Backgroud: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have been the workers most likely to contract the disease. Intensive focus is therefore needed on hospital strategies that minimize exposure and diffusion, confer protection and facilitate early detection and isolation of infected personnel. Methods: To evaluate the early impact of a structured risk-management for exposed COVID-19 HCWs and describe how their characteristics contributed to infection and diffusion. Socio-demographic and clinical data, aspects of the event-exposure (date, place, length and distance of exposure, use of PPE) and details of the contact person were collected. Results: The 2411 HCWs reported 2924 COVID-19 contacts. Among 830 HCWs who were at ‘high or medium risk’, 80 tested positive (9.6%). Physicians (OR=2.03), and non-medical services ­resulted in an increased risk (OR=4.23). Patient care did not increase the risk but sharing the work environment did (OR=2.63). There was a significant time reduction between exposure and warning, exposure and test, and warning and test since protocol implementation. HCWs with management postitions were the main source of infection due to the high number of interactions. Discussion: A proactive system that includes prompt detection of contagious staff and identification of sources of exposure helps to lower the intra-hospital spread of infection. A speedier return to work of staff who would otherwise have had to self-isolate as a precautionary measure improves staff morale and patient care by reducing the stress imposed by excessive workloads arising from staff shortages.

Background: The research aimed to investigate the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections and their determinants in a large European cohort of more than 60,000 health workers. Methods: A multicentric retrospective cohort study, involving 12 European centers, was carried out within the ORCHESTRA project, collecting data up to 18 November 2021 on fully vaccinated health workers. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections was investigated with its association with occupational and social–demographic characteristics (age, sex, job title, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody titer levels, and time from the vaccination course completion). Results: Among 64,172 health workers from 12 European health centers, 797 breakthrough infections were observed (cumulative incidence of 1.2%). The primary analysis using individual data on 8 out of 12 centers showed that age and previous infection significantly modified breakthrough infection rates. In the meta-analysis of aggregated data from all centers, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and the standardized antibody titer were inversely related to the risk of breakthrough infection (p = 0.008 and p = 0.007, respectively). Conclusion: The inverse correlation of antibody titer with the risk of breakthrough infection supports the evidence that vaccination plays a primary role in infection prevention, especially in health workers. Cellular immunity, previous clinical conditions, and vaccination timing should be further investigated.

Introduction: Characterizing immunological response following COVID-19 vaccination is an important public health issue. The objectives of the present analysis were to investigate the proportion, level and the determinants of humoral response from 21 days to three months after the first dose in vaccinated healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We abstracted data on level of anti-SARS-CoV-2 Spike antibodies (IgG) and sociodemographic characteristics of 17,257 HCWs from public hospitals and public health authorities from three centers in Northern Italy who underwent COVID-19 vaccination (average 70.6 days after first dose). We fitted center-specific multivariate regression models and combined them using random-effects meta-analyses. Results: A humoral response was elicited in 99.3% of vaccinated HCW. Female sex, young age, and previous COVID-19 infection were predictors of post-vaccination antibody level, and a positive association was also detected with pre-vaccination serology level and with time between pre- and post-vaccination testing, while a decline of antibody level was suggested with time since vaccination. Conclusions: These results stress the importance of analyzing retrospective data collected via occupational health surveillance of HCWs during the COVID-19 epidemic and following vaccination. They need to be confirmed in larger series based on prospectively collected data.

Background: We aimed to investigate the association between personal protective equipment (PPE) use and SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed occupational surveillance contact forms followed by a PCR test notified between March and September 2020 by Italian HCWs. The odds ratios (ORs) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) for positive PCR based on HCWs and contacts characteristics were calculated through multivariable logistic regression models. When multiple contacts were potentially effective for a PCR test, they were weighted by the inverse of their number. Results: Overall, 4,883 contacts reported by 2,952 HCWs were analyzed, and 224 contacts among 144 HCWs had positive PCR. No difference was found according to sex, age, employment, or job title, except for an OR of 0.30 (95%CI 0.11-0.78) for resident physicians, compared to administrative staff. The ORs for use of surgical mask were 0.59 (95%CI=0.40-0.86) for use only by HCW, 0.49 (95%CI=0.22-1.07) only by the infected person, and 0.40 (95%CI=0.27-0.60) by both, compared to use by neither. Use of other PPEs was not associated with infection, while the OR for hand sanitation was 0.61 (95%CI=0.40-0.93). HCWs reporting fever, cough, and asthenia had a higher risk of infection. Conclusions: Use of surgical masks was associated with a 40-60% lower risk of infection, especially when both HCWs and infected individuals used them. Our results quantify the role played by mask use and hand sanitation in preventing SARS-CoV-2 transmission in high-risk circumstances.

Purpose: We report a case of a 30 years old Indian sailor with microcytic anemia (Hb 9.9), persistent abdominal pain, emesis, dark stool, hyperchromic urine, latent jaundice and asthenia. Lead intoxication was confirmed (blood lead value of 102 μg/dL). The patient assumed Ayurvedic medicines in the previous months. Ayurveda is an ancient form of Indian traditional popular medicine aiming to re-establish health and body function through herbal preparations, heavy metals are often added. Our purpose was to treat the patient and to establish the source of poisoning. Methods: After testing blood and urine lead concentration of other 3 crew members and analyzing over than 150 products used on the ship professional exposure was excluded. We analyzed the two Ayurvedic drugs assumed by the patient with an Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry. The patient underwent three chelation cycles with Calcium Disodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) while monitoring blood and urinary lead levels. Results: The final blood lead level at discharge, after three chelation cycles, was 36.27 μg/dL. One of the two drugs contained extremely high concentrations of lead and mercury. The three different mixtures of this preparation showed lead concentrations of 12,638.54 mg/kg (Sample 2A), 23,043.02 mg/kg (Sample 2B), 21,352.97 mg/kg (Sample 2C); these levels are much higher than the highest values reported in literature for the indian soil (32 mg/kg). Conclusions: This case and similar cases raise the safety alert on complementary and alternative medicines; Ayurvedic medicine users should be carefully informed about potential risks and signs of poisoning.

Background: Following the announcement of the development of COVID-19 vaccines, hesitancy about the safety of vaccinations and their side effects have spread, despite having the approval of international drug agencies. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that concern about side effects may have led people to fill out the COVID-19 anamnestic vaccine questionnaire with greater attention compared to the similar instrument used for the influenza vaccination. Methods: We analyzed vaccination questionnaires of 218 healthcare workers (HCWs) who underwent both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines in 2020/2021. Outcomes included self-reported allergies, chronic pharmacological treatments, and chronic diseases. We tested the difference in prevalence, analyzed differences using the kappa statistics and concordance correlation, and explored factors associated with differences in reporting. Results: HCWs reported more allergies to substances other than drugs and a higher prevalence of chronic drug intake in the COVID-19 questionnaires than in the influenza ones. Technical staff reported more drug allergies than physicians, and other HCWs reported more outcomes than physicians in the COVID-19 questionnaire. Conclusions: We found that this population of HCWs reported higher conditions during the 2020 COVID-19 vaccination campaign compared to that of the influenza vaccine. The identification of socio-demographic characteristics of the less vaccine-confident HCWs could help in planning targeted interventions to enhance vaccine adherence.