Mitigating SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Hospitals: A Systematic Literature Review

Biomarkers of early SARS-CoV-2 infection before the onset of respiratory symptoms

OBJECTIVES

Currently, limited data exist regarding the pathological changes occurring during the incubation phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We utilized proteomic analysis to explore changes in the circulatory host response in individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection before the onset of symptoms.

METHODS

Participants were individuals from a randomized clinical trial of prophylaxis for COVID-19 in a workers' dormitory. Proteomic signatures of blood samples collected within 7 days before symptom onset (incubation group) were compared with those collected >21 days (non-incubation group) to derive candidate biomarkers of incubation. Candidate biomarkers were assessed by comparing levels in the incubation group with both infected individuals (positive controls) and non-infected individuals (negative controls).

RESULTS

The study included men (mean age 34.2 years and standard deviation 7.1) who were divided into three groups: an incubation group consisting of 44 men, and two control groups-positive (n = 56) and negative (n = 67) controls. Through proteomic analysis, we identified 49 proteins that, upon pathway analyses, indicated an upregulation of the renin-angiotensin and innate immune systems during the virus incubation period. Biomarker analyses revealed increased concentrations of plasma angiotensin II (mean 731 vs. 139 pg/mL), angiotensin (1-7) (302 vs. 9 pg/mL), CXCL10 (423 vs. 85 pg/mL), CXCL11 (82.7 vs. 32.1 pg/mL), interferon-gamma (0.49 vs. 0.20 pg/mL), legumain (914 vs. 743 pg/mL), galectin-9 (1443 vs. 836 pg/mL), and tumour necrosis factor (20.3 vs. 17.0 pg/mL) during virus incubation compared with non-infected controls (all p < 0.05). Plasma angiotensin (1-7) exhibited a significant increase before the onset of symptoms when compared with uninfected controls (area under the curve 0.99, sensitivity 0.97, and specificity 0.99).

DISCUSSION

Angiotensin (1-7) could play a crucial role in the progression of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, and its assessment could help identify individuals who would benefit from enhanced monitoring and early antiviral intervention.

Outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in a Rural Community Hospital during Omicron Predominance

Healthcare-associated infections due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has increased since the discovery of the Omicron variant. We describe a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in the medicine-surgery unit of a rural community hospital at the time of high community transmission of Omicron variant in our county. The outbreak occurred in the medicine-surgery unit of an 89-bed rural community hospital in northern Maine. The characteristics of the patients and healthcare workers (HCWs) affected by the outbreak are described. Patient and HCW data collected as part of the outbreak investigation were used in this report. The outbreak control measures implemented are also described. A total of 24 people tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 including 11 patients and 13 HCWs. A total of 12 of the 24 (50%) persons were symptomatic, and rhinorrhea was the most common symptom noted (8/12, 67%). None of the symptomatic persons had gastrointestinal symptoms or symptoms of a loss of sense of smell or taste. All HCWs were vaccinated and 8 of the 11 patients were vaccinated. Outbreak control measures in the affected unit included implementation of full PPE (N95 respirators, eye protection, gowns and gloves) during all patient care, serial testing of employees and patients in the affected unit, cohorting positive patients, closing visitation and thorough environmental cleaning including use of ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection. This outbreak exemplifies the high transmissibility of the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2. The outbreak occurred despite a well-established infection control program. We noted that serial testing, use of N95 respirators during all patient care and UV disinfection were some of the measures that could be successful in outbreak control.

Are COVID-19 vaccination mandates for healthcare workers effective? A systematic review of the impact of mandates on increasing vaccination, alleviating staff shortages and decreasing staff illness

INTRODUCTION

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a cornerstone in the global effort to combat the pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs), being at the forefront of the pandemic response, have been the focus of vaccine mandate policies. This review aims to evaluate the impacts of COVID-19 vaccine mandates among HCWs, a critical step in understanding the broader implications of such policies in healthcare settings.

OBJECTIVE

The review seeks to synthesize available literature to contribute to greater understanding of the outcomes associated with COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs including vaccine uptake, infection rates, and staffing.

METHODS

A systematic search of relevant literature published from March 2020 to September 2023 was conducted. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was employed for quality assessment of the included articles. A total of 4,779 publications were identified, with 15 studies meeting the inclusion criteria for the review. A narrative synthesis approach was used to analyze these studies.

RESULTS

COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs were broadly successful in increasing vaccine uptake in most settings. Although the penalties imposed on unvaccinated HCWs did not lead to major disruption of health services, less well-resourced areas may have been more impacted. Furthermore, there is insufficient literature on the impact of the vaccine mandate on reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs have significant implications for public health policy and healthcare management. The findings underscore the need for tailored approaches in mandate policies, considering the specific contexts of healthcare settings and the diverse populations of HCWs. While mandates have shown potential in increasing vaccine uptake with minimal impacts to staffing, more work is needed to investigate the impacts of mandates across various contexts. In addition to these impacts, future research should focus on long-term effects and implications on broader public health strategies.

Designed for a pandemic: Mitigating the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission through hospital design and infrastructure

BACKGROUND

To describe the new Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH) design and infrastructure features that helped mitigate the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission within the hospital during the pre-vaccination and pre-antiviral period.

METHOD

The RAH infrastructure, design and initial pandemic response was assessed. A retrospective review of all confirmed or suspected coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted from 1 February 2020 to 30 May 2020 was also performed to assess risk of transmission. Outbreak response reports were reviewed to identify episodes of nosocomial COVID-19.

RESULTS

Key infrastructure features include single-bed overnight rooms with dedicated bathrooms, creation of pandemic areas accessible only to pandemic staff, and sophisticated air-handling units with improved ventilation. A total of 264 COVID-19 related admission occurred, with 113 confirmed cases and 1579 total cumulative bed days. Despite a limited understanding of SARS-CoV-2 transmission, no vaccination or anti-viral therapy, global shortages of particulate filter respirators and restricted testing during this period, only one probable nosocomial COVID-19 case occurred in a healthcare worker, with no nosocomial cases involving patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAH design and pandemic features complimented existing infection control interventions and was important in limiting nosocomial spread of SARS-CoV-2.

Epidemiological and Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 Outbreak in a Mental Hospital in Wenzhou, China, December 2022-January 2023

Background

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) mainly caused by the Omicron virus strain currently is still prevalent worldwide, and many medical institutions have experienced COVID-19 outbreaks in the past three years.

Objective

This article reported COVID-19 outbreak among health care workers in a mental hospital to clarify the epidemiological and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 outbreak in a medical institution, to assess the susceptible factors related to COVID-19 among these personnel and to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 vaccine on the medical workers.

Methods

A uniform questionnaire was used to investigate all employees, including age, gender, department, time of onset, clinical symptoms, vaccination status. At the same, the results of laboratory testing, chest computed tomography (CT) and/or X-ray examination were collected.

Results

Among 1047 hospital employees, 842 cases were diagnosed as COVID-19, with a total attack rate of 80.42%. The attack rate of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, and administrators (83.50-90.67%) was higher than that of logistics departments (56.81%). Out of the 842 patients, 9 were hospitalized; 833 were non-hospitalized patients who belong to mild or moderate cases. No deaths were reported. The full vaccination rate and booster rate of COVID-19 vaccine were 78.26% and 80.87%, respectively. There was no significant correlation between the attack rate and COVID-19 vaccine (χ2 = 3.41 P > 0.05).

Conclusion

This is an outbreak of COVID-19 with a high attack rate among employees in a mental hospital. The attack rate of medical personnel is higher than that of logistics personnel, which may be related to opportunities and duration of contact with infected individuals. COVID-19 vaccine has no significant protective effect on patients with mild or moderate symptoms 13 months after the full vaccination. It is suggested that they should be timely boostered with COVID-19 vaccine to maintain their immunity to the disease.

[Risk management system to reduce COVID-19 infection in health personnelSistema de gestão de riscos para reduzir o contágio de COVID-19 em profissionais de saúde]

Objective

To assess the occupational factors associated with the occurrence of COVID-19 in health personnel who were exposed to different magnitudes of risk and who followed the United Nations crisis management policy for COVID-19.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey conducted between April and May 2021. The low-risk group (LRG) were considered to be those who had minimal contact with patients; the medium-risk group (MRG) had contact with non-COVID-19 patients and did not perform instrumental airway intervention; and the high-risk group (HRG) were those who cared for COVID-19 patients and performed instrumental intervention with aerosol generation. Diagnosed COVID-19 disease and the presence of positive IgG antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 measured with Elecsys® anti-SARS-CoV-2 were considered as outcomes.

Results

Outcome recorded in 43.8% of the LRG, versus 46.7% in the MRG (odds ratio [OR]: 1.125; 95% confidence interval [CI 95% ]: 0.896-1.414; p = 0.311), and 48.6% in the HRG (OR: 1,214; CI 95%: 0.964-1.530; p= 0.10).

Conclusion

Belonging to the high-risk group and the medium-risk group, based on the degree of exposure to confirmed COVID-19 patients in the work area, was not associated with a higher occurrence of disease or seroconversion.

Respiratory Viruses in Nosocomial Pneumonia: An Evolving Paradigm

Nosocomial pneumonia (NP) represents a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Historically, clinicians have considered hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), which comprise NP, to be essentially bacterial processes. As such, patients suspected of having either HAP or VAP are initially treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics, and few clinicians search for a possible culprit virus. Recent reports which build on earlier studies, however, indicate that viruses likely play an important role in NP. Studies employing viral diagnostics as part of the evaluation for NP indicate that common respiratory viruses can spread nosocomially and lead to HAP and VAP. Similarly, studies of the general epidemiology of respiratory viral infections, such as influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, adenovirus, and rhinovirus, confirm that these pathogens are important causes of NP, especially among immunosuppressed and pediatric patients. More importantly, these more contemporary analyses reveal that one cannot, based on clinical characteristics, distinguish a viral from a bacterial cause of NP. Additionally, viral HAP and VAP result in crude mortality rates that rival or exceed those reported in bacterial NP. Rigorous prospective, multicenter trials are needed to confirm the significance of respiratory viruses in NP, as are studies of novel therapeutics for these viral infections.