Giuliano Alessio

Dr. Giuliano Alessio

Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Lazio, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

7Years (2020-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
ELEdith Lahner
Edith Lahner
EDEmanuele Dilaghi
Emanuele Dilaghi
CPClaudio Prestigiacomo
Claudio Prestigiacomo
GAGiuliano Alessio
Giuliano Alessio
LMLaura Marcellini
Laura Marcellini
Christian NapoliChristian Napoli
Christian Napoli
(1) Background: Health workers (HWs) are at high risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) infections. Therefore, health authorities further recommend screening strategies for SARS-CoV-2 infection in exposed or high-risk HWs. Nevertheless, to date, the best/optimal method to screen HWs for SARS-CoV-2 infection is still under debate, and data on the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HWs are still scarce. The present study aims to assess the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate amongst HWs in a teaching hospital in Central Italy and the diagnostic performance of SARS-CoV-2 serology (index test) in comparison with the SARS-CoV-2 RNA PCR assay (reference standard). (2) Methods: A cross-sectional study on the retrospective data of HWs tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RNA-RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swabs and by an IgM/IgG serology assay on venous blood samples, irrespective of exposure and/or symptoms, was carried out. (3) Results: A total of 2057 HWs (median age 46, 19–69 years, females 60.2%) were assessed by the RNA RT-PCR assay and 58 (2.7%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared with negative HWs, SARS-CoV-2-positives were younger (mean age 41.7 versus 45.2, p < 0.01; 50% versus 31% under or equal to 40 years old, p < 0.002) and had a shorter duration of employment (64 versus 125 months, p = 0.02). Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was more frequent in positive HWs than in negatives (55.2% versus 27.5%, p < 0.0001). In 44.8% of positive HWs, no exposure was traced. None of the positive HWs had a fatal outcome, none of them had acute respiratory distress syndrome, and only one required hospitalization for mild/moderate pneumonia. In 1084 (51.2%) HWs, nasopharyngeal swabs and an IgM/IgG serology assay were performed. With regard to IgM serology, sensitivity was 0% at a specificity of 98.99% (positive predictive value, PPV 0%, negative predictive value, NPV 99.2%). Concerning IgG serology and irrespective of the time interval between nasopharyngeal swab and serology, sensitivity was 50% at a specificity of 99.1% (PPV 28.6%, NPV 99.6%). IgG serology showed a higher diagnostic performance when performed at least two weeks after testing SARS-CoV-2-positive at the RNA RT-PCR assay by a nasopharyngeal swab. (4) Conclusions: Our experience in Central Italy demonstrated a low prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HWs, but higher than in the general population. Nearly half of the positive HWs reported no previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2-infected subjects and were diagnosed thanks to the proactive screening strategy implemented. IgG serology seems useful when performed at least two weeks after an RNA RT-PCR assay. IgM serology does not seem to be a useful test for the diagnosis of active SARS-CoV-2 infection. High awareness of SARS-CoV-2 infection is mandatory for all people, but especially for HWs, irrespective of symptoms, to safeguard their health and that of patients.

10 March 2022 in Applied Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FAFrancesco Agostini
Francesco Agostini
Massimiliano MangoneMassimiliano Mangone
Massimiliano Mangone
NFNikolaos Finamore
Nikolaos Finamore
Marta Di NicolaMarta Di Nicola
Marta Di Nicola
FPFederico Papa
Federico Papa
Teresa PaolucciTeresa Paolucci
Teresa Paolucci
(1) Background: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is the most common cause of heel pain in adults. Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) is a minimally invasive treatments commonly used for treating PF. Our aim is to provide a complete overview of which treatments have been compared to ESWT, with a focus on the modalities that have been used. (2) Methods: A thorough search of the literature was performed on Medline via Pubmed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) of the Cochrane Library and Physiotherapy Evidence Databases (PEDro) up to 18 November 2021. In the study were included only systematic reviews and meta-analysis in English language, published from 2010 to date. (3) Results: A total of 14 systematic reviews and meta-analysis were included in the umbrella review. A total of eight studies compared the efficacy of ESWT treatment with placebo, three studies compared ESWT with another therapy (two studies compared ESWT and corticosteroids, one study ESWT and ultrasound therapy), and three studies had more than one comparison. (4) Conclusions: When compared to placebo, ESWT demonstrated to be effective. More randomized trials with specific comparisons between different types and intensity of SW are needed to obtain more precise information on SW effectiveness.