Seroprevalence of 2009 H1N1 virus infection and self-reported infection control practices among healthcare professionals following the first outbreak in Bangkok, Thailand

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Emergency Department Healthcare Workers at Sírio-Libanês Hospital, Brazil

COVID-19 has spread rapidly worldwide. Information on its prevalence and factors associated with infection are important for protecting both professionals and patients in healthcare centers. This study evaluated the seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and its association with the degree of exposure and use of personal protective equipment by healthcare professionals dedicated to the treatment of patients with flu-like illnesses in the emergency room. The research team included an analysis of healthcare professionals who underwent enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 between May 28 and June 26, 2020, in the emergency room of Sírio-Libanês Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Participants answered individual questionnaires on occupational information, medical health history, and factors associated with exposure to the novel coronavirus. The questionnaire variables were compared based on the serological results. Of the 164 study participants, 96 (58.54%) reported at least 1 flu-like symptom and 42 (25.61%) presented serology results that were compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The asymptomatic declared group accounted for 62 participants; of these, 8 (12.90%) had positive serology results (neutralizing antibody and IgG) for SARS-CoV-2. Data analysis showed a positive correlation with duration of work, safety in wearing and reusing personal protective equipment, and presence of anosmia, and showed a negative relationship with duration of mask use. Our findings suggest that the perception of symptoms by healthcare professionals is not a good screening parameter for the diagnosis of an infectious disease with respiratory symptoms, such as COVID-19. The main influencing factor for the control of infection is the elaboration of workflows and safety protocols based on simple and clear rules as well as investments in team training.

Determinants of nurse's and personal support worker's adherence to facial protective equipment in a community setting during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada: A pilot study

Background

Appropriate and consistent facial protective equipment (FPE) use is critical for preventing respiratory illness transmission. Little is known about FPE adherence by home care providers. The purpose of this study is to adapt an existing facial protection questionnaire and use it to develop an initial understanding of factors influencing home care providers’ adherence to FPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

A survey was shared with home care providers during Wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression by FPE adherence were conducted across individual, organizational, and environmental factors.

Results

Of the 199 respondents (140 personal support workers; 59 nurses), 71% reported that they always used FPE as required, with greater adherence to masks (89%) than eye protection (73%). The always-adherent reported greater perceived FPE efficacy, knowledge of recommended use and perceived occupational risk, lower education, and not experiencing personal barriers (including difficulty seeing, discomfort, communication challenges).

Discussion

Adherence rates were relatively high. In this context, with participants reporting high levels of organizational support, individual-level factors were the significant predictors of adherence.

Conclusions

Initiatives addressing perceived FPE efficacy, knowledge of recommended use, perception of at-work risk, and personal barriers to use may improve FPE adherence.

Associations Between Wearing Masks and Respiratory Viral Infections: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Background

Respiratory viral infections (RVIs) are a major health concern, and some previous studies have shown that wearing masks was effective in preventing RVIs, while others failed to show such effect. Therefore, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of wearing masks.

Methods

PubMed, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP database) were searched for studies evaluating the effectiveness of wearing masks. The risk ratio (RR) was used to measure the effectiveness of wearing masks in preventing RVIs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies, and the odds ratio (OR) was used for case-control studies. Forest plots were used to visually assess pooled estimates and corresponding 95% CIs. The I2 test was used to examine the heterogeneity, and subgroup analysis was used to explore the possible explanations for heterogeneity or compare the results between subgroups. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. Begg's test and Egger's test were used to assess the publications bias.

Results

Thirty-one studies (13,329 participants) were eligible for meta-analyses. Overall, the results showed that wearing masks was effective in preventing RVIs. The sensitivity analysis showed that the results of those meta-analyses were robust and reliable. There was no significant publication bias in meta-analysis of case-control studies and most subgroup analyses.

Conclusions

Wearing masks might be effective in preventing RVIs. To reduce their RVI risk, people should wear masks when they go out in public.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42021296092.

Prevalence of antibodies against seasonal influenza A and B viruses among older adults in rural Thailand: A cross-sectional study

Assessing the seroprevalence of the high-risk individuals against the influenza virus is essential to evaluate the progress of vaccine implementation programs and establish influenza virus interventions. Herein, we identified the pre-existing cross-protection of the circulating seasonal influenza viruses among the older-aged population. A cross-sectional study was performed base on the 176 residual sera samples collected from older adults aged 60 to 95 years without a history of vaccination in rural Thailand in 2015. Sera antibody titers against influenza A and B viruses circulating between 2016 and 2019 were determined by hemagglutination inhibition assay. These findings indicated the low titers of pre-existing antibodies to circulating influenza subtypes and showed age-independent antibody titers among the old adults. Moderate seropositive rates (HAI ≥ 1:40) were observed in influenza A viruses (65.9%A(H3N2), 50.0% for A(H1N1) pdm09), and found comparatively lower rates in influenza B viruses (14% B/Yam2, 21% B/Yam3 and 25% B/Vic). Only 5% of individuals possessed broadly protective antibodies against both seasonal influenza A and B virus in this region. Our findings highlighted the low pre-existing antibodies to circulating influenza strains in the following season observed in older adults. The serological study will help inform policy-makers for health care planning and guide control measures concerning vaccination programs.

Protective efficient comparisons among all kinds of respirators and masks for health-care workers against respiratory viruses: A PRISMA-compliant network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There is no definite conclusion about comparison of better effectiveness between N95 respirators and medical masks in preventing health-care workers (HCWs) from respiratory infectious diseases, so that conflicting results and recommendations regarding the protective effects may cause difficulties for selection and compliance of respiratory personal protective equipment use for HCWs, especially facing with pandemics of corona virus disease 2019.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, medRxiv, and Google Scholar from initiation to November 10, 2020 for randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that reported protective effects of masks or respirators for HCWs against respiratory infectious diseases. We gathered data and pooled differences in protective effects according to different types of masks, pathogens, occupations, concurrent measures, and clinical settings. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (registration number: 42020173279).

RESULTS

We identified 4165 articles, reviewed the full text of 66 articles selected by abstracts. Six randomized clinical trials and 26 observational studies were included finally. By 2 separate conventional meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of common respiratory viruses and observational studies of pandemic H1N1, pooled effects show no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks against common respiratory viruses for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.13, I2 = 0.0%), clinical respiratory illness (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.45-1.09, I2 = 83.7%, P = .002), influenza-like illness (risk ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.05, I2 = 0.0%), and pandemic H1N1 for laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection (odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.49-1.70, I2 = 0.0%, P = .967). But by network meta-analysis, N95 respirators has a significantly stronger protection for HCWs from betacoronaviruses of severe acute respiratory syndrome, middle east respiratory syndrome, and corona virus disease 2019 (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results provide moderate and very-low quality evidence of no significant difference between N95 respirators and medical masks for common respiratory viruses and pandemic H1N1, respectively. And we found low quality evidence that N95 respirators had a stronger protective effectiveness for HCWs against betacoronaviruses causative diseases compared to medical masks. The evidence of comparison between N95 respirators and medical masks for corona virus disease 2019 is open to question and needs further study.

Risk factors and protective measures for healthcare worker infection during highly infectious viral respiratory epidemics: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate risk factors for HCW infection in viral respiratory pandemics (SARS-CoV-2, MERS, SARS CoV-1, influenza A H1N1, influenza H5N1) and improve understanding of HCW risk management amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched from conception until July 2020 for studies comparing infected HCWs (cases) and non-infected HCWs (controls) and risk factors for infection. Outcomes included HCW types, infection prevention practices, and medical procedures. Pooled effect estimates with pathogen-specific stratified meta-analysis and inverse variance meta-regression analysis were completed. GRADE framework was used to rate certainty of evidence. PROSPERO (CRD42020176232) 6 April 2020.

RESULTS

Fifty-four comparative studies were included (n=191,004 HCWs). Compared to non-frontline HCWs, frontline HCWs were at increased infection risk (OR 1.66 95%CI 1.24 to 2.22) and greater for HCWs involved in endotracheal intubations (risk difference [95%CI]: 35.2% [21.4 to 47.9]). Use of gloves, gown, surgical mask, N95 respirator, face protection, and infection training were each strongly protective against infection. Meta-regression showed reduced infection risk in frontline HCWs working in facilities with infection designated wards (OR -1.04, 95%CI -1.53 to -0.33, p=0.004) and performing aerosol-generating medical procedures in designated centres (OR -1.30 95%CI -2.52 to -0.08; p=0.037).

CONCLUSIONS

During highly infectious respiratory pandemics, widely available protective measures such as use of gloves, gowns, and face masks are strongly protective against infection and should be instituted, preferably in dedicated settings, to protect frontline HCW during waves of respiratory virus pandemics.

Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Conflicting recommendations exist related to whether masks have a protective effect on the spread of respiratory viruses.

Methods

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was consulted to report this systematic review. Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP (Chinese) database.

Results

A total of 21 studies met our inclusion criteria. Meta-analyses suggest that mask use provided a significant protective effect (OR = 0.35 and 95% CI = 0.24–0.51). Use of masks by healthcare workers (HCWs) and non-healthcare workers (Non-HCWs) can reduce the risk of respiratory virus infection by 80% (OR = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.11–0.37) and 47% (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.36–0.79). The protective effect of wearing masks in Asia (OR = 0.31) appeared to be higher than that of Western countries (OR = 0.45). Masks had a protective effect against influenza viruses (OR = 0.55), SARS (OR = 0.26), and SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 0.04). In the subgroups based on different study designs, protective effects of wearing mask were significant in cluster randomized trials and observational studies.

Conclusions

This study adds additional evidence of the enhanced protective value of masks, we stress that the use masks serve as an adjunctive method regarding the COVID-19 outbreak.

•

At present, the epidemic of COVID-19 has caused global concern.

•

Masks protect HCWs and other populations against respiratory viral infection.

•

The effectiveness of masks has been proven in different settings, populations, and areas.

Effectiveness of Masks and Respirators Against Respiratory Infections in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis quantified the protective effect of facemasks and respirators against respiratory infections among healthcare workers. Relevant articles were retrieved from Pubmed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate pooled estimates. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46-0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14-0.82). Compared to masks, N95 respirators conferred superior protection against CRI (RR = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.36-0.62) and laboratory-confirmed bacterial (RR = 0.46; 95% CI: 0.34-0.62), but not viral infections or ILI. Meta-analysis of observational studies provided evidence of a protective effect of masks (OR = 0.13; 95% CI: 0.03-0.62) and respirators (OR = 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06-0.26) against severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). This systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of respiratory protection. However, the existing evidence is sparse and findings are inconsistent within and across studies. Multicentre RCTs with standardized protocols conducted outside epidemic periods would help to clarify the circumstances under which the use of masks or respirators is most warranted.

Infection in Health Personnel with High and Low Levels of Exposure in a Hospital Setting during the H1N1 2009 Influenza A Pandemic

A novel H1N1 influenza A virus caused the first pandemic of the 21^st century in 2009. Hospitals had an increased demand of health consultations, that made it difficult to estimate the incidence of infection in hospital personnel due to asymptomatic presentations and the under notification of cases. To estimate and compare the rate of exposure of high versus low risk health personnel to 2009 pandemic H1N1 (H1N1pdm2009) influenza A virus in a University Hospital in Chile, we performed a comparative and prospective study. Serum samples were obtained from 117 individuals that worked in the emergency room (ER) and the operating room (OR) during the peak of the pandemic. Antibody titers were determined by the hemagglutination inhibition (HI) assay. Of the samples analyzed, 65% were workers at the ER and 35% at the OR. Of the total number of the subjects tested, 29.1% were seropositive. One out of 3 (36.8%) workers at the ER had positive HI titers, meanwhile only 1 out of 7 (14.6%) workers from the OR was seropositive to the virus. The possibility of being infected in the ER as compared to the OR was 3.4 times greater (OR 3.4; CI 95%, 1.27–9.1), and the individuals of the ER had almost twice as much antibody titers against H1N1pdm2009 than the personnel in the OR, suggesting the potential of more than one exposure to the virus. Of the 34 seropositive subjects, 12 (35.3%) did not develop influenza like illness, including 2 non-clinical personnel involved in direct contact with patients at the ER. Considering the estimated population attack rate in Chile of 13%, both groups presented a higher exposure and seropositive rate than the general population, with ER personnel showing greater risk of infection and a significantly higher level of antibodies. This data provide a strong rationale to design improved control measures aimed at all the hospital personnel, including those coming into contact with the patients prior to triage, to prevent the propagation and transmission of respiratory viruses, particularly during a pandemic outbreak.