COVID-19 infection among emergency department healthcare providers in a large tertiary academic medical center following the peak of the pandemic

Incidence of unknown COVID-19 infection in a cohort of emergency physicians and advance practice providers

INTRODUCTION

In United States, health care workers have been immersed in the COVID-19 pandemic since February 2020. Since availability of COVID-19 vaccines, there is limited literature investigating the incidence of unknown COVID-19 infections in physicians and Advanced Practitioner Providers (APPs) working in emergency departments (EDs). The primary objective is to determine the incidence unknown COVID-19 infection within a cohort of emergency physicians (EPs) and APPs.

METHODS

Prospective observational study at a tertiary academic center with emergency medicine residency and 64,000 annual ED visits. EPs/APPs providing care to ED patients over the prior 12 months were eligible. Serum samples were collected between May 1 and June 30, 2022. Analysis utilized Luminex xMAP® SARS-CoV-2 Multi-Antigen IgG Assay for antibodies to Nucleocapsid, Receptor-binding domain, and Spike subunit 1. Mean Fluorescent Intensity (MFI) ≥ 700 was considered positive. Subjects completed 12 question survey assessing demographics and previously confirmed COVID-19 infection. Fisher's exact test evaluated associations of demographics and clinical characteristics with confirmed COVID-19 status. Analyses performed using SAS, Version 9.4. P < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine of 81 eligible subjects (85.2%) participated, 58.0% were male, 97.1% white, with mean age of 37. Eighteen subjects had MFI ≥ 700 strongly suggestive of prior infection, with 17.7% unknown. No statistically significant difference between age, gender, race, children in home, or household member with previously COVID-19 infection.

CONCLUSION

Unknown previous COVID-19 infection was less then expected in this cohort of EPs/APPs, and no association with individual characteristics, previously infected household member, or children in the home.

SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine induces robust specific and cross-reactive IgG and unequal neutralizing antibodies in naive and previously infected people

Understanding vaccine-mediated protection against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is critical to overcoming the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We investigate mRNA-vaccine-induced antibody responses against the reference strain, seven variants, and seasonal coronaviruses in 168 healthy individuals at three time points: before vaccination, after the first dose, and after the second dose. Following complete vaccination, both naive and previously infected individuals developed comparably robust SARS-CoV-2 spike antibodies and variable levels of cross-reactive antibodies to seasonal coronaviruses. However, the strength and frequency of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies in naive individuals were lower than in previously infected individuals. After the first vaccine dose, one-third of previously infected individuals lacked neutralizing antibodies; this was improved to one-fifth after the second dose. In all individuals, neutralizing antibody responses against the Alpha and Delta variants were weaker than against the reference strain. Our findings support future tailored vaccination strategies against emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants as mRNA-vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies are highly variable among individuals.

Infectious Diseases Society of America Guidelines on Infection Prevention for Healthcare Personnel Caring for Patients with Suspected or Known COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions like coughing and care activities like aerosol-generating procedures likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators.

OBJECTIVE

Develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known COVID-19.

METHODS

IDSA formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations.

RESULTS

The IDSA guideline panel agreed on eight recommendations, including two updated recommendations and one new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for eight specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims and Objectives

This systematic review and meta‐analysis reports the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses.

Background

With a growing body of literature reporting the positive serology for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among healthcare workers, it remains unclear whether staff at the point of direct patient care are more prone to developing and transmitting the virus. Given nurses make up the majority of the global health workforce, outbreaks among these workers could severely undermine a health system’s capability to manage the pandemic. We aimed to summarise and report the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses globally.

Design

Systematic review and meta‐analyses.

Methods

This systematic review was developed, undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched the electronic medical literature databases: MEDLINE; CINAHL; and EMBASE for studies reporting the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nursing staff. Studies that reported nursing specific data were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Studies were stratified according to the World Health Organisation region classifications, and results were presented using forest plots and summary prevalence and variance was estimated using a random effects model.

Results

Our electronic search identified 1687 potential studies, of which 1148 were screened for eligibility after duplicates were removed, and 51 of the studies were included in our meta‐analysis. The overall seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses was estimated to be 8.1% (95% CI 6.9%–9.4%) among the 60,571 participants included in the studies. Seropositivity was highest in the African region (48.2%, 95% CI 39.2%–57.3%), followed by the European region (10.3%, 95% CI 8.0%–12.5%), the Region of the Americas (8.4%, 95% CI 6.0%–10.7%), the South‐East Asia region (3.0%, 95% CI 0.00%–6.5%) and the Western Pacific region (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%–1.0%). Pooled estimates were unable to be calculated in the Eastern Mediterranean region due to insufficient studies.

Conclusion

The seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses is comparable to other healthcare workers, and possibly similar to the general population. Early adoption and adherence to personal protective equipment and social distancing measures could explain these similarities, meaning the majority of staff contracted the virus through community transmission and not in a healthcare setting.

Relevance to clinical practice

Fear and uncertainty have been features of this pandemic, including among nurses. This meta‐analysis should provide some comfort to nurses that risks are similar to community exposure when adequate PPE is available and there is an adherence to infection control measures.

Estimating salivary carriage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in nonsymptomatic people and efficacy of mouthrinse in reducing viral load: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Many people infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) never develop substantial symptoms. With more than 34 million people in the United States already infected and highly transmissible variants rapidly emerging, it is highly probable that post- and presymptomatic people will form an important fraction of those seeking dental care. Salivary carriage rates in these populations are not known. Moreover, although preventing transmission is critical for controlling spread, the efficacy of mouthrinses in reducing oral viral load is poorly studied.

Methods

The authors recruited 201 asymptomatic, presymptomatic, postsymptomatic, and symptomatic people and measured copy numbers of SARS-CoV-2 in unstimulated saliva using real-time reverse transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Subsequently, the authors inducted 41 symptomatic people into a randomized, triple-blinded study and instructed them to rinse with saline, 1% hydrogen peroxide, 0.12% chlorhexidine, or 0.5% povidone-iodine for 60 seconds. The authors measured viral load 15 and 45 minutes after rinsing.

Results

Salivary SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 23% of asymptomatic, 60% of postsymptomatic, and 28% of presymptomatic participants. Neither carriage rate nor viral load correlated with COVID-19 symptomatology, age, sex, or race or ethnicity. All 4 mouthrinses decreased viral load by 61% through 89% at 15 minutes and by 70% through 97% at 45 minutes. The extent of reduction correlated significantly with initial viral load.

Conclusions

Nonsymptomatic people can pose a risk of transmitting the virus, and mouthrinses are simple and efficacious means of reducing this risk, especially when the load is less than 10⁴ copies per milliliter.

Practical Implications

At a time when resources are stretched, the findings of this study contribute to evidence-based selection of personal protection equipment and simple infection-control practices to reduce contagion at source.

This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The registration number is NCT04603794.