Explore the vast range of titles available.

To avoid hospital spread of Coronavirus-2019 (COVID-19) and to analyze out of hospital outcomes after amputation. Prospective analysis of data obtained from 60 diabetic patients in 2020 was performed at Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Personal protection equipment included double surgical mask, glasses, disposable surgical coats, and surgical masks for patients. Swabs were used to take samples from wounds. We randomly divided patients in 2 groups of 30 patients each. In pre-operative treatment, we used local anesthesia lidocaine hydrochloride 2% (Belupo, Koprivnica, Croatia) in group A and systemic analgesia intravenous tramadol chloride 100 mg intravenous (Krka, Novo Mesto, Slovenia) in group B. Wounds were surgically treated each day and heal spontaneously. Periodical control exams were performed. Wound healing did not present any statistically significant differences between groups (group A: 69±21.97 and B: 61±22.13 days, t=-1.22; =0.11). No statistically significant differences ( <0.05) between groups A and B in wound healing regarding to gender or cigarette use was noted. No significant differences in amputation treatment between the 2 comparative groups were noted. No confirmed COVID-19 infections in medical staff who performed surgical interventions or in treated patients were detected.

Influenza vaccination is a commonly used intervention to prevent influenza infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) and onward transmission to other staff and patients. We undertook a systematic review to synthesize the latest evidence of the direct epidemiological and economic effectiveness of seasonal influenza vaccination among HCW. We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980 through January 2018. All studies comparing vaccinated and non-vaccinated (i.e. placebo or non-intervention) groups of HCWs were included. Research articles that focused on only patient-related outcomes or monovalent A(H1N1)pdm09 vaccines were excluded. Two reviewers independently selected articles and extracted data. Pooled-analyses were conducted on morbidity outcomes including laboratory-confirmed influenza, influenza-like illnesses (ILI), and absenteeism. Economic studies were summarized for the characteristics of methods and findings. Thirteen articles met eligibility criteria: three articles were randomized controlled studies and ten were cohort studies. Pooled results showed a significant effect on laboratory-confirmed influenza incidence but not ILI. While the overall incidence of absenteeism was not changed by vaccine, ILI absenteeism was significantly reduced. The duration of absenteeism was also shortened by vaccination. All published economic evaluations consistently found that the immunization of HCW was cost saving based on crude estimates of avoided absenteeism by vaccination. No studies, however, comprehensively evaluated both health outcomes and costs of vaccination programs to examine cost-effectiveness. Our findings reinforced the influenza vaccine effects in reducing infection incidence and length of absenteeism. A better understanding of the incidence of absenteeism and comprehensive economic program evaluations are required to ensure the best possible management of ill HCWs and the investment in HCW immunization in increasingly constrained financial environments. These steps are fundamental to establish sustainability and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programs and underpin HCW immunization policy.

The new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly spread over the world causing the disease by WHO called COVID-19. This pandemic poses unprecedented stress on the health care system including programs performing allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and cellular therapy such as with CAR T cells. Risk factors for severe disease include age and predisposing conditions such as cancer. The true impact on stem cell transplant and CAR T-cell recipients in unknown. The European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) has therefore developed recommendations for transplant programs and physicians caring for these patients. These guidelines were developed by experts from the Infectious Diseases Working Party and have been endorsed by EBMT’s scientific council and board. This work intends to provide guidelines for transplant centers, management of transplant candidates and recipients, and donor issues until the COVID-19 pandemic has passed.

Abstract Rationale Drug-resistant tuberculosis transmission in hospitals threatens staff and patient health. Surgical face masks used by patients with tuberculosis (TB) are believed to reduce transmission but have not been rigorously tested. Objectives We sought to quantify the efficacy of surgical face masks when worn by patients with multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB). Methods Over 3 months, 17 patients with pulmonary MDR-TB occupied an MDR-TB ward in South Africa and wore face masks on alternate days. Ward air was exhausted to two identical chambers, each housing 90 pathogen-free guinea pigs that breathed ward air either when patients wore surgical face masks (intervention group) or when patients did not wear masks (control group). Efficacy was based on differences in guinea pig infections in each chamber. Measurements and Main Results Sixty-nine of 90 control guinea pigs (76.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 68–85%) became infected, compared with 36 of 90 intervention guinea pigs (40%; 95% CI, 31–51%), representing a 56% (95% CI, 33–70.5%) decreased risk of TB transmission when patients used masks. Conclusions Surgical face masks on patients with MDR-TB significantly reduced transmission and offer an adjunct measure for reducing TB transmission from infectious patients.

Background Healthcare workers (HCWs) use personal protective equipment (PPE) in Ebola virus disease (EVD) situations. However, preventing the contamination of HCWs and the environment during PPE removal crucially requires improved strategies. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of three PPE ensembles, namely, Hospital Authority (HA) Standard Ebola PPE set (PPE1), Dupont Tyvek Model, style 1422A (PPE2), and HA isolation gown for routine patient care and performing aerosol-generating procedures (PPE3) to prevent EVD transmission by measuring the degree of contamination of HCWs and the environment. Methods A total of 59 participants randomly performed PPE donning and doffing. The trial consisted of PPE donning, applying fluorescent solution on the PPE surface, PPE doffing of participants, and estimation of the degree of contamination as indicated by the number of fluorescent stains on the working clothes and environment. Protocol deviations during PPE donning and doffing were monitored. Results PPE2 and PPE3 presented higher contamination risks than PPE1. Environmental contaminations such as those originating from rubbish bin covers, chairs, faucets, and sinks were detected. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing, with PPE1 presenting the lowest overall deviation rate (%) among the three PPE ensembles ( p <  0.05). Conclusion Contamination of the subjects’ working clothes and surrounding environment occurred frequently during PPE doffing. Procedure deviations were observed during PPE donning and doffing. Although PPE1 presented a lower contamination risk than PPE2 and PPE3 during doffing and protocol deviations, the design of PPE1 can still be further improved. Future directions should focus on designing a high-coverage-area PPE with simple ergonomic features and on evaluating the doffing procedure to minimise the risk of recontamination. Regular training for users should be emphasised to minimise protocol deviations, and in turn, guarantee the best protection to HCWs.

Since its emergence in 2012, 2,260 cases and 803 deaths due to Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) have been reported to the World Health Organization. Most cases were due to transmission in healthcare settings, sometimes causing large outbreaks. We analyzed epidemiologic and clinical data of laboratory-confirmed MERS-CoV cases from eleven healthcare-associated outbreaks in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Korea between 2015–2017. We quantified key epidemiological differences between outbreaks. Twenty-five percent (n = 105/422) of MERS cases who acquired infection in a hospital setting were healthcare personnel. In multivariate analyses, age ≥65 (OR 4.8, 95%CI: 2.6–8.7) and the presence of underlying comorbidities (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.3–5.7) were associated with increased mortality whereas working as healthcare personnel was protective (OR 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01–0.34). At the start of these outbreaks, the reproduction number ranged from 1.0 to 5.7; it dropped below 1 within 2 to 6 weeks. This study provides a comprehensive characterization of MERS HCA-outbreaks. Our results highlight heterogeneities in the epidemiological profile of healthcare-associated outbreaks. The limitations of our study stress the urgent need for standardized data collection for high-threat respiratory pathogens, such as MERS-CoV.

The aim of the study was to evaluate various methods of chest compressions in patients with suspected/confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection conducted by medical students wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGP). This was prospective, randomized, multicenter, single-blinded, crossover simulation trial. Thirty-five medical students after an advanced cardiovascular life support course, which included performing 2-min continuous chest compression scenarios using three methods: (A) manual chest compression (CC), (B) compression with CPRMeter, (C) compression with LifeLine ARM device. During resuscitation they are wearing full personal protective equipment for aerosol generating procedures. The median chest compression depth using manual CC, CPRMeter and LifeLine ARM varied and amounted to 40 (38-45) vs. 45 (40-50) vs. 51 (50-52) mm, respectively (p = 0.002). The median chest compression rate was 109 (IQR; 102-131) compressions per minute (CPM) for manual CC, 107 (105-127) CPM for CPRMeter, and 102 (101-102) CPM for LifeLine ARM (p = 0.027). The percentage of correct chest recoil was the highest for LifeLine ARM - 100% (95-100), 80% (60-90) in CPRMeter group, and the lowest for manual CC - 29% (26-48). According to the results of this simulation trial, automated chest compression devices (ACCD) should be used for chest compression of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19. In the absence of ACCD, it seems reasonable to change the cardiopulmonary resuscitation algorithm (in the context of patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19) by reducing the duration of the cardiopulmonary resuscitation cycle from the current 2-min to 1-min cycles due to a statistically significant reduction in the quality of chest compressions among rescuers wearing PPE AGP.

Background: In surgery, intact gloves protect the surgeon from bloodborne pathogens and the surgical wound from microorganisms on the skin of the surgeon. However, glove perforation is very common, and puncture rates as high as 61% are published in the literature. One objective of this study was to compare puncture rates between a unique double-gloving puncture indication system and single-use gloves, and another was to determine the extent to which glove perforations remain undetected during surgery. Methods: The study material comprised all gloves used in surgical operations at our hospital for a period of 2 months. The analysis was made by the glove type in a prospective and randomized manner. Gloves were tested immediately after the surgical procedure using the approved standardized water-leak method for 2 minutes to detect any holes. The gloves used in this study were either a double-gloving puncture indication system or the standard glove used at our hospital. Results: In 885 operations altogether, 2,462 gloves were tested; 1,020 single gloves, 1,148 double-glove systems, and 294 combination gloves were studied. The overall perforation rate was 192 out of 2,462 gloves (7.80%), and 162 out of 885 operations (18.3%). The detection of perforation during surgery was 28 out of 76 (36.84%) with single gloves, 77 out of 89 with the double-gloving system (86.52%), and 9 out of 27 with combination gloves (33.33%; P <0.001). The inner glove of the double-gloving system was punctured in 6 out of 88 outer glove perforations (6.82%). Conclusions: In view of the critical importance of safety at work by having a sterile barrier between surgeon and patient, it is very important to use a double-gloving puncture indication system, at least in operations where there is a high risk of glove perforation.

BackgroundIn a previous randomised controlled trial (RCT) in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs), cloth masks resulted in a higher risk of respiratory infections compared with medical masks. This was the only published RCT of cloth masks at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic.ObjectiveTo do a post hoc analysis of unpublished data on mask washing and mask contamination from the original RCT to further understand poor performance of the two-layered cotton cloth mask used by HCWs in that RCT.Setting14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.ParticipantsA subgroup of 607 HCWs aged ≥18 years working full time in selected high-risk wards, who used a two-layered cloth mask and were part of a randomised controlled clinical trial comparing medical masks and cloth masks.InterventionWashing method for cloth masks (self-washing or hospital laundry). A substudy of contamination of a sample of 15 cloth and medical masks was also conducted.Outcome measureInfection rate over 4 weeks of follow up and viral contamination of masks tested by multiplex PCR.ResultsViral contamination with rhinovirus was identified on both used medical and cloth masks. Most HCW (77% of daily washing) self-washed their masks by hand. The risk of infection was more than double among HCW self-washing their masks compared with the hospital laundry (HR 2.04 (95% CI 1.03 to 4.00); p=0.04). There was no significant difference in infection between HCW who wore cloth masks washed in the hospital laundry compared with medical masks (p=0.5).ConclusionsUsing self-reported method of washing, we showed double the risk of infection with seasonal respiratory viruses if masks were self-washed by hand by HCWs. The majority of HCWs in the study reported hand-washing their mask themselves. This could explain the poor performance of two layered cloth masks, if the self-washing was inadequate. Cloth masks washed in the hospital laundry were as protective as medical masks. Both cloth and medical masks were contaminated, but only cloth masks were reused in the study, reiterating the importance of daily washing of reusable cloth masks using proper method. A well-washed cloth mask can be as protective as a medical mask.Trial resgistration numberACTRN12610000887077.

Objectives Primary objective: to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment on prevention of symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Secondary objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment on prevention of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. To evaluate the efficacy of melatonin to prevent the development of severe COVID-19 in the participants enrolled in this study who develop SARS-CoV-2 infection along the trial. To evaluate the duration of COVID-19 symptoms in participants receiving melatonin before the infection. To evaluate seroconversion timing post-symptom onset. Exploratory objectives : To compare severity of COVID-19 between men and women. To evaluate the influence of sleep and diet on prevention from SARS-CoV-2 infection. To evaluate the effect of melatonin on the incidence and characteristics of lymphopenia and increase of inflammatory cytokines related to COVID-19. Trial design This is a two-arm parallel randomised double-blind controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of melatonin versus placebo in the prophylaxis of coronavirus disease 2019 among healthcare workers. Participants Inclusion Criteria: Male or female participants ≥ 18 and ≤ 80 years of age. Healthcare workers from the public and private Spanish hospital network at risk of SARS-CoV 2 infection. Not having a previous COVID19 diagnosis. Understanding the purpose of the trial and not having taken any pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) including HIV PrEP from March 1 st 2020 until study enrolment. Having a negative SARS-CoV 2 reverse-transcription PCR (RT-PCR) result or a negative serologic rapid test (IgM/IgG) result before randomization. Premenopausal women must have a negative urinary pregnancy test in the 7 days before starting the trial treatment. Premenopausal women and males with premenopausal couples must commit to using a high efficiency anticonceptive method. Exclusion Criteria: HIV infection. Active hepatitis B infection. Renal failure (CrCl < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2) or need for hemodialysis. Osteoporosis. Myasthenia gravis. Pre-existent maculopathy. Retinitis pigmentosa. Bradycardia (less than 50 bpm). Weight less than 40 Kg. Participant with any immunosuppressive condition or hematological disease. Treatment with drugs that may prolong QT in the last month before randomization for more than 7 days including: azithromycin, chlorpromazine, cisapride, clarithromycin, domperidone, droperidol, erythromycin, halofantrine, haloperidol, lumefantrine, mefloquine, methadone, pentamidine, procainamide, quinidine, quinine, sotalol, sparfloxacin, thioridazine, amiodarone. Hereditary intolerance to galactose, Lapp lactase deficiency or glucose or galactose malabsorption. Treatment with fluvoxamine. Treatment with benzodiazepines or benzodiazepine analogues such as zolpidem, zopiclone or zaleplon. Pregnancy. Breastfeeding. History of potentially immune derived diseases such as: lupus, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis, vasculitis or rheumatoid arthritis. Insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Known history of hypersensitivity to the study drug or any of its components. Patients that should not be included in the study at the judgment of the research team. Participants will be recruited from the following eight hospitals in Madrid, Spain: Hospital Universitario La Paz, Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Hospital Infanta Sofía, Hospital 12 de Octubre, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Hospital Central de la defensa Gómez Ulla,Hospital de La Princesa and Hospital Infanta Leonor. Intervention and comparator Experimental: Melatonin (Circadin®, Exeltis Healthcare, Spain): 2 mg of melatonin orally before bedtime for 12 weeks. Comparator : Identical looking placebo (Laboratorios Liconsa, Spain) orally before bedtime for 12 weeks. Main outcomes Number of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) symptomatic infections confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test or serologic test or according to each centre diagnosis protocol. Primary outcome will be measured until the end of treatment for each participant (until the date of the last dose taken by each patient). Randomisation Patients who meet all inclusion and no exclusion criteria will be randomised, stratified by centres, sex and age (<50 and ≥ 50 years old). The randomisation sequence was created using SAS version 9.4 statistical software (procedure ‘PROC PLAN’) with a 1:1 allocation. No randomisation seed was specified. The randomisation seed was generated taking the hour of the computer where the program was executed. Randomization will be done centrally through the electronic system RedCAP® in order to conceal the sequence until interventions are assigned Blinding (masking) Participants, caregivers, and those assessing the outcomes are blinded to group assignment. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) A total of 450 participants are planned to be enrolled in this clinical trial, 225 in the experimental arm and 225 in the placebo arm. Trial Status Protocol version 3.0, 17th of April 2020. Recruitment ongoing. First participant was recruited on the 21st of April 2020. The final participant is anticipated to be recruited on the 31st of May 2020. As of May 18th, 2020, a total of 312 participants have been enrolled (154 at Hospital La Paz, 85 at Hospital Infanta Sofía and 73 at Hospital 12 de Octubre). Trial registration EU Clinical Trials Register: 2020-001530-35; Date of trial registration: 13th of April 2020; https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001530-35/ES Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.