Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 12 de 12
Filtrar
1.
Int J Public Health ; 69: 1606791, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38721474

RESUMEN

Objectives: To describe a suspected diphtheria outbreak in a Swiss asylum seeker reception centre, and to analyse its management response regarding testing and vaccination. Methods: We retrospectively analysed clinical, microbiology, and case management data of all asylum seekers tested for C. diphtheriae between 28th August and 31st December 2022 while residing at the centre. Results are reported descriptively. Results: Among 265 individuals tested, ten cases of cutaneous diphtheria, one simultaneous respiratory and cutaneous case, and nine respiratory carriers were identified. Mass throat screening, targeted throat testing and targeted wound testing yielded 4.8%, 4.3%, and 17.4% positive results, respectively. No respiratory carrier was identified among cutaneous cases undergoing a throat swab, and no symptomatic case was identified among individuals with unspecific throat symptoms. Rates of vaccination implementation of newly arriving asylum seekers before and after the outbreak were low (17.5% and 15.5%, respectively), as were rates of targeted vaccination among cases and close contacts. Conclusion: We provide evidence for transmission both prior to arrival and within the setting, suboptimal practices and timeliness of testing, and implementation gaps in vaccination.


Asunto(s)
Difteria , Brotes de Enfermedades , Refugiados , Humanos , Suiza , Refugiados/estadística & datos numéricos , Difteria/prevención & control , Difteria/epidemiología , Brotes de Enfermedades/prevención & control , Estudios Retrospectivos , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Adolescente , Adulto Joven , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Corynebacterium diphtheriae , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tamizaje Masivo
2.
Front Immunol ; 14: 1255292, 2023.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37965347

RESUMEN

Background: Conestat alfa (ConA), a recombinant human C1 inhibitor, may prevent thromboinflammation. Methods: We conducted a randomized, open-label, multi-national clinical trial in which hospitalized adults at risk for progression to severe COVID-19 were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either 3 days of ConA plus standard of care (SOC) or SOC alone. Primary and secondary endpoints were day 7 disease severity on the WHO Ordinal Scale, time to clinical improvement within 14 days, and safety, respectively. Results: The trial was prematurely terminated because of futility after randomization of 84 patients, 56 in the ConA and 28 in the control arm. At baseline, higher WHO Ordinal Scale scores were more frequently observed in the ConA than in the control arm. On day 7, no relevant differences in the primary outcome were noted between the two arms (p = 0.11). The median time to defervescence was 3 days, and the median time to clinical improvement was 7 days in both arms (p = 0.22 and 0.56, respectively). Activation of plasma cascades and endothelial cells over time was similar in both groups. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) was higher in the intervention arm (any AE, 30% with ConA vs. 19% with SOC alone; serious AE, 27% vs. 15%; death, 11% vs. 0%). None of these were judged as being related to the study drug. Conclusion: The study results do not support the use of ConA to prevent COVID-19 progression. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04414631.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Trombosis , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , SARS-CoV-2 , Células Endoteliales , Inflamación
3.
J Clin Med ; 12(20)2023 Oct 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37892832

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) often suffer from acute exacerbations. Our objective was to describe recurrent exacerbations in a GP-based Swiss COPD cohort and develop a statistical model for predicting exacerbation. METHODS: COPD cohort demographic and medical data were recorded for 24 months, by means of a questionnaire-based COPD cohort. The data were split into training (75%) and validation (25%) datasets. A negative binomial regression model was developed using the training dataset to predict the exacerbation rate within 1 year. An exacerbation prediction model was developed, and its overall performance was validated. A nomogram was created to facilitate the clinical use of the model. RESULTS: Of the 229 COPD patients analyzed, 77% of the patients did not experience exacerbation during the follow-up. The best subset in the training dataset revealed that lower forced expiratory volume, high scores on the MRC dyspnea scale, exacerbation history, and being on a combination therapy of LABA + ICS (long-acting beta-agonists + Inhaled Corticosteroids) or LAMA + LABA (Long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists + long-acting beta-agonists) at baseline were associated with a higher rate of exacerbation. When validated, the area-under-curve (AUC) value was 0.75 for one or more exacerbations. The calibration was accurate (0.34 predicted exacerbations vs 0.28 observed exacerbations). CONCLUSION: Nomograms built from these models can assist clinicians in the decision-making process of COPD care.

5.
Mol Immunol ; 150: 99-113, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36030710

RESUMEN

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 is associated with a clinical spectrum ranging from asymptomatic carriers to critically ill patients with complications including thromboembolic events, myocardial injury, multisystemic inflammatory syndromes and death. Since the beginning of the pandemic several therapeutic options emerged, with a multitude of randomized trials, changing the medical landscape of COVID-19. The effect of various monoclonal antibodies, antiviral, anti-inflammatory and anticoagulation drugs have been studied, and to some extent, implemented into clinical practice. In addition, a multitude of trials improved the understanding of the disease and emerging evidence points towards a significant role of the complement system, kallikrein-kinin, and contact activation system as drivers of disease in severe COVID-19. Despite their involvement in COVID-19, treatments targeting these plasmatic cascades have neither been systematically studied nor introduced into clinical practice, and randomized studies with regards to these treatments are scarce. Given the multiple-action, multiple-target nature of C1 inhibitor (C1-INH), the natural inhibitor of these cascades, this drug may be an interesting candidate to prevent disease progression and combat thromboinflammation in COVID-19. This narrative review will discuss the current evidence with regards to the involvement of these plasmatic cascades as well as endothelial cells in COVID-19. Furthermore, we summarize the evidence of C1-INH in COVID-19 and potential benefits and pitfalls of C1-INH treatment in COVID-19.


Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Trombosis , Anticuerpos Monoclonales , Anticoagulantes/uso terapéutico , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Proteína Inhibidora del Complemento C1/uso terapéutico , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Células Endoteliales , Humanos , Inflamación/tratamiento farmacológico , Calicreínas , Cininas , SARS-CoV-2 , Tromboinflamación , Trombosis/tratamiento farmacológico
6.
Trials ; 22(1): 1, 2021 Jan 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33397449

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Conestat alfa, a recombinant human C1 esterase inhibitor, is a multi-target inhibitor of inflammatory cascades including the complement, the kinin-kallikrein and the contact activation system. The study objective is to investigate the efficacy and safety of conestat alfa in improving disease severity and short-term outcome in COVID-19 patients with pulmonary disease. TRIAL DESIGN: This study is an investigator-initiated, randomized (2:1 ratio), open-label, parallel-group, controlled, multi-center, phase 2a clinical trial. PARTICIPANTS: This trial is conducted in 3 hospitals in Switzerland, 1 hospital in Brazil and 1 hospital in Mexico (academic and non-academic). All patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection requiring hospitalization for at least 3 calendar days for severe COVID-19 will be screened for study eligibility. INCLUSION CRITERIA: - Signed informed consent - Age 18-85 years - Evidence of pulmonary involvement on CT scan or X-ray of the chest - Duration of symptoms associated with COVID-19 ≤ 10 days - At least one of the following risk factors for progression to mechanical ventilation on the day of enrolment: 1) Arterial hypertension 2) ≥ 50 years 3) Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) 4) History of cardiovascular disease 5) Chronic pulmonary disease 6) Chronic renal disease 7) C-reactive protein > 35mg/L 8) Oxygen saturation at rest of ≤ 94% when breathing ambient air Exclusion criteria: - Incapacity or inability to provide informed consent - Contraindications to the class of drugs under investigation (C1 esterase inhibitor) - Treatment with tocilizumab or another IL-6R or IL-6 inhibitor before enrolment - History or suspicion of allergy to rabbits - Pregnancy or breast feeding - Active or anticipated treatment with any other complement inhibitor - Liver cirrhosis (any Child-Pugh score) - Admission to an ICU on the day or anticipated within the next 24 hours of enrolment - Invasive or non-invasive ventilation - Participation in another study with any investigational drug within the 30 days prior to enrolment - Enrolment of the study investigators, their family members, employees and other closely related or dependent persons INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients randomized to the experimental arm will receive conestat alfa in addition to standard of care (SOC). Conestat alfa (8400 U followed by 4200 U every 8 hours) will be administered as a slow intravenous injection (5-10 minutes) over a 72-hour period (i.e. 9 administrations in total). The first conestat alfa treatment will be administered on the day of enrolment. The control group will receive SOC only. SOC treatment will be administered according to local institutional guidelines, including supplemental oxygen, antibiotics, corticosteroids, remdesivir, and anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary endpoint of this trial is disease severity on day 7 after enrolment assessed by an adapted WHO Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (score 0 will be omitted and score 6 and 7 will be combined) from 1 (no limitation of activities) to 7 (death). Secondary outcomes include (i) the time to clinical improvement (time from randomization to an improvement of two points on the WHO ordinal scale or discharge from hospital) within 14 days after enrolment, (ii) the proportion of participants alive and not having required invasive or non-invasive ventilation at 14 days after enrolment and (iii) the proportion of subjects without an acute lung injury (defined by PaO2/FiO2 ratio of ≤300mmHg) within 14 days after enrolment. Exploratory outcomes include virological clearance, C1 esterase inhibitor pharmacokinetics and changes in routine laboratory parameters and inflammatory proteins. RANDOMISATION: Subjects will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with conestat alfa in addition to SOC or SOC only. Randomization is performed via an interactive web response system (SecuTrial®). BLINDING (MASKING): In this open-label trial, participants, caregivers and outcome assessors are not blinded to group assignment. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): We will randomise approximately 120 individuals (80 in the active treatment arm, 40 in the SOC group). Two interim analyses after 40 and 80 patients are planned according to the Pocock adjusted levels αp = 0.0221. The results of the interim analysis will allow adjustment of the sample size (Lehmacher, Wassmer, 1999). TRIAL STATUS: PROTECT-COVID-19 protocol version 3.0 (July 07 2020). Participant recruitment started on July 30 2020 in one center (Basel, Switzerland, first participant included on August 06 2020). In four of five study centers patients are actively recruited. Participation of the fifth study center (Mexico) is anticipated by mid December 2020. Completion of trial recruitment depends on the development of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, number: NCT04414631 , registered on 4 June 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.


Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Proteína Inhibidora del Complemento C1/administración & dosificación , SARS-CoV-2/aislamiento & purificación , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Brasil , COVID-19/sangre , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/virología , Ensayos Clínicos Fase II como Asunto , Proteína Inhibidora del Complemento C1/efectos adversos , Proteína Inhibidora del Complemento C1/farmacocinética , Esquema de Medicación , Femenino , Humanos , Inyecciones Intravenosas/métodos , Masculino , México , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Proyectos Piloto , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Proteínas Recombinantes/administración & dosificación , Proteínas Recombinantes/efectos adversos , Proteínas Recombinantes/farmacocinética , Índice de Severidad de la Enfermedad , Suiza , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven
7.
Front Immunol ; 11: 2072, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32922409

RESUMEN

A dysregulated immune response with hyperinflammation is observed in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and potential benefits of human recombinant C1 esterase inhibitor (conestat alfa), a complement, contact activation and kallikrein-kinin system regulator, in severe COVID-19. Patients with evidence of progressive disease after 24 h including an oxygen saturation <93% at rest in ambient air were included at the University Hospital Basel, Switzerland in April 2020. Conestat alfa was administered by intravenous injections of 8400 IU followed by 3 additional doses of 4200 IU in 12-h intervals. Five patients (age range, 53-85 years; one woman) with severe COVID-19 pneumonia (11-39% lung involvement on computed tomography scan of the chest) were treated a median of 1 day (range 1-7 days) after admission. Treatment was well-tolerated. Immediate defervescence occurred, and inflammatory markers and oxygen supplementation decreased or stabilized in 4 patients (e.g., median C-reactive protein 203 (range 31-235) mg/L before vs. 32 (12-72) mg/L on day 5). Only one patient required mechanical ventilation. All patients recovered. C1INH concentrations were elevated before conestat alfa treatment. Levels of complement activation products declined after treatment. Viral loads in nasopharyngeal swabs declined in 4 patients. In this uncontrolled case series, targeting multiple inflammatory cascades by conestat alfa was safe and associated with clinical improvements in the majority of severe COVID-19 patients. Controlled clinical trials are needed to assess its safety and efficacy in preventing disease progression.


Asunto(s)
Betacoronavirus/efectos de los fármacos , Proteína Inhibidora del Complemento C1/uso terapéutico , Complemento C1/antagonistas & inhibidores , Infecciones por Coronavirus/tratamiento farmacológico , Síndrome de Liberación de Citoquinas/tratamiento farmacológico , Sistema Calicreína-Quinina/efectos de los fármacos , Neumonía Viral/tratamiento farmacológico , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , COVID-19 , Proteína Inhibidora del Complemento C1/análisis , Factor XIa/antagonistas & inhibidores , Femenino , Humanos , Calicreínas/antagonistas & inhibidores , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Proteínas Recombinantes/uso terapéutico , SARS-CoV-2 , Carga Viral/efectos de los fármacos
8.
Trials ; 20(1): 727, 2019 Dec 16.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31842993

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major public health issue affecting approximately 4% to 7% of the Swiss population. According to current inpatient guidelines, systemic corticosteroids are important in the treatment of acute COPD exacerbations and should be given for 5 to 7 days. Several studies suggest that corticosteroids accelerate the recovery of FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second), enhance oxygenation, decrease the duration of hospitalization, and improve clinical outcomes. However, the additional therapeutic benefit regarding FEV1 recovery appears to be most apparent in the first 3 to 5 days. No data are available on the optimum duration of corticosteroid treatment in primary-care patients with acute COPD exacerbations. Given that many COPD patients are treated as outpatients, there is an urgent need to improve the evidence base on COPD management in this setting. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a 3-day treatment with orally administered corticosteroids is non-inferior to a 5-day treatment in acute exacerbations of COPD in a primary-care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted in a primary-care setting. It is anticipated that 470 patients with acutely exacerbated COPD will be recruited. Participants are randomized to receive systemic corticosteroid treatment of 40 mg prednisone daily for 5 days (conventional arm, n = 235) or for 3 days followed by 2 days of placebo (experimental arm, n = 235). Antibiotic treatment for 7 days is given to all patients with CRP ≥ 50 mg/l, those with a known diagnosis of bronchiectasis, or those presenting with Anthonisen type I exacerbation. Additional treatment after inclusion is left at the discretion of the treating general practitioner. Follow-up visits are performed on days 3 and 7, followed by telephone interviews on days 30, 90, and 180 after inclusion in the study. The primary endpoint is the time to next exacerbation during the 6-month follow-up period. DISCUSSION: The study is designed to assess whether a 3-day course of corticosteroid treatment is not inferior to the conventional 5-day treatment course in outpatients with exacerbated COPD regarding time to next exacerbation. Depending on the results, this trial may lead to a reduction in the cumulative corticosteroid dose in COPD patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02386735. Registered on 12 March 2015.


Asunto(s)
Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Atención Ambulatoria , Pulmón/efectos de los fármacos , Prednisona/administración & dosificación , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/tratamiento farmacológico , Administración Oral , Corticoesteroides/efectos adversos , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Método Doble Ciego , Esquema de Medicación , Estudios de Equivalencia como Asunto , Femenino , Volumen Espiratorio Forzado , Humanos , Pulmón/fisiopatología , Masculino , Prednisona/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/diagnóstico , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/fisiopatología , Suiza , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del Tratamiento
9.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30774953

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The Swiss COPD cohort was established in 2006 to collect data in a primary care setting. The objective of this study was to evaluate possible predictive factors for exacerbation and re-exacerbation. METHODS: In order to predict exacerbation until the next visit based on the knowledge of exacerbation since the last visit, a multistate model described by Therneau and Grambsch was performed. RESULTS: Data of 1,247 patients (60.4% males, 46.6% current smokers) were analyzed, 268 (21.5%) did not fulfill spirometric diagnostic criteria for COPD. Data of 748 patients (63% males, 44.1% current smokers) were available for model analysis. In order to predict exacerbation an extended Cox Model was performed. Mean FEV1/FVC-ratio was 53.1% (±11.5), with a majority of patients in COPD GOLD classes 2 or 3. Hospitalization for any reason (HR1.7; P = 0.04) and pronounced dyspnea (HR for mMRC grade four 3.0; P < 0.001) at most recent visit as well as prescription of short-acting bronchodilators (HR1.7; P < 0.001), inhaled (HR1.2; P = 0.005) or systemic corticosteroids (HR1.8; P = 0.015) were significantly associated with exacerbation when having had no exacerbation at most recent visit. Higher FEV1/FVC (HR0.9; P = 0.008) and higher FEV1 values (HR0.9; P = 0.001) were protective. When already having had an exacerbation at the most recent visit, pronounced dyspnea (HR for mMRC grade 4 1.9; P = 0.026) and cerebrovascular insult (HR2.1; P = 0.003) were significantly associated with re-exacerbation. Physical activity (HR0.6; P = 0.031) and treatment with long-acting anticholinergics (HR0.7; P = 0.044) seemed to play a significant protective role. In a best subset model for exacerbation, higher FEV1 significantly reduced and occurrence of sputum increased the probability of exacerbation. In the same model for re-exacerbation, coronary heart disease increased and hospitalization at most recent visit seemed to reduce the risk for re-exacerbation. CONCLUSION: Our data confirmed well-established risk factors for exacerbations whilst analyzing their predictive association with exacerbation and re-exacerbation. This study confirmed the importance of spirometry in primary care, not only for diagnosis but also as a risk evaluation for possible future exacerbations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Our study got approval by local ethical committee in 2006 (EK Nr. 170/06) and was registered retrospectively on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02065921, 19th of February 2014).

10.
Swiss Med Wkly ; 147: w14567, 2017.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29231234

RESUMEN

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a pilot COPD integrated care programme implemented in Valais, Switzerland. METHODS: The programme was adapted from the self-management programme Living Well with COPD, and included the following elements: self-management patient-education group sessions, telephone and medical follow-ups, multidisciplinary teams, training of healthcare professionals, and evidence-based COPD care. A process and outcome evaluation of the pilot phase of the programme was conducted by means of qualitative and quantitative methods. Reach (coverage, participation rates), dosage (interventions carried out), fidelity (delivered as intended) and stakeholders' acceptance of the programme were evaluated through data monitoring and conduct of focus groups with patients and healthcare professionals. Effectiveness was assessed with pre-post analyses (before and after the intervention). The primary outcome measures were; (1) generic and disease-specific quality of life (36-Item Short Form Health Survey, Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire); and (2) hospitalisations (all-cause and for acute exacerbations) in the past 12 months. Secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, number of exacerbations and exercise capacity. Finally, controlled pre-post comparisons were also made with patients from the Swiss COPD Cohort for three common outcome measures (dyspnoea [mMRC score], number of exacerbations and smoking status). RESULTS: During the first 2 years of the programme, eight series of group-based education sessions were delivered to 57 patients with COPD in three different locations of the canton of Valais. Coverage objectives were achieved and attendance rate at the education sessions was high (83.6%). Patients' and healthcare professionals' reported a high degree of satisfaction, except for multidisciplinarity and transfer of information. Exploration of the effectiveness of this pilot programme suggested positive pre-post results at 12 months, with improvements in terms of health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, exercise capacity, immunisation coverage and Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score. No other outcome, including the number of hospital admissions, differed significantly after 12 months. We observed no differences from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the programme and confirmed the relevance of mixed method process evaluation to adjust and improve programme implementation. The introduction of multidisciplinary teams in a context characterised by fragmentation of care was identified as the main challenge in the programme implementation and could not be achieved as expected. Despite this area for improvement, patients' feedback and early effectiveness results confirmed the benefits of COPD integrated care programmes emphasising self-management education.


Asunto(s)
Investigación Participativa Basada en la Comunidad , Prestación Integrada de Atención de Salud , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Enfermedad Pulmonar Obstructiva Crónica/terapia , Anciano , Práctica Clínica Basada en la Evidencia , Estudios de Factibilidad , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Educación del Paciente como Asunto , Proyectos Piloto , Evaluación de Programas y Proyectos de Salud , Calidad de Vida , Suiza
11.
BMC Infect Dis ; 14: 397, 2014 Jul 17.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25037057

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An increase of pertussis cases, especially in young infants and adolescents, has been noted in various countries. Whooping cough is most serious in neonates and young infants in whom it may cause serious complications such as cyanosis, apnoea, pneumonia, encephalopathy and death. To protect newborns and infants too young to be fully immunized, immunization of close contact persons has been proposed ("cocoon strategy") and implemented in several countries, including Switzerland in 2011. The goal of this study was to assess knowledge about pertussis among parents of newborns and acceptance, practicability and implementation of the recently recommended pertussis cocoon strategy in Switzerland. METHODS: We performed a cross sectional survey among all parents of newborns born between May and September 2012 and 2013 in Basel city and country. Regional statistical offices provided family addresses after approval by the ethical and data protection committees. A standardized questionnaire with detailed instructions was sent to all eligible families. For statistical analyses, independent proportions were compared by Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Of 3546 eligible parents, 884 (25%) participated. All three questions exploring pertussis knowledge were answered correctly by 37% of parents; 25% gave two correct answers, 22% gave one correct answer and in the remaining 16% no answer was correct. Pertussis immunization as part of cocooning was recommended to 20% and 37% of mothers and 14% and 32% of fathers in the 2012 and 2013 study cohorts, respectively. Principal advisors for cocooning were pediatricians (66%) followed by gynecologists/obstetricians (12%) and general practitioners (5%). When recommended, 64% of mothers and 59% of fathers accepted pertussis immunization. The majority of vaccinations were administered in the perinatal period and within 2 months of the child's birth. However, cocooning remained incomplete in 93% of families and in most families <50% of close contacts received pertussis vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of cocooning for protecting newborns from pertussis is challenging and usually remains incomplete. Pertussis immunization rates among close contacts of newborns need to be improved. Ideally, all healthcare providers involved in family planning, pregnancy and child birth should recommend cocooning. Pertussis immunization of pregnant women is an additional measure for optimal protection of newborns and should be promoted.


Asunto(s)
Vacuna contra la Tos Ferina/administración & dosificación , Tos Ferina/prevención & control , Adolescente , Adulto , Anciano , Envejecimiento , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Estudios Transversales , Femenino , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Personal de Salud , Humanos , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Padres , Vacuna contra la Tos Ferina/inmunología , Embarazo , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Suiza/epidemiología , Tos Ferina/epidemiología , Adulto Joven
12.
Pediatr Infect Dis J ; 33(10): 1057-9, 2014 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24776519

RESUMEN

Like other healthcare personnel, medical students with patient contact should be up to date with their immunizations including those specifically targeting occupational risk. Analysis from an ongoing surveillance program for medical students revealed immunization gaps in 102 (77.9%) of 131 students enrolled 2011-2013. Screening medical students' immunization records is worthwhile.


Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Transmisibles/inmunología , Estudiantes de Medicina , Vacunación/estadística & datos numéricos , Vacunas/administración & dosificación , Adulto , Monitoreo Epidemiológico , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...