Primary series COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness among health care workers in the country of Georgia, March-December 2021.
Healthcare workers (HCWs) have suffered considerable morbidity and mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic. Few data on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) are available from middle-income countries in the WHO European Region. We evaluated primary series COVID-19 VE against laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among HCWs in Georgia.
HCWs in six hospitals in Georgia were invited to enroll in a prospective cohort study conducted during March 19-December 5, 2021. Participants completed weekly symptom questionnaires. Symptomatic HCWs were tested by RT-PCR and/or rapid antigen test (RAT), and participants were routinely tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR or RAT, regardless of symptoms. Serology was collected at enrolment, and quarterly thereafter, and tested by electrochemiluminescence immunoassay for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We defined primary series vaccination as two doses of COVID-19 vaccine received ≥14 days before symptom onset. We estimated VE as (1-hazard ratio)*100 using a Cox proportional hazards model with vaccination status as a time-varying covariate. Estimates were adjusted by potential confounders that changed the VE estimate by more than 5%, according to the change-in-estimate approach.
Overall, 1561/3849 (41%) eligible HCWs enrolled and were included in the analysis. The median age was 40 (IQR: 30-53), 1318 (84%) were female, and 1003 (64%) had laboratory evidence of prior SARS-Cov-2 infection. At enrolment, 1300 (83%) were unvaccinated; By study end, 1082 (62%) had completed a primary vaccine series (69% BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech); 22% BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm); 9% other). During the study period, 191(12%) participants had a new PCR- or RAT-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. VE against PCR- or RAT- confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection was 58% (95%CI: 41; 70) for all primary series vaccinations, 68% (95%CI: 51; 79) for BNT162b2, and 40% (95%CI: 1; 64) for BBIBP-CorV vaccines. Among previously infected HCWs, VE was 58% (95%CI: 11; 80). VE against medically attended COVID-19 was 52% (95%CI: 28; 68), and VE against hospitalization was 69% (95% CI: 36; 85). During the period of predominant Delta variant circulation (July-December 2021), VE against symptomatic COVID-19 was 52% (95%CI: 30; 66).
Primary series vaccination with BNT162b2 and BBIBP-CorV was effective at preventing COVID-19 among HCWs, most of whom had previous infection, during a period of mainly Delta circulation. Our results support the utility of COVID-19 primary vaccine series, and the importance of increasing coverage, even among previously infected individuals.
Katz MA
，Rojas Castro MY
，Chakhunashvili G
，Chitadze N
，Ward CL
，McKnight CJ
，Lucaccioni H
，Finci I
，Zardiashvili T
，Pebody R
，Kissling E
，Sanodze L
... -
《PLoS One》
The effect of sample site and collection procedure on identification of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Sample collection is a key driver of accuracy in the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Viral load may vary at different anatomical sampling sites and accuracy may be compromised by difficulties obtaining specimens and the expertise of the person taking the sample. It is important to optimise sampling accuracy within cost, safety and accessibility constraints.
To compare the sensitivity of different sampling collection sites and methods for the detection of current SARS-CoV-2 infection with any molecular or antigen-based test.
Electronic searches of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 Living Evidence Database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) were undertaken on 22 February 2022. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions.
We included studies of symptomatic or asymptomatic people with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing testing. We included studies of any design that compared results from different sample types (anatomical location, operator, collection device) collected from the same participant within a 24-hour period.
Within a sample pair, we defined a reference sample and an index sample collected from the same participant within the same clinical encounter (within 24 hours). Where the sample comparison was different anatomical sites, the reference standard was defined as a nasopharyngeal or combined naso/oropharyngeal sample collected into the same sample container and the index sample as the alternative anatomical site. Where the sample comparison was concerned with differences in the sample collection method from the same site, we defined the reference sample as that closest to standard practice for that sample type. Where the sample pair comparison was concerned with differences in personnel collecting the sample, the more skilled or experienced operator was considered the reference sample. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C checklists, tailored to this review. We present estimates of the difference in the sensitivity (reference sample (%) minus index sample sensitivity (%)) in a pair and as an average across studies for each index sampling method using forest plots and tables. We examined heterogeneity between studies according to population (age, symptom status) and index sample (time post-symptom onset, operator expertise, use of transport medium) characteristics.
This review includes 106 studies reporting 154 evaluations and 60,523 sample pair comparisons, of which 11,045 had SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ninety evaluations were of saliva samples, 37 nasal, seven oropharyngeal, six gargle, six oral and four combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples. Four evaluations were of the effect of operator expertise on the accuracy of three different sample types. The majority of included evaluations (146) used molecular tests, of which 140 used RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction). Eight evaluations were of nasal samples used with Ag-RDTs (rapid antigen tests). The majority of studies were conducted in Europe (35/106, 33%) or the USA (27%) and conducted in dedicated COVID-19 testing clinics or in ambulatory hospital settings (53%). Targeted screening or contact tracing accounted for only 4% of evaluations. Where reported, the majority of evaluations were of adults (91/154, 59%), 28 (18%) were in mixed populations with only seven (4%) in children. The median prevalence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 23% (interquartile (IQR) 13%-40%). Risk of bias and applicability assessment were hampered by poor reporting in 77% and 65% of included studies, respectively. Risk of bias was low across all domains in only 3% of evaluations due to inappropriate inclusion or exclusion criteria, unclear recruitment, lack of blinding, nonrandomised sampling order or differences in testing kit within a sample pair. Sixty-eight percent of evaluation cohorts were judged as being at high or unclear applicability concern either due to inflation of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in study populations by selectively including individuals with confirmed PCR-positive samples or because there was insufficient detail to allow replication of sample collection. When used with RT-PCR • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between gargle and nasopharyngeal samples (on average -1 percentage points, 95% CI -5 to +2, based on 6 evaluations, 2138 sample pairs, of which 389 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between saliva collection from the deep throat and nasopharyngeal samples (on average +10 percentage points, 95% CI -1 to +21, based on 2192 sample pairs, of which 730 had SARS-CoV-2). • There was evidence that saliva collection using spitting, drooling or salivating was on average -12 percentage points less sensitive (95% CI -16 to -8, based on 27,253 sample pairs, of which 4636 had SARS-CoV-2) compared to nasopharyngeal samples. We did not find any evidence of a difference in the sensitivity of saliva collected using spitting, drooling or salivating (sensitivity difference: range from -13 percentage points (spit) to -21 percentage points (salivate)). • Nasal samples (anterior and mid-turbinate collection combined) were, on average, 12 percentage points less sensitive compared to nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -17 to -7), based on 9291 sample pairs, of which 1485 had SARS-CoV-2. We did not find any evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples collected from the mid-turbinates (3942 sample pairs) or from the anterior nares (8272 sample pairs). • There was evidence that oropharyngeal samples were, on average, 17 percentage points less sensitive than nasopharyngeal samples (95% CI -29 to -5), based on seven evaluations, 2522 sample pairs, of which 511 had SARS-CoV-2. A much smaller volume of evidence was available for combined nasal/oropharyngeal samples and oral samples. Age, symptom status and use of transport media do not appear to affect the sensitivity of saliva samples and nasal samples. When used with Ag-RDTs • There was no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples (sensitivity, on average, 0 percentage points -0.2 to +0.2, based on 3688 sample pairs, of which 535 had SARS-CoV-2).
When used with RT-PCR, there is no evidence for a difference in sensitivity of self-collected gargle or deep-throat saliva samples compared to nasopharyngeal samples collected by healthcare workers when used with RT-PCR. Use of these alternative, self-collected sample types has the potential to reduce cost and discomfort and improve the safety of sampling by reducing risk of transmission from aerosol spread which occurs as a result of coughing and gagging during the nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal sample collection procedure. This may, in turn, improve access to and uptake of testing. Other types of saliva, nasal, oral and oropharyngeal samples are, on average, less sensitive compared to healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples, and it is unlikely that sensitivities of this magnitude would be acceptable for confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection with RT-PCR. When used with Ag-RDTs, there is no evidence of a difference in sensitivity between nasal samples and healthcare worker-collected nasopharyngeal samples for detecting SARS-CoV-2. The implications of this for self-testing are unclear as evaluations did not report whether nasal samples were self-collected or collected by healthcare workers. Further research is needed in asymptomatic individuals, children and in Ag-RDTs, and to investigate the effect of operator expertise on accuracy. Quality assessment of the evidence base underpinning these conclusions was restricted by poor reporting. There is a need for further high-quality studies, adhering to reporting standards for test accuracy studies.
Davenport C
，Arevalo-Rodriguez I
，Mateos-Haro M
，Berhane S
，Dinnes J
，Spijker R
，Buitrago-Garcia D
，Ciapponi A
，Takwoingi Y
，Deeks JJ
，Emperador D
，Leeflang MMG
，Van den Bruel A
，Cochrane COVID-19 Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group
... -
《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》
Association of depressive symptoms with incidence and mortality rates of COVID-19 over 2 years among healthcare workers in 20 countries: multi-country serial cross-sectional study.
Long-term deterioration in the mental health of healthcare workers (HCWs) has been reported during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Determining the impact of COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates on the mental health of HCWs is essential to prepare for potential new pandemics. This study aimed to investigate the association of COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates with depressive symptoms over 2 years among HCWs in 20 countries during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a multi-country serial cross-sectional study using data from the first and second survey waves of the COVID-19 HEalth caRe wOrkErS (HEROES) global study. The HEROES study prospectively collected data from HCWs at various health facilities. The target population included HCWs with both clinical and non-clinical roles. In most countries, healthcare centers were recruited based on convenience sampling. As an independent variable, daily COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates were calculated using confirmed cases and deaths reported by Johns Hopkins University. These rates represent the average for the 7 days preceding the participants' response date. The primary outcome was depressive symptoms, assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. A multilevel linear mixed model (LMM) was conducted to investigate the association of depressive symptoms with the average incidence and mortality rates.
A total of 32,223 responses from the participants who responded to all measures used in this study on either the first or second survey, and on both the first and second surveys in 20 countries were included in the analysis. The mean age was 40.1 (SD = 11.1), and 23,619 responses (73.3%) were from females. The 9323 responses (28.9%) were nurses and 9119 (28.3%) were physicians. LMM showed that the incidence rate was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms (coefficient = 0.008, standard error 0.003, p = 0.003). The mortality rate was significantly and positively associated with depressive symptoms (coefficient = 0.049, se = 0.020, p = 0.017).
This is the first study to show an association between COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates with depressive symptoms among HCWs during the first 2 years of the outbreak in multiple countries. This study's findings indicate that additional mental health support for HCWs was needed when the COVID-19 incidence and mortality rates increase during and after the early phase of the pandemic, and these findings may apply to future pandemics.
Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04352634.
Asaoka H
，Watanabe K
，Miyamoto Y
，Restrepo-Henao A
，van der Ven E
，Moro MF
，Alnasser LA
，Ayinde O
，Balalian AA
，Basagoitia A
，Durand-Arias S
，Eskin M
，Fernández-Jiménez E
，Ines FFM
，Giménez L
，Hoek HW
，Jaldo RE
，Lindert J
，Maldonado H
，Martínez-Alés G
，Mediavilla R
，McCormack C
，Narvaez J
，Ouali U
，Barrera-Perez A
，Calgua-Guerra E
，Ramírez J
，Rodríguez AM
，Seblova D
，da Silva ATC
，Valeri L
，Gureje O
，Ballester D
，Carta MG
，Isahakyan A
，Jamoussi A
，Seblova J
，Solis-Soto MT
，Alvarado R
，Susser E
，Mascayano F
，Nishi D
，HEROES group
... -
《BMC Medicine》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
