RESUMEN
Prisons are high-risk settings for COVID-19 and present specific challenges for prevention and control. We describe a COVID-19 outbreak in a large prison in Milan between 20 February and 30 April 2020. We performed a retrospective analysis of routine data collected during the COVID-19 emergency in prison. We analysed the spatial distribution of cases and calculated global and specific attack rates (AR). We assessed prevention and control measures. By 30 April 2020, 57 confirmed COVID-19 cases and 66 clinically probable cases were recorded among a population of 1,480. Global AR was 8.3%. The index case was a custodial officer. Two clusters were detected among custodial staff and healthcare workers. On 31 March, a confirmed case was identified among detained individuals. COVID-19 spread by physical proximity or among subgroups with cultural affinity, resulting in a cluster of 22 confirmed cases. Following index case identification, specific measures were taken including creation of a multidisciplinary task-force, increasing diagnostic capacity, contact tracing and dedicated isolation areas. Expanded use of personal protective equipment, environmental disinfection and health promotion activities were also implemented. Outbreaks of COVID-19 in prison require heightened attention and stringent comprehensive measures.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Prisiones , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Humanos , Italia/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Background: Saliva molecular tests have shown a similar sensitivity and specificity compared to nasopharyngeal test for SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected Lombardy prisons, generating the need for extensive contact tracing activities and for detecting asymptomatic carriers. The availability of a less invasive test in a setting that hosts a high-risk and often hard-to-reach population, suggests its possible use in prisons. Methods: The study was carried out on a population of new incomers in Milan San Vittore pre-trial prison. All the new incomers were submitted to quarantine and to saliva test and nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) for SARS-CoV-2 detection at the entry and at the end of quarantine before their admission in community (Protocol 1-February 2nd to March 5th, 2021). Starting from March 8th to July 30th, 2021, the screening protocol was adjusted to avoid biases in sample collection (Protocol II), and saliva testing was performed at entrance. Results: 12/1,120 enrolled subjects were excluded from the study. Among the 1,080 processed samples, 1 tested positive, 5 weakly positive, 1,069 negative, 3 were invalid, and 2 samples tested positive for the viral gene N2 only, with Ct value above 38. During Protocol I, 6/156 coupled saliva/NPS tests were discordant due to food ingestion prior saliva collection, prompting us to establishing Protocol II. Conclusions: Saliva molecular testing is feasible in prison setting, being less invasive and easier to use, and reliable. Acceptability was very high even in a complex context as that of newly incarcerated persons.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Prueba de COVID-19 , Estudios de Factibilidad , Humanos , Prisiones , SARS-CoV-2 , SalivaRESUMEN
Importance: Owing to infrastructural and population characteristics, the prison setting is at increased risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and for severe clinical outcomes. Because of structural and operational reasons, research in prison settings is challenging and available studies are often monocentric and have limited temporal coverage; broader-based research is necessary. Objectives: To assess the extent and dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic within the prison system of a large Italian region, Lombardy, and report the infection prevention and control measures implemented. Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study was carried out from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021 (first wave, March-June 2020; second wave, October 2020-February 2021) in the prison system of Lombardy, which includes 18 detention facilities for adults. All incarcerated persons and the prison staff of the penitentiary system of the Lombardy region participated in the study. Exposures: The main exposures of interest were the weekly average number of incarcerated individuals placed in quarantine in single or shared isolation rooms, the rate of sick leave by symptomatic and asymptomatic prison staff reported to the prison occupational medicine department on a weekly basis, and the level of overcrowding. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measures were weekly COVID-19 crude case rates, weekly test positivity rate, and the relative risk of acquiring the infection for prison staff, incarcerated persons, and the general population. Results: The study population comprised a mean of 7599 incarcerated individuals and 4591 prison staff. Approximately 5.1% of the prison population were women; demographic characteristics of the prison staff were not available. During the study, COVID-19 occurred in 1564 incarcerated individuals and 661 prison staff. Most of these cases were reported during the second wave (1474 in incarcerated individuals, 529 in prison staff), when stringent measures previously enforced were relaxed. During both epidemic waves, incarcerated individuals and prison staff had a higher relative risk for COVID-19 infection than the general population during both the first wave (incarcerated individuals: 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58; prison staff: 3.23; 95% CI, 2.74-3.84) and the second wave (incarcerated individuals: 3.91; 95% CI, 3.73-4.09; prison staff: 2.61; 95% CI, 2.41-2.82). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the prison setting was an element of fragility during COVID-19 pandemic, with a high burden of COVID-19 cases among both the incarcerated individuals and prison staff. The prison setting and prison population need to be included and possibly prioritized in the response during epidemic events.