A longitudinal environmental surveillance study for SARS-CoV-2 from the emergency department of a teaching hospital in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: Understanding factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk in the hospital setting may help improve infection control measures for prevention. AIM: To monitor SARS-CoV-2 exposure risk among healthcare workers and to identify risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 detection. METHODS: Surface and air samples were collected longitudinally over 14 months spanning 2020-2022 at the Emergency Department (ED) of a teaching hospital in Hong Kong. SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA was detected by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction. Ecological factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 detection were analysed by logistic regression. A sero-epidemiological study was conducted in January-April 2021 to monitor SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence. A questionnaire was used to collect information on job nature and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) of the participants. FINDINGS: SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected at low frequencies from surfaces (0.7%, N = 2562) and air samples (1.6%, N = 128). Crowding was identified as the main risk factor, as weekly ED attendance (OR = 1.002, P=0.04) and sampling after peak-hours of ED attendance (OR = 5.216, P=0.03) were associated with the detection of SARS-CoV-2 viral RNA from surfaces. The low exposure risk was corroborated by the zero seropositive rate among 281 participants by April 2021. CONCLUSION: Crowding may introduce SARS-CoV-2 into the ED through increased attendances. Multiple factors may have contributed to the low contamination of SARS-CoV-2 in the ED, including hospital infection control measures for screening ED attendees, high PPE compliance among healthcare workers, and various public health and social measures implemented to reduce community transmission in Hong Kong where a dynamic zero COVID-19 policy was adopted.

Economic evaluations of interventions against influenza at workplaces: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The burden of influenza is mostly felt by employees and employers because of increased absenteeism rates, loss of productivity and associated direct costs. Even though interventions against influenza among working adults are effective, patronage and compliance to these measures especially vaccination are low compared to other risk groups. AIMS: This study was aimed to assess evidence of economic evaluations of interventions against influenza virus infection among workers or in the workplace setting. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) reporting guideline for systematic reviews was followed. Three databases, PubMed, Web of Science and EconLit, were searched using keywords to identify relevant articles from inception till 25 October 2020. Original peer-reviewed papers that conducted economic evaluations of influenza interventions using cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analysis methods focused on working-age adults or work settings were eligible for inclusion. Two independent teams of co-authors extracted and synthesized data from identified studies. RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were included: 21 were cost-benefit analyses and 3 examined cost-effectiveness analyses. Two papers also presented additional cost-utility analysis. Most of the studies were pharmaceutical interventions (n = 23) primarily focused on vaccination programs while one study was a non-pharmaceutical intervention examining the benefit of paid sick leave. All but two studies reported that interventions against influenza virus infection at the workplace were cost-saving and cost-effective regardless of the analytic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Further cost-effectiveness research in non-pharmaceutical interventions against influenza in workplace settings is warranted. There is a need to develop standardized methods for reporting economic evaluation methods to ensure comparability and applicability of future research findings.

Short- and potential long-term adverse health outcomes of COVID-19: a rapid review.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in millions of patients infected worldwide and indirectly affecting even more individuals through disruption of daily living. Long-term adverse outcomes have been reported with similar diseases from other coronaviruses, namely Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). Emerging evidence suggests that COVID-19 adversely affects different systems in the human body. This review summarizes the current evidence on the short-term adverse health outcomes and assesses the risk of potential long-term adverse outcomes of COVID-19. Major adverse outcomes were found to affect different body systems: immune system (including but not limited to Guillain-Barré syndrome and paediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome), respiratory system (lung fibrosis and pulmonary thromboembolism), cardiovascular system (cardiomyopathy and coagulopathy), neurological system (sensory dysfunction and stroke), as well as cutaneous and gastrointestinal manifestations, impaired hepatic and renal function. Mental health in patients with COVID-19 was also found to be adversely affected. The burden of caring for COVID-19 survivors is likely to be huge. Therefore, it is important for policy makers to develop comprehensive strategies in providing resources and capacity in the healthcare system. Future epidemiological studies are needed to further investigate the long-term impact on COVID-19 survivors.

Ecologic association between influenza and COVID-19 mortality rates in European countries.

Ecologic studies investigating COVID-19 mortality determinants, used to make predictions and design public health control measures, generally focused on population-based variable counterparts of individual-based risk factors. Influenza is not causally associated with COVID-19, but shares population-based determinants, such as similar incidence/mortality trends, transmission patterns, efficacy of non-pharmaceutical interventions, comorbidities and underdiagnosis. We investigated the ecologic association between influenza mortality rates and COVID-19 mortality rates in the European context. We considered the 3-year average influenza (2014-2016) and COVID-19 (31 May 2020) crude mortality rates in 34 countries using EUROSTAT and ECDC databases and performed correlation and regression analyses. The two variables - log transformed, showed significant Spearman's correlation ρ = 0.439 (P = 0.01), and regression coefficients, b = 0.743 (95% confidence interval, 0.272-1.214; R2 = 0.244; P = 0.003), b = 0.472 (95% confidence interval, 0.067-0.878; R2 = 0.549; P = 0.02), unadjusted and adjusted for confounders (population size and cardiovascular disease mortality), respectively. Common significant determinants of both COVID-19 and influenza mortality rates were life expectancy, influenza vaccination in the elderly (direct associations), number of hospital beds per population unit and crude cardiovascular disease mortality rate (inverse associations). This analysis suggests that influenza mortality rates were independently associated with COVID-19 mortality rates in Europe, with implications for public health preparedness, and implies preliminary undetected SARS-CoV-2 spread in Europe.