The seasonal flu vaccine is the most important way to prevent influenza epidemics, so it is useful to increase the awareness of health professionals. The aim of our study is to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and behavior about flu vaccination among healthcare professionals in times of COVID-19. Methods: A cross sectional study was carried out between November 2020 and April 2021. Participants were recruited in teaching hospital ‘Policlinico Umberto I’ of Rome. A survey of 24 questions about flu vaccination was administered, evaluating their knowledge, attitude, and practice about this topic. Results: 872 healthcare professionals were involved in the study (36.9% men, 63.1% women). More than 90% of the HCWs, especially physicians, recognize the importance of getting influenza vaccination: The main reasons for not getting vaccinated were fear of vaccine side effects (20.3%) and fear of the needle (6.4%). Nevertheless, 40.7% of the healthcare providers consider mandatory vaccination as unethical, especially if they work in low-intensity wards. Conclusion: a high percentage of healthcare workers agree with the importance of influenza vaccination and only a small percentage is still opposed. It is therefore important to continue to promote the influenza vaccination through communication and health education programs.

Background: Recommended vaccinations are the cheapest and most effective measure to reduce the risk of transmission and related complications, especially in high-risk healthcare settings. This study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of HCWs in relation to national recommendations. Methods: A transversal study was conducted through administration of a questionnaire by personal interview. The following care units were involved: Paediatric, Neonatal, Cardiac Surgery and General Intensive Care Units and Infectious Diseases Unit. Results: The study sample comprised 308 HCWs. Half the sample were aware of the vaccination recommendations, with occupation and age found to be predictive factors (OR = 9.38, 95%CI: 2.07–42.41; OR = 0.36, 95%CI: 0.22–0.60). A higher percentage defined the diseases as a risk for their patients’ health, although this perception was lower in the over-40 age group. In several cases, there were statistically significant differences between the care units (p < 0.001). Around three-quarters of the sample agreed that vaccination should be mandatory; willingness to undergo a future booster vaccination was statistically correlated with the variables of age and care unit (p < 0.001, p = 0.03). Conclusion: The protection of health in the workplace can be achieved through some strategic actions, such as the implementation of educational strategies, and protocols for the monitoring of immunocompetence and the improvement of vaccination.

Immunization is the best protection against chickenpox, measles and rubella. It is important to identify and immunize susceptible healthcare workers to prevent and control hospital infections. Our aim was to estimate the susceptibility level of healthcare workers at a Teaching Hospital in Rome concerning these diseases and the factors associated to the susceptibility. Methods: a cross sectional study was carried out at the Department of Occupational Medicine of the Umberto I General Hospital of Rome. Participants were recruited during routine occupational health surveillance. As far as inclusion criteria, the following professionals were considered: doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians and other health professionals. Concerning the exclusion criteria, patients with HIV, cancer and diseases of the immune system, and acute illness or fever more than 38.5 °C, were not included in the study. A blood sample was tested for the presence of antibodies against measles, rubella and chicken pox. Results: 1106 healthcare professionals were involved in the study (41.8% nurses, 30.4% doctors, 12.3% laboratory technicians, 15.1% other health professionals): 25 (2.3%), 73 (6.6%) and 35 (3.2%) of these were susceptible to measles, rubella and chicken pox, respectively. The only variable associated with susceptibility of measles was age (p < 0.001). Furthermore, there was evidence of an association between various susceptibilities, particularly between measles and chickenpox (OR: 4.38). Conclusion: this study showed that even if the majority of our healthcare professionals are immunized for MRV, it is necessary not to underestimate the seronegativity of non-immune ones. All health professionals should be vaccinated to ensure safety for patients, especially the weakest.

Objective: The risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 has been rapidly increased with the circulation of concerns about variants. So, the aim of our study was to evaluate the factors that increase the risk of this reinfection in healthcare workers compared to those who have never been positive and those who have had only one positivity. Methods: A case-control study was carried out at the Teaching Hospital Policlinico Umberto I in Rome, Sapienza University of Rome, in the period between 6 March 2020 and 3 June 2022. Cases are healthcare workers who have developed a reinfection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, while controls were either healthcare workers who tested positive once or those who have never tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Results: 134 cases and 267 controls were recruited. Female gender is associated with a higher odds of developing reinfection (OR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.38–4.25). Moreover, moderate or high alcohol consumption is associated with higher odds of reinfection (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.19–1.87). Diabetes is also associated with higher odds of reinfection (OR: 3.45; 95% CI: 1.41–8.46). Finally, subjects with increased red blood cell counts have higher odds of reinfection (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21–2.25). Conclusion: From the prevention point of view, these findings indicate that particular attention should be paid to subjects with diabetes mellitus, women and alcoholic drinkers. These results could also suggest that contact tracing represents a fundamental approach model against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, together with the health information of participants.

Introduction: Ranked among the top 10 global health threats, antimicrobial resistance (AMR) prompts concern. Embracing a living evidence synthesis (LES), we address this concern by informing health decision-makers about molecular tests for swift detection of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). This updated HTA report for the Spanish National Health System prioritizes decisions based on the most current evidence, adapting to emerging technologies and evidence.Methods: The LES commenced with a baseline synthesis, shaping the initial HTA report regarding rapid molecular test impact on safety, efficacy, effectiveness, and patient outcomes in suspected infection cases. Based on this, on 12 July 2023, we initiated a 12-month evidence monitoring process. Utilizing the Living Evidence to Inform Health Decisions (LE-IHD) framework and interactive tools, we conducted ongoing baseline synthesis and evidence tracking. Artificial intelligence (AI) and the Living Overview of Evidence (L.OVE) platform aided in continual evidence identification. Tri-monthly scans of trial registries unveiled ongoing studies. New eligible studies were rigorously assessed. Updates in HTA conclusions were in line with this synthesis.Results: The baseline synthesis identified 25 systematic reviews that suggested that the use of rapid molecular test for the identification of pulmonary tuberculosis showed good performance, but less evidence or low-quality evidence was available for other medical conditions or on patient outcomes. During the conference, we will report on 11 months of monitoring and regular updates, including key messages on changes in the evidence synthesis conclusions whenever there are substantial updates of the HTA report.Conclusions: The living evidence approach enables timely updates of conclusions for HTA reports relying on low- and very low-quality evidence, enhancing their significance in decision-making. The LE-IHD framework streamlines tasks for HTA developers in planning and executing LES to inform health decisions.

Background: Since the beginning of the pandemic, five variants of epidemiological interest have been identified, each of them with its pattern of symptomology and disease severity. The aim of this study is to analyze the role of vaccination status in modulating the pattern of symptomatology associated with COVID-19 infection during four waves. Methods: Data from the surveillance activity of healthcare workers were used to carry out descriptive analysis, association analyses and multivariable analysis. A synergism analysis between vaccination status and symptomatology during the waves was performed. Results: Females were found at a higher risk of developing symptoms. Four SARS-CoV-2 waves were identified. Pharyngitis and rhinitis were more frequent during the fourth wave and among vaccinated subjects while cough, fever, flu syndrome, headache, anosmia, ageusia, arthralgia/arthritis and myalgia were more frequent during the first three waves and among unvaccinated subjects. A correlation was found between vaccination and the different waves in terms of developing pharyngitis and rhinitis. Conclusion: Vaccination status and viruses’ mutations had a synergic effect in the mitigation of the symptomatology caused by SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers.