Questionable Immunity to Mumps among Healthcare Workers in Italy-A Cross-Sectional Serological Study.

Highly contagious diseases, such as mumps, are a global concern as new epidemics continue to emerge, even in highly vaccinated populations. The risk of transmission and spread of these viruses is even higher for individuals who are more likely to be exposed, including healthcare workers (HCWs). In healthcare settings, both HCWs and patients are at risk of infection during the care process, potentially leading to nosocomial epidemic outbreaks. Mumps is often underestimated compared with measles and rubella, despite being milder and less likely to spread. In fact, the risk of complications following mumps infection is extremely high, especially if the disease occurs in adulthood. The measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine has been shown to be an excellent preventive measure. Unfortunately, the mumps component appears to be less effective in inducing immunity than those for measles and rubella (two-dose effectiveness of 85%, 95% and 97%, respectively). The main aim of our study was to investigate the prevalence of detectable mumps antibodies (serum IgG antibodies) in a cohort of Italian and foreign HCWs in relation to personal and occupational factors. We included in the study 468 subjects who underwent health surveillance at the Occupational Medicine Unit of the Tor Vergata Polyclinic in Rome during the period from January 2021 to March 2023. In our study, the proportion of HCWs found to be unprotected against mumps was very high (8.3%), and those found to be immune are below the WHO threshold for herd immunity (95%). From our data, it seems essential that all occupational health services carry out an accurate screening with a dose of anti-mumps antibodies to assess serological protection before starting a job, regardless of an individual's vaccination history. This approach is proving to be beneficial, accurate, as it allows all serologically non-immune individuals to be vaccinated in the workplace, including those who would be protected by their vaccination history but have lost the antibody response.

Vaccine Hesitancy, Knowledge, and COVID-19 Vaccination in a Sample of Italian and Albanian Healthcare Students Attending an University in Albania.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine hesitancy (VH) has increased over the past decade with large geographical variations between countries, posing a threat to global public health. This phenomenon is growing in the general population as well as among healthcare workers (HCWs), who are the most reliable source of vaccine-related information for patients. Special attention must therefore be paid to medical students, who are the future HCWs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study (November 2022-January 2023) on all the Albanian and Italian students attending medical science courses at the Catholic University "Our Lady of Good Counsel" (Tirane, Albania) to investigate VH and the factors contributing to it (using the Vaccination Attitude Examination Scale-VAX), including COVID-19 vaccination. Vaccine knowledge was assessed using the Zingg and Siegrist Scale. Students were asked to voluntarily answer an anonymous questionnaire. RESULTS: 689 questionnaires were collected (58.8% Albanians, 72.3% female; 70.4% aged 20-25 years; 70.4% attending the Medicine and Surgery course). Generally, students showed low VH, especially Italians (p < 0.001); however, some hesitancy was observed regarding the potential long-term effects of vaccines, especially among Albanians (p < 0.05). The results also showed a significant difference in vaccine knowledge scores between different course years (χ2 = 90.058; df = 40; p = < 0.001) and different degree courses (χ2 = 89.932; df = 40; p = < 0.001). With regard to COVID-19 vaccination, being of Albanian origin significantly increases the risk of not being vaccinated (OR = 7.215; 95%CI 3.816-13.640, p < 0.001), highlighting possible differences in vaccine coverage and policy between the two countries. CONCLUSION: Vaccine hesitancy should be addressed at early stages during medical sciences courses, in order to protect future healthcare workers, to preserve essential health services, and reduce the risk of further pandemics.

Low-Dose Occupational Exposure to Ionizing Radiation and Cardiovascular Effects: A Narrative Review.

Historically, non-cancer diseases have not been considered a health risk following low-dose exposure to ionizing radiation. However, it is now well known that high-dose ionizing radiation causes cardiovascular disease, and emerging epidemiological evidence suggests an excess risk of non-cancer diseases even following exposure to lower doses of ionizing radiation than previously thought. In fact, the evidence is strongest for cardiovascular disease (CVD). The aim of this review was to report the most representative studies and data on the risk of CVD from low-dose radiation in people with occupational exposure. We reported the results of 27 articles selected from a database search of 1151 studies. The results show a complex evidence landscape on the relationship between radiation exposure and cardiovascular disease. In general, published papers show a positive association between ionizing radiation exposure and dermal microcirculation damage, ischemic heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease. Overall, they highlight the need for comprehensive and detailed research to clarify this relationship. Due to limited statistical power, the dose-risk relationship below 0.5 Gy is inconclusive, but if this relationship is found to have no threshold, it could have a significant impact on current estimates of health risks at low doses.

Pulmonary function assessment after COVID-19 in vaccinated healthcare workers.

COVID-19 typically presents with flu-like symptoms due to the viral infection itself. The most severe cases are characterised by lung damage, an important factor in fatal outcome due to alveolar damage. In some cases, patients develop a long COVID with persistent symptoms of chest pain and fatigue. Causes, including organ damage or inflammation, are being investigated. Clinical outcomes are variable and permanent lung damage is not fully understood, while vaccination is effective against severe infection but its effect on respiratory function in mild cases remains uncertain. This retrospective study aims to analyse changes in lung function in HCWs who had COVID-19 between 2020 and 2022, comparing their spirometric test results before and after the pandemic and taking into account their vaccination status. 321 HCWs were included in the study. The study examined spirometric parameters both before and after the pandemic, and all measured outcomes except the FEV1/FVC ratio showed a significant decrease during the study period. We then assessed the association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and changes in lung function parameters, analysing infections in 2020, 2021 and 2022 separately. We found a statistically significant difference in Forced vital capacity (FVC) between infected and non-infected subjects in 2020 and 2021, but not in 2022. To evaluate the protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination on respiratory function, a linear regression analysis was performed using changes in FVC, Forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), FVC/FEV1 ratio and Peak expiratory flow (PEF) as dependent variables. The analysis showed that the decline in FVC was significantly lower in subjects who had been vaccinated prior to infection. The study concludes that subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infections in 2020 and 2021 worsened respiratory parameters (FVC and FEV1), but vaccination protected against these effects. Even healthy individuals with previous infections showed respiratory changes, with vaccination providing protection, especially for FVC decline. This highlights the importance of vaccinating healthcare workers against COVID-19.