RESUMEN
Objectives: We aimed to analyse the incidence and severity of breakthrough infections (BIs) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients after a COronaVIrus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination booster dose. Methods: We enrolled 194 RA patients and 1002 healthcare workers (HCWs) as controls. Clinical, lifestyle and demographic factors were collected at the time of the third dose, and immunogenicity analyses were carried out in a subgroup of patients at 4-6 weeks after the third dose. Results: BIs were experienced by 42% patients (82/194) with a median time since the last vaccination of 176 days. Older age (>50 years; aHR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.74), receiving conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) (aHR 0.52, 95%CI: 0.30-0.90) and having a titre of neutralising antibodies >20 (aHR 0.36, 95% CI: 0.12-1.07) were identified as protective factors. Conversely, anti-IL6R treatment and anti-CD20 therapy increased BI probability. BIs were mostly pauci-symptomatic, but the hospitalisation incidence was significantly higher than in HCWs (8.5% vs. 0.19%); the main risk factor was anti-CD20 therapy. Conclusions: Being older than 50 years and receiving csDMARDs were shown to be protective factors for BI, whereas anti-IL6R or anti-CD20 therapy increased the risk. Higher neutralising antibody titres were associated with a lower probability of BI. If confirmed in a larger population, the identification of a protective cut-off would allow a personalised risk-benefit therapeutic management of RA patients.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Vaccine-induced SARS-CoV-2-anti-spike antibody (anti-S/RBD) titers are often used as a marker of immune protection and to anticipate the risk of breakthrough infections, although no clear cut-off is available. We describe the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine breakthrough infections in COVID-19-free personnel of our hospital, according to B- and T-cell immune response elicited one month after mRNA third dose vaccination. METHODS: The study included 487 individuals for whom data on anti-S/RBD were available. Neutralizing antibody titers (nAbsT) against the ancestral Whuan SARS-CoV-2, and the BA.1 Omicron variant, and SARS-CoV-2 T-cell specific response were measured in subsets of 197 (40.5%), 159 (32.6%), and 127 (26.1%) individuals, respectively. RESULTS: On a total of 92,063 days of observation, 204 participants (42%) had SARS-CoV-2 infection. No significant differences in the probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection for different levels of anti-S/RBD, nAbsT, Omicron nAbsT, or SARS-CoV-2 T cell specific response, and no protective thresholds for infection were found. CONCLUSIONS: Routine testing for vaccine-induced humoral immune response to SARS-CoV-2 is not recommended if measured as parameters of 'protective immunity' from SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination. Whether these findings apply to new Omicron-specific bivalent vaccines is going to be evaluated.
RESUMEN
Physical and moral violence against the workers of a local public health unit is perspectively studied in the period 2005-2011. Data were collected during periodic medical surveillance of all workers exposed to risk and with more than one year of seniority. The prevalence of the phenomenon is constant in the period under review. On average, each year a worker in ten is physically assaulted, and one in five is subjected to verbal abuse. The professional groups most exposed to violence are nurses (OR 2.67 IC95% 1.63-4.39) and doctors (OR 2.44 IC95% 1.34-4.46). The areas at greatest risk are the psychiatric care (OR 25.7, IC95% 11.1-59.6) and emergency and first aid (OR 8.8, CI95% 3.8-20.5). The workplace violence against health workers requires urgent preventive interventions.
