Search

Background Nursing is pivotal to healthcare delivery but is often associated with high levels of organizational stress. In this cross-sectional study, we aimed to investigate the associations between exposure to organizational stressors, measured using the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards Indicator Tool, and psychosomatic complaints among nurses in a medium-sized city hospital in northeastern Italy. Methods A total of 215 nurses participated in the study, completing self-report questionnaires assessing organizational stressors and the prevalence of psychosomatic complaints experienced over the preceding six months. Results Significant associations were observed between various organizational stressors and psychosomatic complaints among nurses. Specifically, the Relationships factor emerged as a significant predictor of palpitations, irritability, anxiety, physical and mental tiredness, and headache. Additionally, Demands and Managers' support were identified as significant predictors of specific psychosomatic complaints. Conclusion This study highlights the critical role of addressing organizational stressors, particularly those related to interpersonal relationships, in promoting nurse well-being and optimizing patient care delivery. Despite its strengths, including the use of a well-established measurement tool and a comprehensive assessment of psychosomatic complaints, limitations such as the cross-sectional design and self-report measures warrant consideration. By prioritizing supportive work environments and implementing targeted interventions, healthcare organizations can cultivate a culture of well-being among nurses, ultimately enhancing the quality and safety of healthcare delivery.

Background: Many COVID-19 survivors still experience long-term effects of an acute infection, most often characterised by neurological, cognitive and psychiatric sequelae. The treatment of this condition is challenging, and many hypotheses have been proposed. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation using slow-paced breathing (SPB) could stimulate both central nervous system areas and parasympathetic autonomic pathways, leading to neuromodulation and a reduction in inflammation. The aim of the present study was to evaluate physical, cognitive, emotional symptoms, executive functions and autonomic cardiac modulation after one month of at-home slow breathing intervention. Methods: 6655 healthcare workers (HCWs) were contacted via a company email in November 2022, of which N = 58 HCWs were enrolled as long COVID (cases) and N = 53 HCWs as controls. A baseline comparison of the two groups was performed. Subsequently each case was instructed on how to perform a resonant SPB using visual heart rate variability (HRV) biofeedback. They were then given a mobile video tutorial breathing protocol and asked to perform it three times a day (morning, early afternoon and before sleep). N = 33 cases completed the FU. At T0 and T1, each subject underwent COVID-related, psychosomatic and dysfunctional breathing questionnaires coupled with heart rate variability and manual dexterity assessments. Results: After one month of home intervention, an overall improvement in long-COVID symptoms was observed: confusion/cognitive impairment, chest pain, asthenia, headache and dizziness decreased significantly, while only a small increase in manual dexterity was found, and no relevant changes in cardiac parasympathetic modulation were observed.

Background: Direct skin contact with items containing lanolin can induce sensitization and development of contact dermatitis (CD). This multi-centric study investigated prevalence of lanolin sensitization among 30,269 outpatients from North-Eastern Italy patch tested during 1997–2021. Methods: European baseline and extended Triveneto series were applied on the upper part of patients’ back and removed after 48 h. Risk factors for lanolin sensitization were investigated by multiple logistic regression analysis, reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results. Overall lanolin patch test positive ratio (PTPR) was 1.64% (=501/30,629), with variability over time and by research center. The body area most frequently affected by CD were hands (36.32%), followed by face (19.52%) and legs (8.09%), with a lanolin PTPR of 1.68%, 1.37% and 3.07%, respectively. Prevalence of occupational CD was 8.24%, and 1.83% patients with occupational CD patch tested positive against lanolin. Lanolin sensitization was significantly higher in males (aOR = 1.34; 95%CI: 1.08; 1.65) and among patients with leg CD aged 49–60 years (aOR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.20; 4.57) or older than 60 (aOR = 4.21; 95%CI: 2.59; 6.85). Sub-group analysis confirmed the significantly higher sensitization rate of older patients with leg CD, with much stronger effect size in females 61+ years old (aOR = 5.33; 95%CI 2.87; 9.89) than males in the same age group (aOR = 2.92; 95%CI: 1.34; 6.39). Moreover, female house painters were more likely to test positive to lanolin. Conclusions: The variability of lanolin PTPR over time and by research center endorsed the ongoing debate on the relevance of the respective skin reaction. Clinicians assessing patients with dermatitis should collect information on potential risk factors for lanolin sensitization, particularly use of skin care products containing the hapten. Occupational exposure to lanolin-containing varnishes should also be considered.

BackgroundPost-acute COVID-19 syndrome patients complain of sensory alterations, mainly positive symptoms such as paresthesia or neuropathic pain but also decreased tactile sensation. Using the Semmes–Weinstein monofilament test (SWMT), our study aims to confront recently infected SARS-CoV2 subjects with a control group.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional, single-centric study. We performed the SWMT (North Coast Medical Inc.) on 30 patients with previous SARS-CoV2 infection (COVID group) and 46 controls (control group). These patients did not present comorbidities or sensory impairment and did not take any medications. The control group tested negative for SARS-CoV2 infection since the COVID-19 pandemic; the COVID group was examined for this study after the resolution of the infection. We tested the threshold of tactile sensation of the tips of the thumb, index, and little finger of each hand, one hand at a time; the dorsum and the hypothenar regions were also tested.ResultsBoth groups presented the perception of tactile sensation within the reference value. Despite this result, subclinical changes suggestive of the involvement in peripheral sensory nerve function have been identified in the tested sites in the COVID group compared to the control group. The overall mean target force (grams) was higher in the COVID group than in the control group: 27 (7) vs. 19 (10) mg, p < 0.001.ConclusionControls and the COVID group infection had normal tactile sensation thresholds. However, the COVID group presented a higher threshold than the control group, suggesting a possible subclinical perception of tactile sensation involvement of A-beta nerve fibers.

Background: The risk of COVID-19 increases in any occupation entailing intense social interactions. This study aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 among civil servants of Trieste city council (northeastern Italy) over the entire pandemic. Methods: The crude incidence rate of COVID-19 was estimated from 1 March 2020 to 31 January 2023 by explanatory factors, expressing the estimate as COVID-19 events x 10,000 person-days (P-d) at risk. A multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was fitted to examine the risk of primary COVID-19 infection and reinfections, reporting adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: The cohort of Trieste city council was mainly composed of administrative clerks (48.5%), nursery teachers (33%), technicians (9.9%) and local police officers (8.5%). Between 1 March 2020 and 31 January 2023, 1444 (62.4%) employees tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least once and 18.1% (=262/1444) at least twice. By the end of this study, 55% (N = 1272) of employees had received at least three doses of COVID-19 vaccine, whereas 19.7% (N = 457) remained unvaccinated. At multiple Cox regression analysis, the adjusted risk of primary COVID-19 events during the entire study period increased in employees aged 40–49 years (aHR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.01; 2.71), females (aHR = 1.28; 95%CI: 1.12; 1.45), local police officers (aHR = 1.82; 95%CI: 1.50; 2.22) and nursery teachers (aHR = 1.27; 95%CI: 1.13; 1.43). However, whilst the risk of primary infections in police officers increased already during the Alpha transmission period (aHR = 6.82; 95%CI: 4.48; 10.40), progressively reducing across subsequent variants, for nursery teachers, it increased during the Delta wave (aHR = 2.42; 1.70; 3.44), reducing with Omicron (aHR = 1.23; 95%CI: 1.07; 1.40). Compared to unvaccinated colleagues, during the entire study period the risk of primary infections was significantly lower in employees immunized with three (aHR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.36; 0.47) or four (aHR = 0.30; 95%CI: 0.23; 0.40) doses of COVID-19 vaccine, for a vaccine effectiveness (VE) of 58% and 70%, respectively. The protective effect of vaccination against primary infections was confirmed in the sub-group analysis by main pandemic waves, for a VE of 75% for one dose against 99% for two doses during the Alpha transmission period, slightly reducing to 59% and 70% in Delta time, respectively. During the Omicron wave, the risk of primary SARS-CoV-2 infections diminished significantly with three (aHR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.36; 0.49) or four vaccine doses (aHR = 0.09; 95%CI: 0.05; 0.16), for a VE of 58% and 91%, respectively. Moreover, the risk of primary SARS-CoV-2 reinfections during the entire study period reduced with one (aHR = 0.47; 95%CI: 0.27; 0.82), two (aHR = 0.42; 95%CI: 0.30; 0.58), three (aHR = 0.32; 95%CI: 0.24; 0.44) or four vaccine doses (aHR = 0.14; 95%CI: 0.05; 0.46), for a VE of 53%, 58%, 68% and 86% against reinfections, respectively. No significant difference in VE was associated with heterologous versus homologous triple vaccination, both against primary infections or reinfections. Conclusions: Primary SARS-CoV-2 infections were more likely among nursery teachers and local police officers. The risk of both primary infections and reinfections reduced with higher number of doses of COVID-19 vaccine, regardless of the pandemic wave. Since city council civil servants were swab tested on demand or for contact tracing, the estimation of COVID-19 risk and VE largely missed aymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. On the one hand, the present study confirmed the protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections; on the other hand, it highlighted not only the importance of continuous booster doses to keep up the humoral immunity over time but also the importance of updated vaccine formulations to prevent and control the spread of a highly mutable virus. Moreover, the protective effect of the first two doses against reinfections confirmed the efficacy of hybrid immunity during Omicron time.

Abstract Fractional exhaled nitric oxide (FeNO) is a non-invasive biomarker of respiratory tract inflammation, originally designated to identify eosinophilic airway inflammation and to predict steroid response. The main field of application of this biomarker is asthma, but FeNO has also been used for other allergic and non-allergic pulmonary disorders such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypersensitivity pneumonitis and interstitial lung disease. A substantial part of respiratory diseases are related to work, and FeNO, a safe and easy measure to conduct, is a potential valid examination in an occupational setting. This systematic review assesses the value of measuring FeNO related to three types of airborne exposures: allergens, irritants, and respiratory particles inhaled during occupational activities. The review covers results from longitudinal and observational clinical studies, and highlights the added value of this biomarker in monitoring effects of exposure and in the diagnostic criteria of occupational diseases. This review also covers the possible significance of FeNO as an indicator of the efficacy of interventions to prevent work-related respiratory diseases. Initially, 246 articles were identified in PUBMED and SCOPUS. Duplicates and articles which covered results from the general population, symptoms (not disease) related to work, non-occupational diseases, and case reports were excluded. Finally, 39 articles contributed to this review, which led to the following conclusions: a) For occupational asthma there is no consensus on the significant value of FeNO for diagnosis, or on the magnitude of change needed after specific inhalation test or occupational exposure at the workplace. There is some consensus for the optimal time to measure FeNO after exposure, mainly after 24 h, and FeNO proved to be more sensitive than spirometry in measuring the result of an intervention. b) For other occupational obstructive respiratory diseases, current data suggests performing the measurement after the work shift. c) For interstitial lung disease, the evaluation of the alveolar component of NO is probably the most suitable.

Introduction: The impact of long-COVID-19 syndrome is rather variable, since it is influenced by several residual confounders. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of long COVID-19 in healthcare workers (HCWs) from four university hospitals in north-eastern Italy: Trieste, Padua, Verona, and Modena-Reggio Emilia. Methods: During the period June 2022–August 2022, HCWs were surveyed for past COVID-19 infections, medical history, and any acute as well as post-COVID-19 symptoms. The prevalence of long COVID-19 was estimated at 30–60 days or 61+ days since first negative swab following first and second COVID-19 episode. Furthermore, the risk of long COVID-19 was investigated by multivariable logistic regression. Results were expressed as the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) with a 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Results: 5432 HCWs returned a usable questionnaire: 2401 were infected with SARS-CoV-2 at least once, 230 were infected at least twice, and 8 were infected three times. The prevalence of long COVID-19 after a primary COVID-19 infection was 24.0% at 30–60 days versus 16.3% at 61+ days, and 10.5% against 5.5% after the second SARS-CoV-2 event. The most frequent symptoms after a first COVID-19 event were asthenia (30.3%), followed by myalgia (13.7%), cough (12.4%), dyspnea (10.2%), concentration deficit (8.1%), headache (7.3%), and anosmia (6.5%), in decreasing order of prevalence. The risk of long COVID-19 at 30–60 days was significantly higher in HCWs hospitalized for COVID-19 (aOR = 3.34; 95%CI: 1.62; 6.89), those infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the early pandemic waves—namely the Wuhan (aOR = 2.16; 95%CI: 1.14; 4.09) or Alpha (aOR= 2.05; 95%CI: 1.25; 3.38) transmission periods—and progressively increasing with viral shedding time (VST), especially 15+ days (aOR = 3.20; 95%CI: 2.07; 4.94). Further determinants of long COVID-19 at 30–60 days since primary COVID-19 event were female sex (aOR = 1.91; 95%CI: 1.30; 2.80), age >40 years, abnormal BMI, or administrative services (reference category). In contrast, HCWs vaccinated with two doses before their primary infection (aOR = 0.57; 95%CI: 0.34; 0.94), undergraduate students, or postgraduate medical trainees were less likely to experience long COVID-19 at 30–60 days. Apart from pandemic waves, the main determinants of long COVID-19 at 30–60 days were confirmed at 61+ days. Conclusions: The risk of long COVID-19 following primary infection increased with the severity of acute disease and VST, especially during the initial pandemic waves, when more virulent viral strains were circulating, and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 was higher since most HCWs had not been infected yet, COVID-19 vaccines were still not available, and/or vaccination coverage was still building up. The risk of long COVID-19 therefore decreased inversely with humoral immunity at the individual level. Nevertheless, the prevalence of long COVID-19 was remarkably lower after SARS-CoV-2 reinfections regardless of vaccination status, suggesting that hybrid humoral immunity did not increase protection against the syndrome compared to immunity mounted by either natural infection or vaccination separately. Since the risk of long COVID-19 is currently low with Omicron and patients who developed the syndrome following SARS-CoV-2 infection in the early pandemic waves tend to return to a state of full health with time, a cost-effective approach to screen post-COVID-19 symptoms during the Omicron time could be restricted to vulnerable individuals developing severe disease and/or with prolonged VST.

Background: The effectiveness of the immunity provided by SARS-CoV-2 vaccines is an important public health issue. We analyzed the determinants of 12-month serology in a multicenter European cohort of vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW). Methods: We analyzed the sociodemographic characteristics and levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies (IgG) in a cohort of 16,101 vaccinated HCW from eleven centers in Germany, Italy, Romania, Slovakia and Spain. Considering the skewness of the distribution, the serological levels were transformed using log or cubic standardization and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of one standard deviation of log or cubic antibody level and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for different factors and combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Results: We included 16,101 HCW in the analysis. A high antibody level was positively associated with age (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.00–1.08 per 10-year increase), previous infection (RR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.29–2.45) and use of Spikevax [Moderna] with combinations compared to Comirnaty [BioNTech/Pfizer] (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.97–1.19) and was negatively associated with the time since last vaccine (RR = 0.94, 95% CI 0.91–0.98 per 30-day increase). Conclusions: These results provide insight about vaccine-induced immunity to SARS-CoV-2, an analysis of its determinants and quantification of the antibody decay trend with time since vaccination.

Abstract To evaluate the incidence of COVID-19 infection in health care workers from the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in NE Italy, vaccination with BNT162b2. This was a retrospective cohort study. Healthcare workers were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection using real-time polymerase chain reaction tests in nasopharyngeal swabs. Logistic regression was used to calculate the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of the factors associated with COVID-19. A total of 4251 workers were followed up, and the prevalence of COVID-19 was 13.6%. In March 2021 the incidence of infection was 4.88 and 103.55 cases for 100,000 person-days in vaccinated and non-vaccinated workers, respectively, with an adjusted IRRs of 0.05 (95% CI 0.02–0.08). Our study evaluated the monthly incidence in health care workers in Trieste hospitals before and after vaccination, finding an estimated vaccine effectiveness of 95% in health care workers routinely tested.

Short summaryWe investigated changes in serologic measurements after COVID-19 vaccination in 19,422 subjects. An individual-level analysis was performed on standardized measurements. Age, infection, vaccine doses, time between doses and serologies, and vaccine type were associated with changes in serologic levels within 13 months.BackgroundPersistence of vaccine immunization is key for COVID-19 prevention.MethodsWe investigated the difference between two serologic measurements of anti-COVID-19 S1 antibodies in an individual-level analysis on 19,422 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) from Italy, Spain, Romania, and Slovakia, tested within 13 months from first dose. Differences in serologic levels were divided by the standard error of the cohort-specific distribution, obtaining standardized measurements. We fitted multivariate linear regression models to identify predictors of difference between two measurements.ResultsWe observed a progressively decreasing difference in serologic levels from

Objective: To study SARS-CoV-2 reinfections in health-care workers (HCWs) of the University Health Agency Giuliano-Isontina (ASUGI), covering the provinces of Trieste and Gorizia (northeastern Italy) routinely screened for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swab. Design: Cohort study of HCWs (N = 8205) followed since the start of the pandemic (1 March 2020) through 31 January 2023. The risk of reinfection during the Omicron transmission period (after 30 November 2021) among HCWs previously infected by SARS-CoV-2 was estimated based on days since last dose of COVID-19 vaccine received, adjusting for age, sex, job task, workplace, number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines and number of swab tests performed. In the crude as well as adjusted incidence rate analysis, reinfections occurring 15+ days after a first dose of COVID-19 vaccine or 8+ days following a second or more dose were counted. Results: In a highly vaccinated population, during the entire study period (1 March 2020–31 January 2023) 5253 HCWs incurred at least one SARS-CoV-2 infection, 4262 HCWs were infected only once, and 1091 were reinfected. Reinfections almost entirely (99.1% = 1071/1091) occurred after 30 November 2021, peaking in July 2022 (N = 161). Six hundred eighty-three reinfections followed a pre-Omicron primary event against 408 reinfections following an Omicron event. Reinfections during the Omicron transmission period occurred a mean of 400 ± 220 days after primary SARS-CoV-2 infection; 512 ± 205 days following a pre-Omicron primary event, as opposed to 218 ± 74 days after an Omicron primary infection. Thirty-four hospitalizations were observed, all before the Omicron wave, following 18 (0.4%) primary SARS-CoV-2 infections and 16 (1.5%) reinfections. By excluding events occurring Conclusions: SARS-CoV-2 reinfections were frequent during the Omicron transmission period, though featured by mild or no symptoms. Whilst the impact of occupation on biological risk was relatively marginal, COVID-19 vaccination had the strongest protective effect against reinfection, with a 93% VE by second booster following an Omicron primary infection.

Background. Several drugs which are easy to administer in outpatient settings have been authorized and endorsed for high-risk COVID-19 patients with mild–moderate disease to prevent hospital admission and death, complementing COVID-19 vaccines. However, the evidence on the efficacy of COVID-19 antivirals during the Omicron wave is scanty or conflicting. Methods. This retrospective controlled study investigated the efficacy of Molnupiravir or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (Paxlovid®) or Sotrovimab against standard of care (controls) on three different endpoints among 386 high-risk COVID-19 outpatients: hospital admission at 30 days; death at 30 days; and time between COVID-19 diagnosis and first negative swab test result. Multivariable logistic regression was employed to investigate the determinants of hospitalization due to COVID-19-associated pneumonia, whereas time to first negative swab test result was investigated by means of multinomial logistic analysis as well as Cox regression analysis. Results. Only 11 patients (overall rate of 2.8%) developed severe COVID-19-associated pneumonia requiring admission to hospital: 8 controls (7.2%); 2 patients on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (2.0%); and 1 on Sotrovimab (1.8%). No patient on Molnupiravir was institutionalized. Compared to controls, hospitalization was less likely for patients on Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aOR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03; 0.89) or Molnupiravir (omitted estimate); drug efficacy was 84% for Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir against 100% for Molnupiravir. Only two patients died of COVID-19 (rate of 0.5%), both were controls, one (a woman aged 96 years) was unvaccinated and the other (a woman aged 72 years) had adequate vaccination status. At Cox regression analysis, the negativization rate was significantly higher in patients treated with both antivirals—Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aHR = 1.68; 95% CI: 1.25; 2.26) or Molnupiravir (aHR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.08; 1.94). However, COVID-19 vaccination with three (aHR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.51; 2.73) or four (aHR = 2.48; 95% CI: 1.32; 4.68) doses had a slightly stronger effect size on viral clearance. In contrast, the negativization rate reduced significantly in patients who were immune-depressed (aHR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52; 0.93) or those with a Charlson index ≥5 (aHR = 0.63; 0.41; 0.95) or those who had started the respective treatment course 3+ days after COVID-19 diagnosis (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.38; 0.82). Likewise, at internal analysis (excluding patients on standard of care), patients on Molnupiravir (aHR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.21; 2.50) or Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir (aHR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.32; 2.93) were more likely to turn negative earlier than those on Sotrovimab (reference category). Nonetheless, three (aHR = 1.91; 95% CI: 1.33; 2.74) or four (aHR = 2.20; 95% CI: 1.06; 4.59) doses of COVID-19 vaccine were again associated with a faster negativization rate. Again, the negativization rate was significantly lower if treatment started 3+ days after COVID-19 diagnosis (aHR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.32; 0.92). Conclusions. Molnupiravir, Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, and Sotrovimab were all effective in preventing hospital admission and/or mortality attributable to COVID-19. However, hospitalizations also decreased with higher number of doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Although they are effective against severe disease and mortality, the prescription of COVID-19 antivirals should be carefully scrutinized by double opinion, not only to contain health care costs but also to reduce the risk of generating resistant SARS-CoV-2 strains. Only 64.7% of patients were in fact immunized with 3+ doses of COVID-19 vaccines in the present study. High-risk patients should prioritize COVID-19 vaccination, which is a more cost-effective approach than antivirals against severe SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Likewise, although both antivirals, especially Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir, were more likely than standard of care and Sotrovimab to reduce viral shedding time (VST) in high-risk SARS-CoV-2 patients, vaccination had an independent and stronger effect on viral clearance. However, the effect of antivirals or COVID-19 vaccination on VST should be considered a secondary benefit. Indeed, recommending Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir in order to control VST in high-risk COVID-19 patients is rather questionable since other cheap, large spectrum and harmless nasal disinfectants such as hypertonic saline solutions are available on the market with proven efficacy in containing VST.

Background: Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines have been suggested as preventive measures to protect subjects from the worst sequelae of COVID-19 infection because neutralizing antibodies can cross-react with other viruses. Aim: To verify COVID-19 infection in MMR vaccinated and non-vaccinated healthcare workers and medical students in Trieste Hospitals. Results: Nurse aids resulted in significantly more infections than structured physicians (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.14–2.80) while students resulted in less infections (OR, 0.66; 95% CI 0.43–1.01). The presence of an MMR vaccination was inversely associated with COVID-19 (OR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.61–0.96) but only in univariate analysis. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, MMR vaccination lost statistical significance (OR, 0.86; 95%CI 0.62–1.20).On 13 HCWs hospitalized for COVID-19, 11 resulted not vaccinated for MMR. Discussion: Our study found a mild, non-significant reduction in SARS-CoV-2 infections in workers vaccinated with MMR.

Background: University workers undergo intense social interactions due to frequent contact with students and colleagues and lectures in crowdy conditions. The aim of our study was to assess the incidence of COVID-19 infection and vaccine effectiveness in a cohort of workers of the University of Trieste from 1 March 2020 (start of the pandemic) through 2 April 2022. Methods: The University of Trieste implemented a number of public health policies to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 on the campus, including prompt contact tracing, enhanced ventilation of all premises, fomites disinfection and mandatory use of face masks indoors. In compliance with the surveillance protocol of the local public health department, university personnel were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab on demand, in the event of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 or for contact tracing, following close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. The incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were estimated as number of cases by number of person-days (p-d) at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to investigate the risk of primary COVID-19 infection, controlling for a number of potential confounders and expressing the risk as the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among university staff was lower than that of healthcare workers (HCWs) of the same area. Compared to unvaccinated colleagues (6.55 × 10,000 p-d), the raw incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher among university workers immunized with one (7.22 × 10,000 p-d) or two (7.48 × 10,000 p-d) doses of COVID-19 vaccines, decreasing in those receiving the booster (1.98 × 1000 p-d). The risk of infection increased only in postgraduate medical trainees (aHR = 2.16; 95% CI: 1.04; 4.48), though this was limited to the Omicron transmission period. After the implementation of the national vaccination campaign against COVID-19, workers immunized with the booster were less likely than unvaccinated workers to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 both before (aHR = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.06; 0.16) and after (aHR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.27; 0.52) the Omicron transmission period. Vaccine effectiveness of the booster was 90% (=(1−0.10) × 100) before versus 63% (=(1−0.37) × 100) during the Omicron wave, without a significant difference between homologous (three doses of m-RNA vaccines) and heterologous immunization (first two doses of Vaxzevria followed by a third dose of m-RNA vaccine). Conclusions: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in university staff was lower than that of HCWs of ASUGI, likely because the testing-on-demand schedule inevitably missed the vast majority of asymptomatic infections. Therefore, the observed significantly protective effect of the booster dose in university personnel referred to symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The infection prevention and control policies implemented by the University of Trieste managed to equalize the biological risk between administrative and teaching staff.

The rapid rollout of COVID-19 vaccines in 2021 sparked general optimism toward controlling the severe form of the disease, preventing hospitalizations and COVID-19-associated mortality, and the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 infection [...]

Background: A proportion of patients’ ailments may last after recovering from acute COVID-19, with episodic and systemic symptoms of unclear etiology potentially involving different organs. Study aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the persistence of symptoms 15 months since COVID-19 diagnosis in patients referring to the post-COVID-19 clinic in Trieste (north-eastern Italy). Methods: Two-hundred-forty-seven patients were medically examined between 8 December 2020–6 April 2021, after a median time of 49 days since first positive swab test for SARS-CoV-2. After a median time of 15 months since COVID-19 diagnosis, the same patients were contacted over the phone and investigated by standardized questionnaire collecting information on any persisting symptoms and work ability index (WAI). Four multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to investigate factors associated with persistence of any respiratory, neurological, dysautonomic, or psychiatric symptoms at first (median time 49 days since COVID-19 diagnosis) as well as second (median 15 months since COVID-19 diagnosis) follow up. A multiple linear regression was also employed to investigate factors associated with higher mean WAI, assessed only at second follow up. Additionally, factors associated with persistence of symptoms 200+ days since COVID-19 diagnosis between first and second follow-up were investigated by multivariable Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE). Results: At first follow up (median time of 49 days since COVID-19 diagnosis) symptoms more frequently reported were fatigue (80.2%), shortness of breath (69.6%), concentration deficit (44.9%), headache (44.9%), myalgia (44.1%), arthralgia (43.3%), and anosmia (42.1%). At second follow-up (median time of 15 months since COVID-19 diagnosis) 75% patients returned to their baseline status preceding COVID-19. At first follow up males were less likely to experience neurological (OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.08; 0.35) as well as psychiatric (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.23; 0.80) symptoms as compared to females. At first follow up, the risk of neurological symptoms increased also linearly with age (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01; 1.08) and pre-existing depression was a major risk factor for persisting dysautonomic (aOR = 6.35; 95% CI: 2.01; 20.11) as well as psychiatric symptoms (omitted estimate). Consistently, at second follow up only females experience psychiatric symptoms, whereas males exhibited significantly higher mean WAI (RC = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.11; 0.88). Additionally, neurological symptoms at second follow up were more likely in patients with pre-existing comorbidities (OR = 4.31; 95% CI: 1.27; 14.7). Finally, persistence of symptoms lasting 200+ days since COVID-19 diagnosis increased linearly with age (OR = 1.03; 95% CI 1.01–1.05) and were more likely in patients affected by pre-existing depression (OR = 2.68; 95% CI 1.60; 4.49). Conclusions: Following a median time of 15 months since first positive swab test, 75% patients with symptoms returned to their baseline health status preceding COVID-19. Females had a significantly lower WAI and were more likely to experience psychiatric symptoms at second follow up (15 months since COVID-19 diagnosis). Furthermore, the risk of symptoms persisting 200+ days since COVID-19 diagnosis increased with history of depression, endorsing the hypothesis that long-COVID-19 symptoms may be at least partially explained by pre-existing psychological conditions. Patient rehabilitation and psychological support may therefore play a key role in caring patients with the so called long COVID-19 syndrome.

Objective: To evaluate the incidence of primary and recurrent COVID-19 infections in healthcare workers (HCWs) routinely screened for SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swabs during the Omicron wave. Design: Dynamic Cohort study of HCWs (N = 7723) of the University Health Agency Giuliano Isontina (ASUGI), covering health services of the provinces of Trieste and Gorizia (Northeast Italy). Cox proportional hazard model was employed to estimate the risk of primary as well as recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection from 1 December 2021 through 31 May 2022, adjusting for a number of confounding factors. Results: By 1 December 2021, 46.8% HCWs of ASUGI had received the booster, 37.2% were immunized only with two doses of COVID-19 vaccines, 6.0% only with one dose and 10.0% were unvaccinated. During 1 March 2020–31 May 2022, 3571 primary against 406 SARS-CoV-2 recurrent infections were counted among HCWs of ASUGI, 59.7% (=2130/3571) versus 95.1% (=386/406) of which occurring from 1 December 2021 through 31 May 2022, respectively. All HCWs infected by SARS-CoV-2 during 1 December 2021 through 31 May 2022 presented mild flu-like disease. Compared to staff working in administrative services, the risk of primary as well as recurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection increased in HCWs with patient-facing clinical tasks (especially nurses and other categories of HCWs) and in all clinical wards but COVID-19 units and community health services. Regardless of the number of swab tests performed during the study period, primary infections were less likely in HCWs immunized with one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. By contrast, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 re-infection was significantly lower in HCWs immunized with three doses (aHR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.41; 0.80). During the study period, vaccine effectiveness (VE = 1-aHR) of the booster dose declined to 42% against re-infections, vanishing against primary SARS-CoV-2 infections. Conclusions: Though generally mild, SARS-CoV-2 infections and re-infections surged during the Omicron transmission period. Compared to unvaccinated colleagues, the risk of primary SARS-CoV-2 infection was significantly lower in HCWs immunized just with one dose of COVID-19 vaccines. By Italian law, HCWs immunized only with one dose were either suspended or re-assigned to job tasks not entailing patient facing contact; hence, while sharing the same biological risk of unvaccinated colleagues, they arguably had a higher level of protection against COVID-19 infection. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 re-infections were less likely in HCWs vaccinated with three doses, suggesting that hybrid humoral immunity by vaccination combined with natural infection provided a higher level of protection than vaccination only. In this stage of the pandemic, where SARS-CoV-2 is more infectious yet much less pathogenic, health protection measures in healthcare premises at higher biological risk seem the rational approach to control the transmission of the virus.

Background: The persistence of antibody levels after COVID-19 vaccination has public health relevance. We analyzed the determinants of quantitative serology at 9 months after vaccination in a multicenter cohort. Methods: We analyzed data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody levels at 9 months from the first dose of vaccinated HCW from eight centers in Italy, Germany, Spain, Romania and Slovakia. Serological levels were log-transformed to account for the skewness of the distribution and normalized by dividing them by center-specific standard errors. We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models to estimate the cohort-specific relative risks (RR) of an increase of one standard deviation of log antibody level and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), and combined them in random-effects meta-analyses. Finally, we conducted a trend analysis of 1 to 7 months’ serology within one cohort. Results: We included 20,216 HCW with up to two vaccine doses and showed that high antibody levels were associated with female sex (p = 0.01), age (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.86–0.88 per 10-year increase), 10-day increase in time since last vaccine (RR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.97–0.98), previous infection (3.03, 95% CI = 2.92–3.13), two vaccine doses (RR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.09–1.36), use of Spikevax (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.39–1.64), Vaxzevria (OR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.44–0.73) or heterologous vaccination (OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.12–1.57), compared to Comirnaty. The trend in the Bologna cohort, based on 3979 measurements, showed a decrease in mean standardized antibody level from 8.17 to 7.06 (1–7 months, p for trend 0.005). Conclusions: Our findings corroborate current knowledge on the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity and declining trend with time.

Portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) is one of the main geochemical techniques employed in multi-elemental analysis screening for contaminated sites management. As the confidence of pXRF analyses are matrix-specific, efforts are made to provide studies of pXRF quality on different geochemical datasets, focusing on less investigated elements such as mercury (Hg) and antimony (Sb), to help both new and experienced users. The analysis of environmental solid samples from two decommissioned mining sites in NE Italy, characterised by Pb-Zn and (Hg-rich) Cu-Sb ore deposits, were prepared with two different protocols and compared with traditional destructive analyses. Sample composition was found strictly dependent to the occurrence of false positives and overestimation at low concentrations. In contrast, milling the sample did not produce major variations in the overall quality. Lead (Pb), Sb, and Zn reached the definitive data quality in at least one of the two datasets. Consequently, as far as a thorough QA/QC protocol is followed, pXRF can rapidly produce chemical data that is as accurate as that produced by destructive standard laboratory techniques, thus allowing to identify potential sources of contamination that could be reprocessed for the extraction of valuable elements and mitigating the dispersion of contaminants and ecological or health risks.

Background. Allergic patients may develop reactions following COVID-19 vaccination more frequently than non-allergic individuals. The aim of our study was to assess the risk of reactions in high-risk allergic patients vaccinated for COVID-19 at the University Health Agency Giuliano-Isontina (ASUGI) of Trieste (northeastern Italy). Methods. Patients were considered at high risk for allergic reactions in case of: prior anaphylactic reaction to any drug/vaccine; multiple drug allergy; intolerance to polyethylene glycol (PEG) or polysorbate 80 (PS80) containing drugs; and mast cell disorders. High-risk allergic patients were immunized in hospital by a dedicated allergy team supported by resuscitation staff. Patients were interviewed over the phone one month after vaccination to complete a structured questionnaire investigating signs and symptoms developed after immunization. Results. From March 2021 to February 2022, 269 patients with a history of severe allergic reactions were assessed, of whom 208 (77.3%) eventually received COVID-19 vaccination, 50 (18.6%) refused to be immunized, 10 (3.7%) were deferred for medical reasons and one was declared exempted due to testing positive for PS80. Mild reactions (urticaria, angioedema, rhinitis, erythema) to COVID-19 vaccines were reported by 30.3% of patients, 8.7% within 4 h and 21.6% > 4 h after immunization. No anaphylactic events were observed. Although they were 80 times (3.8%) more prevalent than in COVID-19 vaccinees from the general population (0.047%), vaccine allergic reactions in high-risk patients were mainly mild and late, more likely affecting women (OR = 3.05; 95% CI 1.22–7.65). Conclusions. High-risk allergic patients with urticaria and angioedema may experience mild flare-ups of mast cell activation-like symptoms following COVID-19 vaccination, supporting antihistamine premedication before vaccination and to be continued for one week afterwards.

Background: The research aimed to investigate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and their determinants in a large European cohort of more than 60,000 health workers. Methods: A multicentric retrospective cohort study, involving 12 European centers, was carried out within the ORCHESTRA project, collecting data up to 18 November 2021 on fully vaccinated health workers. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was investigated with its association with occupational and social–demographic characteristics (age, sex, job title, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody titer levels, and time from the vaccination course completion). Results: Among 64,172 health workers from 12 European health centers, 797 breakthrough infections were observed (cumulative incidence of 1.2%). The primary analysis using individual data on 8 out of 12 centers showed that age and previous infection significantly modified breakthrough infection rates. In the meta-analysis of aggregated data from all centers, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and the standardized antibody titer were inversely related to the risk of breakthrough infection (p = 0.008 and p = 0.007, respectively). Conclusion: The inverse correlation of antibody titer with the risk of breakthrough infection supports the evidence that vaccination plays a primary role in infection prevention, especially in health workers. Cellular immunity, previous clinical conditions, and vaccination timing should be further investigated.

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are particularly exposed to biological risk, including SARS-CoV-2 infection. In order to contrast the current pandemic and alleviate the burden of the disease on the healthcare system, a mass vaccination campaign against COVID-19 has been launched worldwide. Aim To evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination in HCWs exposed to SARS-CoV-2, to describe the clinical presentation of COVID-19 in infected HCWs, and to investigate clinical and occupational risk factors for breakthrough infection. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: The cohort of HCWs of Trieste Hospitals were followed up from 1 March 2020, to 30 November 2021 (21 months). All HCWs were periodically screened for SARS-CoV-2 infection by real-time PCR (RT–PCR) analysis. Clinical data were obtained through routine medical surveillance records. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection were investigated by univariable as well as multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: Among 4394 HCWs routinely screened for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR on nasopharyngeal swab, a total of 800 incident cases were identified during the entire study period (1 March 2020 to 30 November 2021). Five hundred and sixty-four cases occurred before, and 236 after the start of the vaccination campaign against COVID-19, of whom 155 received a complete vaccination scheme before SARS-CoV-2 infection. Breakthrough infection was featured by mild or no symptoms and was significantly associated with the male sex, BMI > 25, and diabetes mellitus. Some categories of HCWs (physicians and nurse aids/auxiliary personnel) were at a higher risk of breakthrough infection. Conclusions: Fully vaccinated HCWs were less likely to acquire symptomatic as well as asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection after a full COVID-19 vaccination scheme included the male gender, diabetes mellitus, and overweight. HCWs with higher exposure to COVID-19 patients were at higher risk of breakthrough infection.

Introduction: Health Care Workers (HCWs) are at a particular high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19 patients and Aerosol-Generating Procedures (AGPs). The aim of the study was to assess the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients, to evaluate the adherence and effectiveness of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures, to describe the clinical presentation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs and to determine serological responses in HCWs. Methods: HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients during the previous 14 days with a confirmed case status were recruited as cases; HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients during the previous 14 days in the same ward without a suspected/probable/confirmed case status were recruited as controls. Serum samples were collected as soon as possible and after 21–28 days from all participants. Data were collected with a WHO standardized questionnaire as soon as possible and after 21–28 days. Results: All social, occupational and personal variables considered were not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Our study showed a high knowledge of IPC measures and very high PPE use among HCWs.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest to be disclosed.