scholarly journals Postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saurabh Chandan ◽  
Shahab R. Khan ◽  
Smit Deliwala ◽  
Babu P. Mohan ◽  
Daryl Ramai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Infection ◽  
Front Line

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare workers (HCWs) remain on the front line of the battle against SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 infection, and are among the highest groups at risk of infection during this raging pandemic. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among vaccinated HCWs. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through August 2021 to identify studies that reported on incidence of postvaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs. Meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions of COVID-19 infection in partially and fully vaccinated individuals. RESULTS: Eighteen studies with 228,873 HCWs were included in the final analysis. Total number of partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated, and unvaccinated HCWs were 132,922, 155,673 and 17505, respectively. Overall pooled proportion of COVID-19 infections among partially/fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs was 2.1% (95% CI 1.2-3.5). Among partially vaccinated, fully vaccinated and unvaccinated HCWs, pooled proportion of COVID-19 infections was 3.7% (95% CI 1.8-7.3), 1.3% (95% CI 0.6-2.9), and 10.1% (95% CI 4.5-19.5), respectively. DISCUSSION: Our analysis shows the risk of COVID-19 infection in both partially and fully vaccinated HCWs remains exceedingly low when compared to unvaccinated individuals. There remains an urgent need for all frontline HCWs to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

scholarly journals The prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients: a systematic review and meta-regression

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nader Salari ◽  
Habibolah Khazaie ◽  
Amin Hosseinian-Far ◽  
Behnam Khaledi-Paveh ◽  
Mohsen Kazeminia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Hospital Staff ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Front Line ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression ◽  
Meta Regression

Abstract Background Stress, anxiety, and depression are some of the most important research and practice challenges for psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavioral scientists. Due to the importance of issue and the lack of general statistics on these disorders among the Hospital staff treating the COVID-19 patients, this study aims to systematically review and determine the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. Methods In this research work, the systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression approaches are used to approximate the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients. The keywords of prevalence, anxiety, stress, depression, psychopathy, mental illness, mental disorder, doctor, physician, nurse, hospital staff, 2019-nCoV, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 and Coronaviruses were used for searching the SID, MagIran, IranMedex, IranDoc, ScienceDirect, Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science (ISI) and Google Scholar databases. The search process was conducted in December 2019 to June 2020. In order to amalgamate and analyze the reported results within the collected studies, the random effects model is used. The heterogeneity of the studies is assessed using the I2 index. Lastly, the data analysis is performed within the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Results Of the 29 studies with a total sample size of 22,380, 21 papers have reported the prevalence of depression, 23 have reported the prevalence of anxiety, and 9 studies have reported the prevalence of stress. The prevalence of depression is 24.3% (18% CI 18.2–31.6%), the prevalence of anxiety is 25.8% (95% CI 20.5–31.9%), and the prevalence of stress is 45% (95% CI 24.3–67.5%) among the hospitals’ Hospital staff caring for the COVID-19 patients. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, with increasing the sample size, the prevalence of depression and anxiety decreased, and this was statistically significant (P < 0.05), however, the prevalence of stress increased with increasing the sample size, yet this was not statistically significant (P = 0.829). Conclusion The results of this study clearly demonstrate that the prevalence of stress, anxiety and depression within front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients is high. Therefore, the health policy-makers should take measures to control and prevent mental disorders in the Hospital staff.

Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety, and Insomnia Among Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sofia Pappa ◽  
Vasiliki Ntella ◽  
Timoleon Giannakas ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression

COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prevalence, Risk Factors, Clinical Characteristics, and Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergio Alejandro Gómez-Ochoa ◽  
Oscar H. Franco ◽  
Lyda Z. Rojas ◽  
Sandra Lucrecia Romero Guevara ◽  
Luis Eduardo Echeverría ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Clinical Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Healthcare Workers’ (HCWs) attitudes towards mandatory influenza vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Vaccine ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 901-914
Author(s):  
Maria Rosaria Gualano ◽  
Alessio Corradi ◽  
Gianluca Voglino ◽  
Dario Catozzi ◽  
Elena Olivero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Meta Analysis

scholarly journals Prevalence of Depression among Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (15) ◽  
pp. 3406
Author(s):  
Beatriz Olaya ◽  
María Pérez-Moreno ◽  
Juan Bueno-Notivol ◽  
Patricia Gracia-García ◽  
Isabel Lasheras ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Medical Doctors ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Random Effects Models ◽  
Pooled Prevalence ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression ◽  
Common Mental Health Problems

Background: There is evidence of a high psychological toll from the COVID-19 pandemic in healthcare workers. This paper was aimed at conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting levels of depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 and estimating the pooled prevalence of depression. Methods: We searched for cross-sectional studies listed on PubMed from 1 December 2019 to 15 September 2020 that reported prevalence of depression in healthcare workers, nurses, medical doctors, and COVID-19 frontline professionals. The pooled proportions of depression were calculated with random effects models. Results: We identified 57 studies from seventeen countries. The pooled prevalence of depression in healthcare workers was 24% (95% CI: 20%−28%), 25% for nurses (95% CI: 18%−33%), 24% for medical doctors (95% CI: 16%−31%), and 43% for frontline professionals (95% CI: 28%−59%). Conclusions: The proportion of depression in nurses and medical doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic was similar to that found in the general population as previously reported in other meta-analyses conducted with smaller numbers of studies. Importantly, almost half of the frontline healthcare workers showed increased levels of depression. There is need for a comprehensive, international response to prevent and treat common mental health problems in healthcare workers.

scholarly journals 1578. Treatments for complicated urinary tract infections (cUTI) caused by multidrug resistant (MDR) Gram-negative (GN) pathogens- a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA)

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S787-S787
Author(s):  
Tim Reason ◽  
Karan Gill ◽  
Christopher Longshaw ◽  
Rachael McCool ◽  
Katy Wilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economics ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Final Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Support Unit ◽  
Tract Infections

Abstract Background Antimicrobial resistance is a major and growing threat to global public health. Cefiderocol (CFDC) is a new siderophore-cephalosporin with a wide activity spectrum covering all aerobic GN pathogens including all WHO critical priority pathogens, that was recently approved by FDA for the treatment of GN cUTI in susceptible organisms. We aim to understand the relative efficacy and safety of current treatment options for cUTI caused by MDR GN pathogens. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify all relevant trials that investigated the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial regimens, for the treatment of GN pathogens in cUTI. Outcomes of interest included clinical cure and microbiological eradication (ME) at time of cure (TOC) and sustained follow up (SFU), and safety. Evidence networks were constructed using data for outcomes of interest and analyses were conducted in a frequentist framework using NMA methods outlined by the NICE decision support unit using the netmeta package in R. Results A total of 5 studies, 6 interventions and 2,349 randomised patients were included in the final analysis. Interventions included CFDC, imipenem-cilastatin (IPM-CIL), ceftazidime-avibactam (CAZ/AVI), doripenem (DOR), levofloxacin and ceftolozane-tazobactam (CEF/TAZ). Trials included predominantly Enterobacterales, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa and very few Acinetobacter baumannii. The patient population presented some clinical differences across trials, which were not adjusted for the NMA. Overall, there were numerical differences (especially in endpoints at SFU favouring CFDC), but all treatments showed similar efficacy and safety, with exception of higher ME rate at TOC for CFDC vs IPM, Table 1, also observed at SFU, consistent with the data from the individual clinical trial. Table 1- Results for microbiological eradication Table 1- Results for microbiological eradication Conclusion This NMA, showed superiority of CFDC vs IPM-CIL in ME at TOC and SFU and similar efficacy and safety vs all other comparators, with numeric differences favouring CFDC for outcomes at SFU. These traditional methodologies for NMA, are only valid within a similar pathogens pool and population across the trials, and may not reflect the full value of breadth of coverage that new therapeutic options bring for the treatment of MDR GN pathogens. Disclosures Tim Reason, PhD, Shionogi (Consultant) Karan Gill, MSc, Shionogi BV (Employee) Christopher Longshaw, PhD, Shionogi B.V. (Employee) Rachael McCool, PhD, York Health Economics Consortium (Employee, YHEC was commissioned by Shionogi to conduct the systematic review) Katy Wilson, PhD, York Health Economics Consortium (Employee, Shionogi commissioned YHEC to conduct the systematic review) Sara Lopes, PharmD, Shionogi BV (Employee)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document