Swift, Melanie D.

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a standardized hazardous medication surveillance program and identify occupational factors associated with adverse health outcomes among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We analyzed data from 2,625 HCWs enrolled in a multi-site surveillance program (2020–2022). Participants completed a standardized questionnaire and underwent complete blood count testing. Exposure was categorized by weekly time handling hazardous medications. Associations were evaluated using univariate and multivariable analyses. Results: Higher exposure (>8 hours/week) was associated with increased symptom reporting, hazardous medication spills, and adverse reproductive outcomes. Female sex, older age, and spill exposure independently predicted symptom reporting and reproductive outcomes. No significant association was observed between exposure intensity and abnormal blood counts. Conclusion: Questionnaire-based surveillance effectively identified exposure-related health risks, whereas routine complete blood count testing showed limited utility.

Abstract Healthcare personnel (HCP) are at risk for occupational exposure to tuberculosis. Current guidelines for managing exposed HCP are broad and resource intensive. Based on review of our internal data, we propose a risk-based stratification approach to streamline exposure follow-up testing and optimize resource utilization.

Background While SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are highly effective in healthy individuals, the magnitude and durability of humoral and cellular responses in patients with solid malignancies receiving chemotherapy remain understudied. Previous reports suggest that patients with cancer may not mount adequate immune response after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Additionally, most studies focused on humoral responses, while data regarding cellular immune responses are scarce. In this study, we evaluated humoral and cellular responses in patients with solid tumors receiving chemotherapy compared to healthy individuals up to one year after vaccinations. Methods Patients aged ≥18 who were willing to receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine were enrolled. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays were used to detect antibodies against nucleocapsid and spike proteins. Human IFN-γ Fluorospot assay was used to determine antigen−specific T-cell responses. Data were compared between groups using Mann−Whitney test for continuous variables and Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Results A total of 67 subjects (47 patients with cancer and 20 healthy individuals) were included. 1–3 months following the second vaccine doses, 96% of patients with cancer and 100% of healthy individuals demonstrated a positive humoral response. While the positivity rate was not significantly different, patients with cancer had significantly lower spike IgG antibodies than healthy individuals. However, this difference diminished at 6 months when patients with cancer had increased antibodies compared to decreased antibodies in the healthy cohort and no difference was noticed at 12-month. Patients with cancer developed a similar antigen-specific T-cell response as healthy individuals at 1–3 months, 6 months and 12 months. There were no significant differences when comparing patients aged ≤ 55 years vs. >55 years, stages I-III vs. IV, single vs. multiple chemotherapy, and BNT162b2 vs. mRNA-1273 vaccines. There was a significant moderate correlation between neutralization and antibody levels at 12 months. However, despite patients with cancer having a significantly higher COVID risk score, there were no significant differences in COVID-19 infection and hospitalization between patients with cancer and healthy individuals. Conclusion Despite initial impaired antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, patients with solid malignancies receiving chemotherapy effectively generated long-term cellular and humoral responses by 6 and 12 months, leading to similar infection and hospitalization rates compared to healthy individuals.

Abstract Background Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine to prevent postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) following a breakthrough infection. While most studies based on symptom surveys found an association between preinfection vaccination status and PASC symptoms, studies of medically attended PASC are less common and have reported conflicting findings. Methods In this retrospective cohort of patients with an initial SARS-CoV-2 infection who were continually empaneled for primary care in a large US health system, the electronic health record was queried for preinfection vaccination status, demographics, comorbidity index, and diagnosed conditions. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the outcome of a medically attended PASC diagnosis within 6 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Likelihood ratio tests were used to assess the interaction between vaccination status and prevalent variant at the time of infection and between vaccination status and hospitalization for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results During the observation period, 6.9% of patients experienced medically attended and diagnosed PASC. A diagnosis of PASC was associated with older age, female sex, hospitalization for the initial infection, and an increased severity-weighted comorbidity index and was inversely associated with infection during the Omicron period. No difference in the development of diagnosed PASC was observed between unvaccinated patients and those vaccinated with either 2 doses of an mRNA vaccine or >2 doses. Conclusions We found no association between vaccination status at the time of infection and development of medically diagnosed PASC. Vaccine remains an important measure to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection and severity. Further research is needed to identify effective measures to prevent and treat PASC.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the workforce, resulting in a shift to a largely remote working population. As a result of this shift, Employee Occupational Health Services (EOHS) was required to develop a solution to evaluate new employees and provide occupational medical clearance without the physical presence of the candidate. An online candidate portal was created where individuals could complete evaluation paperwork and screenings asynchronously. The evaluation forms and screenings were then reviewed by occupational health nursing staff, and testing was conducted in the candidate’s home location. The virtual evaluation solution expedited the assessment process, added convenience for candidates and reduced the amount of time needed from EOHS staff. It is imperative that EOHS departments adjust to the changing workforce by offering virtual evaluation solutions that provide candidates with a seamless and efficient solution to complete required paperwork, testing and immunisations.

The objective of this observational study is to determine whether vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 alters the clinical presentation of post-COVID conditions (PCC). Self-reported data provided by patients requesting care for PCC at the Mayo Clinic were analyzed to assess for a relationship between vaccination status prior to COVID infection and PCC symptoms. In all, 477 subjects were included in this study. In total, 245 (51.4%) were vaccinated. Vaccinated subjects with PCC reported less abdominal pain, anosmia, parosmia, chest pain/tightness, dizziness, numbness/tingling, dyspnea, spells/tremors, and weakness. For hospitalized patients who developed PCC, vaccinated patients reported less chest pain, cough, dizziness, and dyspnea. After applying Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, decreased abdominal pain remained significant. We conclude that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may reduce the symptoms of PCC, leading to improved morbidity and function. Further studies on the impact of vaccination on PCC and recovery are needed.

Abstract Background The protective efficacy of prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with or without vaccination remains unknown. This study sought to understand if 2 or more messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine doses provide additional protection in patients with prior infection, or if infection alone provides comparable protection. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the risk of COVID-19 from 16 December 2020 through 15 March 2022, among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients of all ages with and without prior infection. A Simon-Makuch hazard plot illustrated the incidence of COVID-19 between groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of demographics, prior infection, and vaccination status with new infection. Results Among 101 941 individuals with at least 1 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test prior to 15 March 2022, 72 361 (71.0%) received mRNA vaccination and 5957 (5.8%) were previously infected. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was substantially higher throughout the study period for those previously uninfected and unvaccinated, and lowest for those previously infected and vaccinated. After accounting for age, sex, and the interaction between vaccination and prior infection, a reduction in reinfection risk was noted during the Omicron and pre-Omicron phases of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%–41%; P = .0065) to 36% (95% CI, 10%–54%; P = .0108), respectively, among previously infected and vaccinated individuals, compared to previously infected subjects without vaccination. Conclusions Vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19, including in those with prior infection. Vaccination should be encouraged for all including those with prior infection, especially as new variants emerge and variant-specific booster vaccines become available.

Abstract Background Some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immunosuppressive therapies may have a blunted response to certain vaccines, including the messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, few studies have evaluated the cell-mediated immune response (CMIR), which is critical to host defense after COVID-19 infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the humoral immune response and CMIR after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD. Methods This prospective study (HERCULES [HumoRal and CellULar initial and Sustained immunogenicity in patients with IBD] study) evaluated humoral immune response and CMIR after completion of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 158 IBD patients and 20 healthy control (HC) subjects. The primary outcome was the CMIR to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with IBD. The secondary outcomes were a comparison of (1) the CMIR in patients with IBD and HC subjects, (2) CMIR and humoral immune response in all participants, and (3) correlation between CMIR and humoral immune response. Results The majority (89%) of patients with IBD developed a CMIR, which was not different vs HC subjects (94%) (P = .6667). There was no significant difference (P = .5488) in CMIR between immunocompetent (median 255 [interquartile range, 146-958] spike T cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells) and immunosuppressed patients (median 377 [interquartile range, 123-1440]). There was no correlation between humoral and cell-mediated immunity after vaccination (P = .5215). In univariable analysis, anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a higher CMIRs (P = .02) and confirmed in a multivariable model (P = .02). No other variables were associated with CMIR. Conclusions Most patients with IBD achieved CMIR to a COVID-19 vaccine. Future studies are needed evaluating sustained CMIR and clinical outcomes.

Abstract COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections have been increasingly reported. We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the durability of protection after full vaccination with BNT162b2 against polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, in a national medical practice from January 2021 through January 2022. We fit conditional logistic regression (CLR) models stratified on residential county and calendar time of testing to assess the association between time elapsed since vaccination and the odds of symptomatic infection or non-COVID-19 hospitalization (negative control), adjusted for several covariates. There were 5,985 symptomatic individuals with a positive test after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (cases) and 32,728 negative tests contributed by 27,753 symptomatic individuals after full vaccination (controls). The adjusted odds of symptomatic infection were higher 250 days after full vaccination versus at the date of full vaccination (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.62, 95% CI: 2.52 to 5.20). The odds of infection were still lower 285 days after the first BNT162b2 dose as compared to 4 days after the first dose (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.67), when immune protection approximates the unvaccinated status. Low rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death in this cohort precluded analyses of these severe outcomes. The odds of non-COVID-19 associated hospitalization (negative control) decreased with time since vaccination, suggesting a possible underestimation of waning protection by this approach due to confounding factors. In summary, BNT162b2 strongly protected against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 8 months after full vaccination, but the degree of protection waned significantly over this period.