Search

Background: In the initial phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, masking has been widely accepted in healthcare institutions to mitigate the risk of healthcare-associated infection. Evidence, however, is still scant and the role of masks in preventing healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 acquisition remains unclear.We investigated the association of variation in institutional mask policies with healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections in acute care hospitals in Switzerland during the BA.4/5 2022 wave., Methods: SARS-CoV-2 infections in hospitalized patients between June 1 and September 5, 2022, were obtained from the "Hospital-based surveillance of COVID-19 in Switzerland"-database and classified as healthcare- or community-associated based on time of disease onset. Institutions provided information regarding institutional masking policies for healthcare workers and other prevention policies. The percentage of healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections was calculated per institution and per type of mask policy. The association of healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections with mask policies was tested using a negative binominal mixed-effect model., Results: We included 2'980 SARS-CoV-2 infections from 13 institutions, 444 (15%) were classified as healthcare-associated. Between June 20 and June 30, 2022, six (46%) institutions switched to a more stringent mask policy. The percentage of healthcare-associated infections subsequently declined in institutions with policy switch but not in the others. In particular, the switch from situative masking (standard precautions) to general masking of HCW in contact with patients was followed by a strong reduction of healthcare-associated infections (rate ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.30-0.49). In contrast, when compared across hospitals, the percentage of health-care associated infections was not related to mask policies., Conclusions: Our findings suggest switching to a more stringent mask policy may be beneficial during increases of healthcare-associated SARS-CoV-2 infections at an institutional level., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: There is debate about the causes of the recent birth rate decline in high-income countries worldwide. During the pandemic, concern about the effects on reproductive health has caused vaccine hesitancy. We investigated the association of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and infection with involuntary childlessness., Methods: Females in fertility age within a prospective multicenter cohort of healthcare workers (HCW) were followed since August 2020. Data on baseline health, SARS-CoV-2-infection, and vaccination were obtained and regularly updated, in which serum samples were collected repetitively and screened for anti-nucleocapsid and anti-spike antibodies. In October 2023, participants indicated the presence of involuntary childlessness with onset during the pandemic, whereas those indicating an onset before the pandemic were excluded. The association of involuntary childlessness and SARS-CoV-2-vaccination and infection was investigated using univariable and multivariable analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to compare those reporting involuntary childlessness with those birthing a child since 2020., Results: Of 798 participants, 26 (3.2%) reported involuntary childlessness starting since the pandemic. Of the involuntary childless women, 73.1% (19/26) were vaccinated compared to 86.0% (664/772) without involuntary childlessness (p = 0.73). SARS-CoV-2 infection was reported by 76.9% (20/26) compared to 72.4% (559/772) of controls (p = 0.64). Neither SARS-CoV-2 vaccination (aOR 0.91 per dose, 95%CI 0.67-1.26) nor infection (aOR per infection 1.05, 95%CI 0.62-1.71) was associated with involuntary childlessness. Sensitivity analysis confirmed these results., Conclusions: Among female HCW of fertility age, 3.2% indicated involuntary childlessness, which is comparable to pre-pandemic data. No association between involuntary childlessness and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection was found., (© 2024 The Author(s). Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Disentangling the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants and vaccination on the occurrence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (PASC) is crucial to estimate and reduce the burden of PASC., Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis (May/June 2022) within a prospective multicenter healthcare worker (HCW) cohort in north-eastern Switzerland. HCWs were stratified by viral variant and vaccination status at time of their first positive SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab. HCWs without positive swab and with negative serology served as controls. The sum of 18 self-reported PASC symptoms was modeled with univariable and multivariable negative-binomial regression to analyze the association of mean symptom number with viral variant and vaccination status., Results: Among 2912 participants (median age: 44 years; 81.3% female), PASC symptoms were significantly more frequent after wild-type infection (estimated mean symptom number: 1.12; P < .001; median time since infection: 18.3 months), after Alpha/Delta infection (0.67 symptoms; P < .001; 6.5 months), and after Omicron BA.1 infections (0.52 symptoms; P = .005; 3.1 months) versus uninfected controls (0.39 symptoms). After Omicron BA.1 infection, the estimated mean symptom number was 0.36 for unvaccinated individuals versus 0.71 with 1-2 vaccinations (P = .028) and 0.49 with ≥3 prior vaccinations (P = .30). Adjusting for confounders, only wild-type (adjusted rate ratio [aRR]: 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.08-3.83) and Alpha/Delta infections (aRR: 1.93; 95% CI: 1.10-3.46) were significantly associated with the outcome., Conclusions: Previous infection with pre-Omicron variants was the strongest risk factor for PASC symptoms among our HCWs. Vaccination before Omicron BA.1 infection was not associated with a clear protective effect against PASC symptoms in this population., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A. M. has received grant funding outside of the current work from Pfizer, SanofiPasteur, and Merck (paid to their institution); consulting fees from Sienna Senior Living (paid to the author); as well as honoraria for advisory boards, webinars, and/or Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) membership for AstraZeneca, Biogen, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medicago, Merck, Moderna, Novavax, Pfizer, and SanofiPasteur. A. M. also received travel support from Moderna. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

The effects of different types of pre-existing immunity on the frequency of clinical symptoms caused by the SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection were prospectively assessed in healthcare workers during the Omicron period. Among 518 participants, hybrid immunity was associated with symptom reduction for dizziness, muscle or limb pain and headache as compared to vaccination only. Moreover, the frequencies of dizziness, cough and muscle or limb pain were lower in participants who had received a booster vaccine dose. Thus, hybrid immunity appeared to be superior in preventing specific symptoms during breakthrough infection compared to vaccination alone. A booster vaccine dose conferred additional symptom reduction., Competing Interests: No conflict of interest was declared., (© 2023 The Authors. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: SARS-CoV-2 directly contributes to the burden of respiratory disease in children, but indirect effects of protective measures also need to be considered to assess the overall impact of the pandemic on children's health., Methods: We retrospectively compared pre-pandemic and pandemic data of main admission diagnoses, sorted by ICD-10 diagnosis groups, in a tertiary children's hospital in Switzerland from 2017 until August 2021. Hospital admission rates, severity, and length of stay (LOS) of the individual ICD-10 groups during the pandemic were compared with three previous years accounting for seasonal differences., Results: Among 20,168 hospital admissions (n = 13'950 in pre-pandemic years; n = 3'120 in 2020 and n = 3'098 in 2021), there were significant decreases in numbers of admissions for respiratory diseases during the early pandemic with a rebound in summer 2021. During the pandemic, admissions for non-respiratory infections, neoplasms, and skin diseases decreased but increased for trauma. Particularly, a drop in admissions for different respiratory infections [e.g. respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and bronchiolitis] was pronounced after introduction of strict measures, but admissions increased again after restrictions were loosened. While disease severity was lower for respiratory and neurologic diseases and bronchiolitis throughout the pandemic, gastrointestinal disease admissions had longer LOS and in the first pandemic year greater severity. For RSV and pneumonia, disease severity and LOS were higher in the first pandemic year and lower in the second pandemic year., Conclusion: The pandemic and associated protective measures had a significant effect on respiratory and non-respiratory admissions, particularly with decreases in hospital admissions for respiratory infections followed by a rebound after loosening of measures., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Knowledge about protection conferred by previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and/or vaccination against emerging viral variants allows clinicians, epidemiologists, and health authorities to predict and reduce the future Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) burden. We investigated the risk and symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 (re)infection and vaccine breakthrough infection during the Delta and Omicron waves, depending on baseline immune status and subsequent vaccinations., Methods and Findings: In this prospective, multicentre cohort performed between August 2020 and March 2022, we recruited hospital employees from ten acute/nonacute healthcare networks in Eastern/Northern Switzerland. We determined immune status in September 2021 based on serology and previous SARS-CoV-2 infections/vaccinations: Group N (no immunity); Group V (twice vaccinated, uninfected); Group I (infected, unvaccinated); Group H (hybrid: infected and ≥1 vaccination). Date and symptoms of (re)infections and subsequent (booster) vaccinations were recorded until March 2022. We compared the time to positive SARS-CoV-2 swab and number of symptoms according to immune status, viral variant (i.e., Delta-dominant before December 27, 2021; Omicron-dominant on/after this date), and subsequent vaccinations, adjusting for exposure/behavior variables. Among 2,595 participants (median follow-up 171 days), we observed 764 (29%) (re)infections, thereof 591 during the Omicron period. Compared to group N, the hazard ratio (HR) for (re)infection was 0.33 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22 to 0.50, p < 0.001) for V, 0.25 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.57, p = 0.001) for I, and 0.04 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.10, p < 0.001) for H in the Delta period. HRs substantially increased during the Omicron period for all groups; in multivariable analyses, only belonging to group H was associated with protection (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.77, p = 0.001); booster vaccination was associated with reduction of breakthrough infection risk in groups V (aHR 0.68, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.85, p = 0.001) and H (aHR 0.67, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.00, p = 0.048), largely observed in the early Omicron period. Group H (versus N, risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97, p = 0.021) and participants with booster vaccination (versus nonboosted, RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88, p < 0.001) reported less symptoms during infection. Important limitations are that SARS-CoV-2 swab results were self-reported and that results on viral variants were inferred from the predominating strain circulating in the community at that time, rather than sequencing., Conclusions: Our data suggest that hybrid immunity and booster vaccination are associated with a reduced risk and reduced symptom number of SARS-CoV-2 infection during Delta- and Omicron-dominant periods. For previously noninfected individuals, booster vaccination might reduce the risk of symptomatic Omicron infection, although this benefit seems to wane over time., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Babouee Flury et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: The burden of long-term symptoms (ie, long COVID) in patients after mild COVID-19 is debated. Within a cohort of healthcare workers (HCWs), frequency and risk factors for symptoms compatible with long COVID are assessed., Methods: Participants answered baseline (August/September 2020) and weekly questionnaires on SARS-CoV-2 nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) results and acute disease symptoms. In January 2021, SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed; in March, symptoms compatible with long COVID (including psychometric scores) were asked and compared between HCWs with positive NPS, seropositive HCWs without positive NPS (presumable asymptomatic/pauci-symptomatic infections), and negative controls. The effect of time since diagnosis and quantitative anti-spike protein antibodies (anti-S) was evaluated. Poisson regression was used to identify risk factors for symptom occurrence., Results: Of 3334 HCWs (median, 41 years; 80% female), 556 (17%) had a positive NPS and 228 (7%) were only seropositive. HCWs with positive NPS more frequently reported ≥1 symptom compared with controls (73% vs 52%, P < .001); seropositive HCWs without positive NPS did not score higher than controls (58% vs 52%, P = .13), although impaired taste/olfaction (16% vs 6%, P < .001) and hair loss (17% vs 10%, P = .004) were more common. Exhaustion/burnout was reported by 24% of negative controls. Many symptoms remained elevated in those diagnosed >6 months ago; anti-S titers correlated with high symptom scores. Acute viral symptoms in weekly questionnaires best predicted long-COVID symptoms. Physical activity at baseline was negatively associated with neurocognitive impairment and fatigue scores., Conclusions: Seropositive HCWs without positive NPS are only mildly affected by long COVID. Exhaustion/burnout is common, even in noninfected HCWs. Physical activity might be protective against neurocognitive impairment/fatigue symptoms after COVID-19., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: There is insufficient evidence regarding the role of respirators in the prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We analysed the impact of filtering facepiece class 2 (FFP2) versus surgical masks on the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW)., Methods: Our prospective multicentre cohort enrolled HCW from June to August 2020. Participants were asked about COVID-19 risk exposures/behaviours, including preferentially worn mask type when caring for COVID-19 patients outside of aerosol-generating procedures. The impact of FFP2 on (1) self-reported SARS-CoV-2-positive nasopharyngeal PCR/rapid antigen tests captured during weekly surveys, and (2) SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion between baseline and January/February 2021 was assessed., Results: We enrolled 3259 participants from nine healthcare institutions, whereof 716 (22%) preferentially used FFP2. Among these, 81/716 (11%) reported a SARS-CoV-2-positive swab, compared to 352/2543 (14%) surgical mask users; seroconversion was documented in 85/656 (13%) FFP2 and 426/2255 (19%) surgical mask users. Adjusted for baseline characteristics, COVID-19 exposure, and risk behaviour, FFP2 use was non-significantly associated with decreased risk for SARS-CoV-2-positive swab (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.0) and seroconversion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-1.0); household exposure was the strongest risk factor (aHR 10.1, 95% CI 7.5-13.5; aOR 5.0, 95% CI 3.9-6.5). In subgroup analysis, FFP2 use was clearly protective among those with frequent (> 20 patients) COVID-19 exposure (aHR 0.7 for positive swab, 95% CI 0.5-0.8; aOR 0.6 for seroconversion, 95% CI 0.4-1.0)., Conclusions: Respirators compared to surgical masks may convey additional protection from SARS-CoV-2 for HCW with frequent exposure to COVID-19 patients., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Health care workers (HCW) are heavily exposed to SARS-CoV-2 from the beginning of the pandemic. We aimed to analyze risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion among HCW with a special emphasis on the respective healthcare institutions' recommendation regarding the use of FFP-2 masks., Methods: We recruited HCW from 13 health care institutions (HCI) with different mask policies (type IIR surgical face masks vs. FFP-2 masks) in Southeastern Switzerland (canton of Grisons). Sera of participants were analyzed for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 6 months apart, after the first and during the second pandemic wave using an electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA, Roche Diagnostics). We captured risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection by using an online questionnaire at both time points. The effects of individual COVID-19 exposure, regional incidence and FFP-2 mask policy on the probability of seroconversion were evaluated with univariable and multivariable logistic regression., Results: SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected in 99 of 2794 (3.5%) HCW at baseline and in 376 of 2315 (16.2%) participants 6 months later. In multivariable analyses the strongest association for seroconversion was exposure to a household member with known COVID-19 (aOR: 19.82, 95% CI 8.11-48.43, p < 0.001 at baseline and aOR: 8.68, 95% CI 6.13-12.29, p < 0.001 at follow-up). Significant occupational risk factors at baseline included exposure to COVID-19 patients (aOR: 2.79, 95% CI 1.28-6.09, p = 0.010) and to SARS-CoV-2 infected co-workers (aOR: 2.50, 95% CI 1.52-4.12, p < 0.001). At follow up 6 months later, non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (aOR: 2.54, 95% CI 1.66-3.89 p < 0.001) and the local COVID-19 incidence of the corresponding HCI (aOR: 1.98, 95% CI 1.30-3.02, p = 0.001) were associated with seroconversion. The healthcare institutions' mask policy (surgical masks during usual exposure vs. general use of FFP-2 masks) did not affect seroconversion rates of HCW during the first and the second pandemic wave., Conclusion: Contact with SARS-CoV-2 infected household members was the most important risk factor for seroconversion among HCW. The strongest occupational risk factor was exposure to COVID-19 patients. During this pandemic, with heavy non-occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the mask policy of HCIs did not affect the seroconversion rate of HCWs., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In a prospective healthcare worker (HCW) cohort, we assessed the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection according to baseline serostatus., Methods: Baseline serologies were performed among HCW from 23 Swiss healthcare institutions between June and September 2020, before the second COVID-19 wave. Participants answered weekly electronic questionnaires covering information about nasopharyngeal swabs (PCR/rapid antigen tests) and symptoms compatible with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Screening of symptomatic staff by nasopharyngeal swabs was routinely performed in participating facilities. We compared numbers of positive nasopharyngeal tests and occurrence of COVID-19 symptoms between HCW with and without anti-nucleocapsid antibodies., Results: A total of 4812 HCW participated, wherein 144 (3%) were seropositive at baseline. We analyzed 107,807 questionnaires with a median follow-up of 7.9 months. Median number of answered questionnaires was similar (24 vs. 23 per person, P = 0.83) between those with and without positive baseline serology. Among 2712 HCW with ≥ 1 SARS-CoV-2 test during follow-up, 3/67 (4.5%) seropositive individuals reported a positive result (one of whom asymptomatic), compared to 547/2645 (20.7%) seronegative participants, 12 of whom asymptomatic (risk ratio [RR] 0.22; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 0.66). Seropositive HCWs less frequently reported impaired olfaction/taste (6/144, 4.2% vs. 588/4674, 12.6%, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15-0.73), chills (19/144, 13.2% vs. 1040/4674, 22.3%, RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.39-0.90), and limb/muscle pain (28/144, 19.4% vs. 1335/4674, 28.6%, RR 0.68 95% CI 0.49-0.95). Impaired olfaction/taste and limb/muscle pain also discriminated best between positive and negative SARS-CoV-2 results., Conclusions: Having SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid antibodies provides almost 80% protection against SARS-CoV-2 re-infection for a period of at least 8 months., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Protecting healthcare workers (HCWs) from coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population., Methods: Between 22 June 22 and 15 August 2020, HCWs from institutions in northern/eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity., Results: Among 4664 HCWs from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19-positive household (adjusted OR 59, 95% CI 33-106), stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and male sex (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.1). Blood group 0 vs. non-0 (aOR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.8), active smoking (aOR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2-0.7), living with children <12 years (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.6) and being a physician (aOR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1-0.5) were associated with decreased risk. Other occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR 2.7, 95% CI 1.4-5.4), exposure to COVID-19-positive co-workers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-2.9), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-2.9) and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.4-3.8)., Discussion: Living with COVID-19-positive households showed the strongest association with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. We identified several potentially modifiable work-related risk factors, which might allow mitigation of the COVID-19 risk among HCWs. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In this prospective cohort of 1,012 Swiss hospital employees, 3 different assays were used to screen serum for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seropositivity was 1%; the positive predictive values of the lateral-flow immunoassay were 64% (IgG) and 13% (IgM). History of fever and myalgia most effectively differentiated seropositive and seronegative participants.

Background: In the future, co-circulation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and influenza viruses A/B is likely. From a clinical point of view, differentiation of the two disease entities is crucial for patient management. We therefore aim to detect clinical differences between Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza patients at time of hospital admission., Methods: In this single-center observational study, we included all consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19 or influenza between November 2019 and May 2020. Data were extracted from a nationwide surveillance program and from electronic health records. COVID-19 and influenza patients were compared in terms of baseline characteristics, clinical presentation and outcome. We used recursive partitioning to generate a classification tree to discriminate COVID-19 from influenza patients., Results: We included 96 COVID-19 and 96 influenza patients. Median age was 68 vs. 70 years (p = 0.90), 72% vs. 56% (p = 0.024) were males, and median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 1 vs. 2 (p = 0.027) in COVID-19 and influenza patients, respectively. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission was longer for COVID-19 (median 7 days, IQR 3-10) than for influenza patients (median 3 days, IQR 2-5, p < 0.001). Other variables favoring a diagnosis of COVID-19 in the classification tree were higher systolic blood pressure, lack of productive sputum, and lack of headache. The tree classified 86/192 patients (45%) into two subsets with ≥80% of patients having influenza or COVID-19, respectively. In-hospital mortality was higher for COVID-19 patients (16% vs. 5%, p = 0.018)., Conclusion: Discriminating COVID-19 from influenza patients based on clinical presentation is challenging. Time from symptom onset to hospital admission is considerably longer in COVID-19 than in influenza patients and showed the strongest discriminatory power in our classification tree. Although they had fewer comorbidities, in-hospital mortality was higher for COVID-19 patients.