Little information is available on the occurrence and genetic variability of the diarrhoea-causing enteric protozoan parasite Giardia duodenalis in indigenous communities in Brazil. This cross-sectional epidemiological survey describes the frequency, genotypes, and risk associations for this pathogen in Tapirapé people (Brazilian Amazon) at four sampling campaigns during 2008–2009. Microscopy was used as a screening test, and molecular (PCR and Sanger sequencing) assays targeting the small subunit ribosomal RNA, the glutamate dehydrogenase, the beta-giardin, and the triosephosphate isomerase genes as confirmatory/genotyping methods. Associations between G. duodenalis and sociodemographic and clinical variables were investigated using Chi-squared test and univariable/multivariable logistic regression models. Overall, 574 individuals belonging to six tribes participated in the study, with G. duodenalis prevalence rates varying from 13.5–21.7%. The infection was positively linked to younger age and tribe. Infected children <15 years old reported more frequent gastrointestinal symptoms compared to adults. Assemblage B accounted for three out of four G. duodenalis infections and showed a high genetic diversity. No association between assemblage and age or occurrence of diarrhoea was demonstrated. These data indicate that the most likely source of infection was anthropic and that different pathways (e.g., drinking water) may be involved in the transmission of the parasite.

The European 2025/26 influenza season is dominated by the influenza A(H3N2) virus, with most sequenced viruses belonging to subclade K, genetically drifted from the vaccine virus, raising concerns around vaccine effectiveness (VE). Despite this, VE estimates from nine European studies (19 countries) indicate all-age influenza A VE of 25–45% for outpatient and hospital settings combined, similar to other seasons, with highest estimates among children (47–72%). Vaccination should be encouraged and complemented by other infection prevention and control measures.

In Georgia, an upper-middle income European country, the COVID-19 vaccine rollout began on 15 March 2021 with health workers (HWs), a priority group for vaccination. We assessed the factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination among HWs at six large hospitals in the early stages of the vaccine rollout (March–July 2021). Among 1533 HWs, 274 (17.9%) had received one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Strong independent predictors of early vaccine uptake were age > 40 years, especially 50–59 years old (aOR 2.40, 95% CI 1.50–3.88), considering the vaccine as “somewhat effective” or “very effective” rather than “not effective” (aOR 6.33, 95% CI 2.29–26.3 and aOR 10.9, 95% CI 3.88–45.70, respectively), and previous vaccination against seasonal influenza (aOR 2.98, 95% CI 2.19–4.08). Previous SARS-CoV-2 infection was negatively associated with receiving the vaccine (aOR 0.6, 95% CI 0.40–0.80). Compared to physicians, nurses/midwives (aOR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15–0.32), administrative staff (aOR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22–0.56), and ancillary staff (aOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.04–0.15) were less likely to have received the COVID-19 vaccine. Tailoring the COVID-19 vaccine communications campaign to younger and non-physician HWs, and emphasizing the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine, could help further increase vaccine coverage among HWs in Georgia.

COVID-19, although a respiratory illness, has been clinically associated with non-respiratory symptoms. We conducted a negative case–control study to identify the symptoms associated with SARS-CoV-2-positive results in Portugal. Twelve symptoms and signs included in the clinical notification of COVID-19 were selected as predictors, and the dependent variable was the RT-PCR test result. The χ² tests were used to compare notified cases on sex, age group, health region and presence of comorbidities. The best-fit prediction model was selected using a backward stepwise method with an unconditional logistic regression. General and gastrointestinal symptoms were strongly associated with a positive test (P < 0.001). In this sense, the inclusion of general symptoms such as myalgia, headache and fatigue, as well as diarrhoea, together with actual clinical criteria for suspected cases, already updated and included in COVID-19 case definition, can lead to increased identification of cases and represent an effective strength for transmission control.

Introduction: Health professionals face higher occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to estimate the risk of COVID-19 test positivity in health professionals compared to non-health professionals. Methods: We conducted a test-negative case-control study using Portuguese national surveillance data (January to May 2020). Cases were suspected cases who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2; controls were suspected cases who tested negative. We used multivariable logistic regression modelling to estimate the odds ratio of a positive COVID-19 test (RT-PCR; primary outcome), comparing health professionals and non-health professionals (primary exposure), and adjusting for the confounding effect of demographic, clinical, and epidemiological characteristics, and the modification effect of the self-reported epidemiological link (i.e., self-reported contact with a COVID-19 case or person with COVID-19-like symptoms). Results: Health professionals had a 2-fold higher risk of a positive COVID-19 test result (aOR = 1.89, 95% CI 1.69–2.11). However, this association was strongly modified by the self-report of an epidemiological link such that, among cases who did report an epidemiological link, being a health professional was a protective factor (aOR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.82–0.98). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that health professionals might be primarily infected by unknown contacts, plausibly in the healthcare setting, but also that their occupational exposure does not systematically translate into a higher risk of transmission. We suggest that this could be interpreted in light of different types and timing of exposure, and variability in risk perception and associated preventive behaviours.

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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). Conclusions: 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.