RESULTS

in the 1st wave, 242 positive subjects (7.2%) were found among 3378 HCWs, whereas in the 2nd wave, the positive subjects were 545 out of 4465 (12.2%). In both epidemic waves positive NPSs were more frequent among HCWs with health-related tasks and lower among students (p < 0.001). However, in the 2nd wave, workers engaged in non-health-related tasks had a peak of 20.7% positivity. Among 160 positive HCWs in the 1st wave who were tested again in the 2nd wave, the rate of reinfection based on SARS-CoV2 RNA cycle quantification value was 0.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

during the 2nd epidemic wave, we confirmed a significant impact of COVID-19 among HCWs. The rise of infection rate among HCWs seems to reflect the increasing spread of SARS-CoV-2 among the overall population.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 Symptoms and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Antibody Positivity in a Large Survey of First Responders and Healthcare Personnel, May-July 2020

A SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey among first responder/healthcare personnel showed that loss of taste/smell was most predictive of seropositivity; percent seropositivity increased with number of COVID-19 symptoms. However, 22.9% with nine symptoms were seronegative, and 8.3% with no symptoms were seropositive. These findings demonstrate limitations of symptom-based surveillance and importance of testing.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Setting-specific Transmission Rates: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Understanding the drivers of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission is crucial for control policies, but evidence of transmission rates in different settings remains limited.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to estimate secondary attack rates (SARs) and observed reproduction numbers (Robs) in different settings exploring differences by age, symptom status, and duration of exposure. To account for additional study heterogeneity, we employed a beta-binomial model to pool SARs across studies and a negative-binomial model to estimate Robs.

RESULTS

Households showed the highest transmission rates, with a pooled SAR of 21.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]:17.4-24.8). SARs were significantly higher where the duration of household exposure exceeded 5 days compared with exposure of ≤5 days. SARs related to contacts at social events with family and friends were higher than those for low-risk casual contacts (5.9% vs 1.2%). Estimates of SARs and Robs for asymptomatic index cases were approximately one-seventh, and for presymptomatic two-thirds of those for symptomatic index cases. We found some evidence for reduced transmission potential both from and to individuals younger than 20 years of age in the household context, which is more limited when examining all settings.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that exposure in settings with familiar contacts increases SARS-CoV-2 transmission potential. Additionally, the differences observed in transmissibility by index case symptom status and duration of exposure have important implications for control strategies, such as contact tracing, testing, and rapid isolation of cases. There were limited data to explore transmission patterns in workplaces, schools, and care homes, highlighting the need for further research in such settings.