Search

Importance: Owing to infrastructural and population characteristics, the prison setting is at increased risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and for severe clinical outcomes. Because of structural and operational reasons, research in prison settings is challenging and available studies are often monocentric and have limited temporal coverage; broader-based research is necessary., Objectives: To assess the extent and dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic within the prison system of a large Italian region, Lombardy, and report the infection prevention and control measures implemented., Design, Setting, and Participants: This repeated cross-sectional study was carried out from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021 (first wave, March-June 2020; second wave, October 2020-February 2021) in the prison system of Lombardy, which includes 18 detention facilities for adults. All incarcerated persons and the prison staff of the penitentiary system of the Lombardy region participated in the study., Exposures: The main exposures of interest were the weekly average number of incarcerated individuals placed in quarantine in single or shared isolation rooms, the rate of sick leave by symptomatic and asymptomatic prison staff reported to the prison occupational medicine department on a weekly basis, and the level of overcrowding., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measures were weekly COVID-19 crude case rates, weekly test positivity rate, and the relative risk of acquiring the infection for prison staff, incarcerated persons, and the general population., Results: The study population comprised a mean of 7599 incarcerated individuals and 4591 prison staff. Approximately 5.1% of the prison population were women; demographic characteristics of the prison staff were not available. During the study, COVID-19 occurred in 1564 incarcerated individuals and 661 prison staff. Most of these cases were reported during the second wave (1474 in incarcerated individuals, 529 in prison staff), when stringent measures previously enforced were relaxed. During both epidemic waves, incarcerated individuals and prison staff had a higher relative risk for COVID-19 infection than the general population during both the first wave (incarcerated individuals: 1.30; 95% CI, 1.06-1.58; prison staff: 3.23; 95% CI, 2.74-3.84) and the second wave (incarcerated individuals: 3.91; 95% CI, 3.73-4.09; prison staff: 2.61; 95% CI, 2.41-2.82)., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that the prison setting was an element of fragility during COVID-19 pandemic, with a high burden of COVID-19 cases among both the incarcerated individuals and prison staff. The prison setting and prison population need to be included and possibly prioritized in the response during epidemic events.

The occurrence of antimicrobial resistance in commensal strains of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus spp. was investigated in 320 samples collected from patients and the environment of a veterinary university hospital-specifically, the consultation area (CA) and intensive care unit (ICU). E. coli was isolated in 70/160 samples (44%), while Staphylococcus spp. were isolated in 110/160 (69%) samples. The occurrence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) isolates from CA and ICU admission were similar for E. coli (1/12 (8%) versus 4/27 (15%), respectively) and Staphylococcus spp. (10/19 (53%) versus 26/50 (52%), respectively). MDR E. coli isolates increased significantly at hospital discharge (18/31; 58%; p = 0.008). Antimicrobial treatment administered during hospitalization was a risk factor for carriage of MDR E. coli (OR, 23.9; 95% CI: 1.18-484.19; p = 0.04) and MDR Staphylococcus spp. (OR, 19.5; 95% CI 1.30-292.76; p = 0.02), respectively. The odds ratio for MDR E. coli was 41.4 (95% CI 2.13-806.03; p = 0.01), if the administration of fluoroquinolones was evaluated. The mecA gene was detected in 19/24 (79%) coagulase-positive Staphylococcus spp. isolates resistant to oxacillin. High rates of MDR Staphylococcus spp. were reported. Hospitalization in the ICU and antimicrobial treatment were risk factors for colonization by MDR commensal bacteria.

Animal diseases impact negatively on households and on national economies. In low-income countries, this pertains especially to socio-economic effects on household level. To control animal diseases and mitigate their impact, it is necessary to understand the epidemiology of the disease in its local context. Such understanding, gained through disease surveillance, is often lacking in resource-poor settings. Alternative surveillance methods have been developed to overcome some of the hurdles obstructing surveillance. The objective of this study was to evaluate and qualitatively compare three methods for surveillance of acute infectious diseases using African swine fever in northern Uganda as an example. Report-driven outbreak investigations, participatory rural appraisals (PRAs), and a household survey using a smartphone application were evaluated. All three methods had good disease-detecting capacity, and each of them detected many more outbreaks compared to those reported to the World Organization for Animal Health during the same time period. Apparent mortality rates were similar for the three methods although highest for the report-driven outbreak investigations, followed by the PRAs, and then the household survey. The three methods have different characteristics and the method of choice will depend on the surveillance objective. The optimal situation might be achieved by a combination of the methods: outbreak detection via smartphone-based real-time surveillance, outbreak investigation for collection of biological samples, and a PRA for a better understanding of the epidemiology of the specific outbreak. All three methods require initial investments and continuous efforts. The sustainability of the surveillance system should, therefore, be carefully evaluated before making such investments.