Healthcare-associated transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Thai healthcare personnel who receive 2 doses of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine: A call for considering a booster dose.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Apisarnthanarak A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376843 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Healthcare-associated transmission of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) among Thai healthcare personnel who receive 2 doses of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine: A call for considering a booster dose.
Apisarnthanarak Anucha A Nantapisal Sira S Pienthong Thanus T Apisarnthanarak Piyaporn P Weber David J DJ
Infection control and hospital epidemiology 20210806 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundProtection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant.MethodsWe evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates.ResultsAmong 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants.ConclusionsA booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.
| S-EPMC10549208 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Among 283 symptomatic healthcare personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2, 51 (18%) were positive. Among those 51 HCP, self reported loss of smell and taste were present in 51% and 52.9%, respectively, with either present in 60.8%. These symptoms had high specificity (93% each, 96% for either) for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test.
| S-EPMC7454440 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify characteristics associated with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in healthcare personnel.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingA multihospital healthcare system.ParticipantsEmployees 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.MethodsData 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.ResultsAmong 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.ConclusionsIn 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.
| S-EPMC9727206 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe previously reported on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination intent among healthcare personnel (HCP) before emergency use authorization. We found widespread hesitancy and a substantial proportion of HCP did not intend to vaccinate.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of HCP, including clinical and nonclinical staff, researchers, and trainees between 21 February and 19 March 2021. The survey evaluated vaccine attitudes, beliefs, intent, and acceptance.ResultsOverall, 3981 (87.7%) of respondents had already received a COVID-19 vaccine or planned to get vaccinated. There were significant differences in vaccine acceptance by gender, age, race, and hospital role. Males (93.7%) were more likely than females (89.8%) to report vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Mean age was higher among those reporting vaccine acceptance (P < .001). Physicians and scientists showed the highest acceptance rate (97.3%), whereas staff in ancillary services showed the lowest acceptance rate (79.9%). Unvaccinated respondents were more likely to be females, to have refused vaccines in the past due to reasons other than illness or allergy, to care for COVID-19 patients, or to rely on themselves when making vaccination decision. Vaccine acceptance was more than twice previous intent among Black respondents, an increase from 30.8% to 73.8%, and across all hospital roles with all > 80% vaccine acceptance.ConclusionsThe majority of HCP were vaccinated, much higher than reporting intent before vaccine was available. However, many HCP-particularly ancillary services-are still hesitant. Feasible and effective interventions to address the hesitant, including individually-tailored education strategies are needed, or vaccine can be mandated.
| S-EPMC8513411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We describe the association between job roles and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare personnel. A wide range of hazard ratios were observed across job roles. Medical assistants had higher hazard ratios than nurses, while attending physicians, food service workers, laboratory technicians, pharmacists, residents and fellows, and temporary workers had lower hazard ratios.
| S-EPMC9726628 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine effectiveness in the early months of vaccine availability was high among healthcare personnel (HCP) at 88.3% for 2-doses. Among those testing positive for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), those with breakthrough infection after vaccination were more likely to have had a non-work-related SARS-CoV-2 exposure compared to unvaccinated HCP.
| S-EPMC9726500 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP).MethodsWe conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up.ResultsOf 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID.ConclusionsLong COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.
| S-EPMC10755155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePrior studies of universal masking have not measured face-mask compliance. We performed a quality improvement study to monitor and improve face-mask compliance among healthcare personnel (HCP) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.DesignMixed-methods study.SettingTertiary-care center in West Haven, Connecticut.PatientsHCP including physicians, nurses, and ancillary staff.MethodsFace-mask compliance was measured through direct observations during a 4-week baseline period after universal masking was mandated. Frontline and management HCP completed semistructured interviews from which a multimodal intervention was developed. Direct observations were repeated during a 14-week period following implementation of the multimodal intervention. Differences between units were evaluated with χ2 testing using the Bonferroni correction. Face-mask compliance between baseline and intervention periods was compared using time-series regression.ResultsAmong 1,561 observations during the baseline period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 82.2% (range, 80.8%-84.4%). Semistructured interviews were performed with 16 HCP. Qualitative analysis informed the development of a multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership. Among 2,651 observations during the intervention period, median weekly face-mask compliance was 92.6% (range, 84.6%-97.9%). There was no difference in weekly face-mask compliance between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 units. The multimodal intervention was associated with an increase in face-mask compliance (β = 0.023; P = .002).ConclusionsFace-mask compliance remained suboptimal among HCP despite a facility-wide mandate for universal masking. A multimodal intervention consisting of audit and passive feedback, active discussion, and increased communication from leadership was effective in increasing face-mask compliance among HCP.
| S-EPMC8144836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:With the increasing spread and mortality of the COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic, it is essential for the healthcare community to be prepared per the international standards. This study is focused on assessing the preparedness of healthcare personnel and the effectiveness of an educational intervention to improve this preparedness in those dealing with the COVID-19 infection. A prospective, multicenter audit cycle was conducted on 400 healthcare professionals (271 junior doctors, 90 nurses, 39 non-clinical hospital workers) sampled through stratified random sampling. A questionnaire that was based on “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC's) checklist for healthcare personnel's preparedness for transport and arrival of patients with confirmed or possible COVID-19” was sent to the participants after which an informative document, framed on the information provided by World Health Organization (WHO), CDC, and local guidelines from the Government of Pakistan's website, was distributed through social media platforms. The questionnaire was repeated after 2 weeks to close the audit loop. Chi-Square test and paired sample t-test were used to test significance. In the pre-intervention portion of the study, it was found out that the doctors and nurses had higher knowledge scores compared to the non-clinical hospital staff (p ? 0.05). A statistically significant improvement was seen after the educational intervention was deployed (p ? 0.05). The study concludes that the non-clinical staff, being a vital part of the healthcare framework, need to be educated and effective approaches for official inclusion of relevant information need to be incorporated into clinical practice to limit the transmission of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7517286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:COVID-19 vaccination is effective at reducing SARS-CoV-2 complications, but uptake has been low. Our objective in this study was to compare the importance of factors reported to influence the decision to receive a bivalent COVID-19 booster vaccine among health care personnel (HCP) tested for SARS-CoV-2 between October 2022 and April 2023 in a 20-hospital vaccine effectiveness study in the United States (n = 1656). Compared with those who had not received the booster, the factors most likely to be reported to be important were concerns about contracting COVID-19 (84.0% of those who had received the bivalent booster vs. 47.5% of those who had not, difference 36.6% points (PP), 95% confidence interval [CI] 32.1 to 41.1%), spreading infection to family members (89.2% vs. 62.8%, difference 26.3 PP, 95% CI 22.3 to 30.4%), and spreading infection to colleagues at work (85.5% vs. 59.4%, difference 26.1 PP, 95% CI 21.7 to 30.5%). HCP who had received the booster more frequently cited the primary literature (61.7% vs. 31.8%, difference 29.9 PP, 95% CI 24.6 to 35.2%) and employer recommendations (48.3% vs. 29.8%, difference 18.5 PP, 95% CI 13.2 to 23.9%) as influencing their decision. This analysis provides insight into factors for targeting future vaccine messaging.
| S-EPMC10760319 | biostudies-literature