SARS-CoV-2 immunity and reasons for non-vaccination among healthcare workers from eastern and northern Switzerland: results from a nested multicentre cross-sectional study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: We aimed to assess the extent of SARS-CoV-2 humoral immunity elicited by previous infections and/or vaccination among healthcare workers, and to identify reasons why healthcare workers decided against vaccination. METHODS: This nested cross-sectional study included volunteer healthcare workers from 14 healthcare institutions in German-speaking Switzerland. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were available for healthcare workers. In May and June 2022, participants answered electronic questionnaires regarding baseline characteristics including SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status (with one or more vaccine doses defined as vaccinated) and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections. Unvaccinated participants indicated their reasons for non-vaccination. Participants underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike (anti-S) and anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) antibodies. Antibody prevalence was described across age groups. In addition, we performed multivariable logistic regression to identify baseline characteristics independently associated with non-vaccination and described reasons for non-vaccination. RESULTS: Among 22,438 eligible employees, 3,436 (15%) participated; the median age was 43.7 years (range 16-73), 2,794 (81.3%) were female, and 1,407 (47.7%) identified as nurses; 3,414 (99.4%) underwent serology testing, among whom 3,383 (99.0%) had detectable anti-S (3,357, 98.3%) antibodies, anti-N (2,396, 70.1%) antibodies, or both (2,370, 69.4%). A total of 296 (8.6%) healthcare workers were unvaccinated, whereas 3,140 (91.4%) were vaccinated. In multivariable analysis, age (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01-1.03), being a physician (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.75-5.92) or administrator (aOR 1.88, 95% CI 1.27-2.80), and having higher education (aOR 2.23, 95% CI 1.09-4.57) were positively associated with vaccine uptake, whereas working in non-acute care (aOR 0.58, 95% CI 0.34-0.97), active smoking (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91), and taking prophylactic home remedies against SARS-CoV-2 (aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.31-0.56) were negatively associated. Important reasons for non-vaccination were a belief that the vaccine might not have long-lasting immunity (267/291, 92.1%) and a preference for gaining naturally acquired instead of vaccine-induced immunity (241/289, 83.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Almost all healthcare workers in our cohort had specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from natural infection and/or from vaccination. Young healthcare workers and those working in non-acute settings were less likely to be vaccinated, whereas physicians and administrative staff showed higher vaccination uptake. Presumed ineffectiveness of the vaccine is an important reason for non-vaccination.

Association between the introduction of a national targeted intervention program and the incidence of surgical site infections in Swiss acute care hospitals.

BACKGROUND: In Switzerland, the national surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance program showed a modest decrease in SSI rates for different procedures over the last decade. The study aimed to determine whether a multimodal, targeted intervention program in addition to existing SSI surveillance is associated with decreased SSI rates in the participating hospitals. METHODS: Prospective multicenter pre- and postintervention study conducted in eight Swiss acute care hospitals between 2013 and 2020. All consecutive patients > 18 years undergoing cardiac, colon, or hip/knee replacement surgery were included. The follow-up period was 30 days and one year for implant-related surgery. Patients with at least one follow-up were included. The intervention was to optimize three elements of preoperative management: (i) hair removal; (ii) skin disinfection; and (iii) perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis. We compared SSI incidence rates (main outcome measure) pre- and postintervention (three years each) adjusted for potential confounders. Poisson generalized linear mixed models fitted to quarter-yearly confirmed SSIs and adjusted for baseline differences between hospitals and procedures. Adherence was routinely monitored through on-site visits. RESULTS: A total of 10 151 patients were included, with a similar median age pre- and postintervention (69.6 and IQR 60.9, 76.8 years, vs 69.5 and IQR 60.4, 76.8 years, respectively; P = 0.55) and similar proportions of females (44.8% vs. 46.1%, respectively; P = 0.227). Preintervention, 309 SSIs occurred in 5 489 patients (5.6%), compared to 226 infections in 4 662 cases (4.8%, P = 0.09) postintervention. The adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) for overall SSI after intervention implementation was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.96, P = 0.02). For cardiac surgery (n = 2 927), the aIRR of SSI was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.32 to 0.72, P < 0.001). For hip/knee replacement surgery (n = 4 522), the aIRR was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.52 to 1.48, P = 0.63), and for colon surgery (n = 2 702), the aIRR was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.14, P = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: The SSI intervention bundle was associated with a statistically significant decrease in SSI cases. A significant association was observed for cardiac surgery. Adding a specific intervention program can add value compared to routine surveillance only. Further prevention modules might be necessary for colon and orthopedic surgery.

Validation of sTREM-1 and IL-6 based algorithms for outcome prediction of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: A prospective observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients in a single Emergency Department (ED) showed that sTREM-1- and IL-6-based algorithms were highly predictive of adverse outcome (Van Singer et al. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2021). We aim to validate the performance of these algorithms at ED presentation. METHODS: This multicentric prospective observational study of PCR-confirmed COVID-19 adult patients was conducted in the ED of three Swiss hospitals. Data of the three centers were retrospectively completed and merged. We determined the predictive accuracy of the sTREM-1-based algorithm for 30-day intubation/mortality. We also determined the performance of the IL-6-based algorithm using data from one center for 30-day oxygen requirement. RESULTS: 373 patients were included in the validation cohort, 139 (37%) in Lausanne, 93 (25%) in St.Gallen and 141 (38%) in EOC. Overall, 18% (93/373) patients died or were intubated by day 30. In Lausanne, 66% (92/139) patients required oxygen by day 30. The predictive accuracy of sTREM-1 and IL-6 were similar compared to the derivation cohort. The sTREM-1-based algorithm confirmed excellent sensitivity (90% versus 100% in the derivation cohort) and negative predictive value (94% versus 100%) for 30-day intubation/mortality. The IL-6-based algorithm performance was acceptable with a sensitivity of 85% versus 98% in the derivation cohort and a negative predictive value of 60% versus 92%. CONCLUSION: The sTREM-1 algorithm demonstrated good reproducibility. A prospective randomized controlled trial, comparing outcomes with and without the algorithm, is necessary to assess its safety and impact on hospital and ICU admission rates. The IL-6 algorithm showed acceptable validity in a single center and need additional validation before widespread implementation.

Treatment effect of remdesivir on the mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Switzerland across different patient groups: a tree-based model analysis.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Remdesivir has shown benefits against COVID-19. However, it remains unclear whether, to what extent, and among whom remdesivir can reduce COVID-19-related mortality. We explored whether the treatment response to remdesivir differed by patient characteristics. METHODS: We analysed data collected from a hospital surveillance study conducted in 21 referral hospitals in Switzerland between 2020 and 2022. We applied model-based recursive partitioning to group patients by the association between treatment levels and mortality. We included either treatment (levels: none, remdesivir within 7 days of symptom onset, remdesivir after 7 days, or another treatment), age and sex, or treatment only as regression variables. Candidate partitioning variables included a range of risk factors and comorbidities (and age and sex unless included in regression). We repeated the analyses using local centring to correct the results for the propensity to receive treatment. RESULTS: Overall (n = 21,790 patients), remdesivir within 7 days was associated with increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratios 1.28-1.54 versus no treatment). The CURB-65 score caused the most instability in the regression parameters of the model. When adjusted for age and sex, patients receiving remdesivir within 7 days of onset had higher mortality than those not treated in all identified eight patient groups. When age and sex were included as partitioning variables instead, the number of groups increased to 19-20; in five to six of those branches, mortality was lower among patients who received early remdesivir. Factors determining the groups where remdesivir was potentially beneficial included the presence of oncological comorbidities, male sex, and high age. CONCLUSIONS: Some subgroups of patients, such as individuals with oncological comorbidities or elderly males, may benefit from remdesivir.

Risk factors for severe outcomes for COVID-19 patients hospitalised in Switzerland during the first pandemic wave, February to August 2020: prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: As clinical signs of COVID-19 differ widely among individuals, from mild to severe, the definition of risk groups has important consequences for recommendations to the public, control measures and patient management, and needs to be reviewed regularly. AIM: The aim of this study was to explore risk factors for in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) admission for hospitalised COVID-19 patients during the first epidemic wave in Switzerland, as an example of a country that coped well during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: This study included all (n = 3590) adult polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed hospitalised patients in 17 hospitals from the hospital-based surveillance of COVID-19 (CH-Sur) by 1 September 2020. We calculated univariable and multivariable (adjusted) (1) proportional hazards (Fine and Gray) survival regression models and (2) logistic regression models for in-hospital mortality and admission to ICU, to evaluate the most common comorbidities as potential risk factors. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We found that old age was the strongest factor for in-hospital mortality after having adjusted for gender and the considered comorbidities (hazard ratio [HR] 2.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33−2.59 and HR 5.6 95% CI 5.23−6 for ages 65 and 80 years, respectively). In addition, male gender remained an important risk factor in the multivariable models (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.41−1.53). Of all comorbidities, renal disease, oncological pathologies, chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease (but not hypertension) and dementia were also risk factors for in-hospital mortality. With respect to ICU admission risk, the pattern was different, as patients with higher chances of survival might have been admitted more often to ICU. Male gender (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.58−2.31), hypertension (OR  1.3, 95% CI 1.07−1.59) and age 55–79 years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.06−1.26) are risk factors for ICU admission. Patients aged 80+ years, as well as patients with dementia or with liver disease were admitted less often to ICU. CONCLUSION: We conclude that increasing age is the most important risk factor for in-hospital mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients in Switzerland, along with male gender and followed by the presence of comorbidities such as renal diseases, chronic respiratory or cardiovascular disease, oncological malignancies and dementia. Male gender, hypertension and age between 55 and 79 years are, however, risk factors for ICU admission. Mortality and ICU admission need to be considered as separate outcomes when investigating risk factors for pandemic control measures and for hospital resources planning.

Clinical outcomes of adults hospitalized for laboratory confirmed respiratory syncytial virus or influenza virus infection.

OBJECTIVES: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause severe disease in adults, but far less is known than for influenza. The aim of our study was to compare the disease course of RSV infections with influenza infections among hospitalized adults. METHODS: We retrieved clinical data from an ongoing surveillance of adults hospitalized with RSV or influenza virus infection in two acute care hospitals in North-Eastern Switzerland during the winter seasons 2017/2018 and 2018/2019. Our main analysis compared the odds between RSV and influenza patients for admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) or in-hospital death within 7 days after admission. RESULTS: There were 548 patients, of whom 79 (14.4%) had an RSV and 469 (85.6%) an influenza virus infection. Both groups were similar with respect to age, sex, smoking status, nutritional state, and comorbidities. More RSV patients had an infiltrate on chest radiograph on admission (46.4% vs 29.9%, p = .007). The proportion of patients with RSV who died or were admitted to ICU within seven days after admission was 19.0% compared to 10.2% in influenza patients (p = .024). In multivariable analysis, a higher leukocyte count (adjusted OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.13, p = .013) and the presence of a pneumonic infiltrate (aOR 3.41, 95% CI 1.93-6.02) significantly increased the risk for experiencing the adverse primary outcome while the effect of the underlying viral pathogen became attenuated (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.58-2.41, p = .0.655). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that RSV is responsible for clinical courses at least as severe as influenza in adults. This supports the need for better guidance on diagnostic strategies as well as on preventive and therapeutic measures for hospitalized adults with RSV infection.

Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers - A multicentre cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population. METHODS: Between 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity. RESULTS: Among 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33-106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.8). DISCUSSION: Living with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study.

Cohort profile: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 hospitalised patients in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19, which emerged in China in late 2019, rapidly spread across the world with several million victims in 213 countries. Switzerland was severely hit by the virus, with 43,000 confirmed cases as of 1 September 2020. AIM: In cooperation with the Federal Office of Public Health, we set up a surveillance database in February 2020 to monitor hospitalised patients with COVID-19, in addition to their mandatory reporting system. METHODS: Patients hospitalised for more than 24 hours with a positive polymerase chain-reaction test, from 20 Swiss hospitals, are included. Data were collected in a customised case report form based on World Health Organisation recommendations and adapted to local needs. Nosocomial infections were defined as infections for which the onset of symptoms was more than 5 days after the patient’s admission date. RESULTS: As of 1 September 2020, 3645 patients were included. Most patients were male (2168, 59.5%), and aged between 50 and 89 years (2778, 76.2%), with a median age of 68 (interquartile range 54–79). Community infections dominated with 3249 (89.0%) reports. Comorbidities were frequently reported, with hypertension (1481, 61.7%), cardiovascular diseases (948, 39.5%) and diabetes (660, 27.5%) being the most frequent in adults; respiratory diseases and asthma (4, 21.1%), haematological and oncological diseases (3, 15.8%) were the most frequent in children. Complications occurred in 2679 (73.4%) episodes, mostly respiratory diseases (2470, 93.2% in adults; 16, 55.2% in children), and renal (681, 25.7%) and cardiac (631, 23.8%) complications for adults. The second and third most frequent complications in children affected the digestive system and the liver (7, 24.1%). A targeted treatment was given in 1299 (35.6%) episodes, mostly with hydroxychloroquine (989, 76.1%). Intensive care units stays were reported in 578 (15.8%) episodes. A total of 527 (14.5%) deaths were registered, all among adults. CONCLUSION: The surveillance system has been successfully initiated and provides a robust set of data for Switzerland by including about 80% (compared with official statistics) of SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 hospitalised patients, with similar age and comorbidity distributions. It adds detailed information on the epidemiology, risk factors and clinical course of these cases and, therefore, is a valuable addition to the existing mandatory reporting.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, the rational use of masks, and protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission by aerosols, to provide evidence on the rational use of masks, and to discuss additional measures important for the protection of healthcare workers from COVID-19. METHODS: Literature review and expert opinion. SHORT CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen causing COVID-19, is considered to be transmitted via droplets rather than aerosols, but droplets with strong directional airflow support may spread further than 2 m. High rates of COVID-19 infections in healthcare-workers (HCWs) have been reported from several countries. Respirators such as filtering face piece (FFP) 2 masks were designed to protect HCWs, while surgical masks were originally intended to protect patients (e.g., during surgery). Nevertheless, high quality standard surgical masks (type II/IIR according to European Norm EN 14683) appear to be as effective as FFP2 masks in preventing droplet-associated viral infections of HCWs as reported from influenza or SARS. So far, no head-to-head trials with these masks have been published for COVID-19. Neither mask type completely prevents transmission, which may be due to inappropriate handling and alternative transmission pathways. Therefore, compliance with a bundle of infection control measures including thorough hand hygiene is key. During high-risk procedures, both droplets and aerosols may be produced, reason why respirators are indicated for these interventions.