Differential occupational risks to healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 observed during a prospective observational study.

We conducted voluntary Covid-19 testing programmes for symptomatic and asymptomatic staff at a UK teaching hospital using naso-/oro-pharyngeal PCR testing and immunoassays for IgG antibodies. 1128/10,034 (11.2%) staff had evidence of Covid-19 at some time. Using questionnaire data provided on potential risk-factors, staff with a confirmed household contact were at greatest risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.82 [95%CI 3.45-6.72]). Higher rates of Covid-19 were seen in staff working in Covid-19-facing areas (22.6% vs. 8.6% elsewhere) (aOR 2.47 [1.99-3.08]). Controlling for Covid-19-facing status, risks were heterogenous across the hospital, with higher rates in acute medicine (1.52 [1.07-2.16]) and sporadic outbreaks in areas with few or no Covid-19 patients. Covid-19 intensive care unit staff were relatively protected (0.44 [0.28-0.69]), likely by a bundle of PPE-related measures. Positive results were more likely in Black (1.66 [1.25-2.21]) and Asian (1.51 [1.28-1.77]) staff, independent of role or working location, and in porters and cleaners (2.06 [1.34-3.15]).

Cancer Patients and Risk of Mortality for COVID-19.

Two recent Lancet and Lancet Oncology papers report that cancer patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection have higher mortality rates. Common independent factors associated with increased risk of death were older age, history of smoking status, number of comorbidities, more advanced performance status, and active cancer.

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). PURPOSE: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: 21 standard, World Health Organization-specific and COVID-19-specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk-of-bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). DATA SYNTHESIS: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very-low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. LIMITATION: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. CONCLUSION: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: World Health Organization. (PROSPERO: CRD42020178187).

COVID-19 Pandemia: Neuropsychiatric Comorbidity and Consequences.

Infection with the new corona virus (SARS-CoV-2) was first registered in December 2019 in China, and then later spread rapidly to the rest of the world. On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) informed the public for the first time about causes of pneumonnia of unknown origin, in the city of Wuhan (Hubei Province, China), in people who were epidemiologically linked to a seafood and wet animal whole sale local market in Wuhan. Coronavrus disease, called COVID-19 (Corona virus disease 2019), after China quickly spread to most countries in the wold, and the WHO on March 11, 2020 declared a pandmic with this virus. SARS-CoV-2, has a high level of sequential similarities to the SARS-CoV-1 and uses the same receptors when it enters the human body (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2/ACE2). COVID-19 is respiratry infection that is primarily transmitted via respiratry droplets. Typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection can be very moderate (infected can be even asymptomatic) to very severe, with severe respiratory symptoms (bilateral severe pneumonia), septic schock, and fatal outcome. Numeous unknows regarding the biological, epidemilogical adn clinical characteristics of COVID-19, still exist, and make it impossible to predict with certainty the further course of the current pandemic. COVID-19 is primarily a disease of the respiratory system, but SARS-CoV-2, in a number of patients also penetrates the CNS, and apparently could be responsible for fatal outcome in some cases. The entrry of the virus into the brain can lead to neurological and psychiatric manifestationss, which are not uncommon, including headache, paresthesia, myalgia, impaired consciousnessm, confusion or delirum and cerebrovascular diseases. SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals should be evaluated in a timely manner for neurological and psychiatic symptoms because tretament of infection-related neurological and psychiatric complications is an important factor in better prognosis of severe COVID-19 patients.From the current point of view, it seems that in COVID-19 survivors, in the coming years and decades, the inflammatory systemic process and/or the inflammatory process of the brain could trigger long-term mechanisms that generally lead to an increase of neurological and neurodegenerative disorders. Psychosocial consequences as well as consequences for mental health are also significant, both for the general population and especially for health workers of all profiles. COVID-19 pandemia is associtaed with negative psychosocial consequences, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, anger and stress, sleep disorders, simpotms of posttrauamtic stres disorder, social isolation, loneliness and stigmatization.

Environmental surface testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) during prolonged isolation of an asymptomatic carrier.

Environmental surface testing was performed to search for evidence of severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) environmental contamination by an asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carrier with persistently high viral loads under isolation. No evidence of environmental contamination was found. Further studies are needed to measure environmental contamination by SARS-CoV-2 carriers and to determine reasonable isolation periods.

Air and environmental sampling for SARS-CoV-2 around hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The role of severe respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-laden aerosols in the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains uncertain. Discordant findings of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in air samples were noted in early reports. METHODS: Sampling of air close to 6 asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID-19 patients with and without surgical masks was performed with sampling devices using sterile gelatin filters. Frequently touched environmental surfaces near 21 patients were swabbed before daily environmental disinfection. The correlation between the viral loads of patients' clinical samples and environmental samples was analyzed. RESULTS: All air samples were negative for SARS-CoV-2 RNA in the 6 patients singly isolated inside airborne infection isolation rooms (AIIRs) with 12 air changes per hour. Of 377 environmental samples near 21 patients, 19 (5.0%) were positive by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay, with a median viral load of 9.2 × 102 copies/mL (range, 1.1 × 102 to 9.4 × 104 copies/mL). The contamination rate was highest on patients' mobile phones (6 of 77, 7.8%), followed by bed rails (4 of 74, 5.4%) and toilet door handles (4 of 76, 5.3%). We detected a significant correlation between viral load ranges in clinical samples and positivity rate of environmental samples (P < .001). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was not detectable by air samplers, which suggests that the airborne route is not the predominant mode of transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Wearing a surgical mask, appropriate hand hygiene, and thorough environmental disinfection are sufficient infection control measures for COVID-19 patients isolated singly in AIIRs. However, this conclusion may not apply during aerosol-generating procedures or in cohort wards with large numbers of COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 infections among HCWs exposed to a patient with a delayed diagnosis of COVID-19.

We report on COVID-19 risk among HCWs exposed to a patient diagnosed with COVID-19 on day 13 of hospitalization. There were 44 HCWs exposed to the patient before contact and droplet precautions were implemented: of these, 2 of 44 (5%) developed COVID-19 potentially attributable to the exposure.

Respiratory surveillance wards as a strategy to reduce nosocomial transmission of COVID-19 through early detection: The experience of a tertiary-care hospital in Singapore.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with COVID-19 may present with respiratory syndromes indistinguishable from those caused by common viruses. Early isolation and containment is challenging. Although screening all patients with respiratory symptoms for COVID-19 has been recommended, the practicality of such an effort has yet to be assessed. METHODS: Over a 6-week period during a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, our institution introduced a "respiratory surveillance ward" (RSW) to segregate all patients with respiratory symptoms in designated areas, where appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) could be utilized until SARS-CoV-2 testing was done. Patients could be transferred when SARS-CoV-2 tests were negative on 2 consecutive occasions, 24 hours apart. RESULTS: Over the study period, 1,178 patients were admitted to the RSWs. The mean length-of-stay (LOS) was 1.89 days (SD, 1.23). Among confirmed cases of pneumonia admitted to the RSW, 5 of 310 patients (1.61%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. This finding was comparable to the pickup rate from our isolation ward. In total, 126 HCWs were potentially exposed to these cases; however, only 3 (2.38%) required quarantine because most used appropriate PPE. In addition, 13 inpatients overlapped with the index cases during their stay in the RSW; of these 13 exposed inpatients, 1 patient subsequently developed COVID-19 after exposure. No patient-HCW transmission was detected despite intensive surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Our institution successfully utilized the strategy of an RSW over a 6-week period to contain a cluster of COVID-19 cases and to prevent patient-HCW transmission. However, this method was resource-intensive in terms of testing and bed capacity.