Search

Background The aim was to evaluate the necessity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in persons with prior COVID-19. Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic working in Ohio on 16 December 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included. Anyone who tested positive for COVID-19 at least once before the study start date was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receiving the second dose of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. Cumulative incidences of COVID-19, symptomatic COVID-19, and hospitalizations for COVID-19 were examined over the next year. Results Among 52 238 employees, 4718 (9%) were previously infected and 36 922 (71%) were vaccinated by the study’s end. Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was substantially higher throughout for those previously uninfected who remained unvaccinated than for all other groups, lower for the vaccinated than unvaccinated, and lower for those previously infected than those not. Incidence of COVID-19 increased dramatically in all groups after the Omicron variant emerged. In multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression, both prior COVID-19 and vaccination were independently associated with significantly lower risk of COVID-19. Among previously infected subjects, a lower risk of COVID-19 overall was not demonstrated, but vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of symptomatic COVID-19 in both pre-Omicron (HR, .60; 95% CI, .40–.90) and Omicron (HR, .36; 95% CI, .23–.57) phases. Conclusions Both previous infection and vaccination provide substantial protection against COVID-19. Vaccination of previously infected individuals does not provide additional protection against COVID-19 for several months, but after that provides significant protection at least against symptomatic COVID-19.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether boosting healthcare personnel, already reasonably protected by prior infection or vaccination, with a vaccine developed for an earlier variant of COVID-19 protects against the Omicron variant.MethodsEmployees of Cleveland Clinic who were previously infected with or vaccinated against COVID-19, and were working in Ohio the day the Omicron variant was declared a variant of concern, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over two months during an Omicron variant surge. Protection provided by boosting (analyzed as a time-dependent covariate) was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses were adjusted for time since proximate overt immunologic challenge (POIC) as a time-dependent covariate.ResultsAmong 39 766 employees, 8037 (20%) previously infected and the remaining previously vaccinated, COVID-19 occurred in 6230 (16%) during the study. Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since POIC. In multivariable analysis, boosting was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 among those with vaccine-induced immunity (HR, .43; 95% CI, .41-.46) as well as those with natural immunity (HR, .66; 95% CI, .58-.76). Among those with natural immunity, receiving 2 compared to 1 dose of vaccine was associated with higher risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21-1.97).ConclusionsAdministering a COVID-19 vaccine not designed for the Omicron variant, 6 months or more after prior infection or vaccination, protects against Omicron variant infection in both previously infected and previously vaccinated individuals. There is no evidence of an advantage to administering more than 1 dose of vaccine to previously infected persons.SummaryAmong 39 766 Cleveland Clinic employees already protected by prior infection or vaccination, vaccine boosting after 6 months was associated with significantly lower risk of COVID-19. After COVID-19 infection, there was no advantage to more than one dose of vaccine.

Background The purpose of this study was to determine whether boosting previously infected or vaccinated individuals with a vaccine developed for an earlier variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) protects against the Omicron variant. Methods Employees of Cleveland Clinic, previously infected with or vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and working the day the Omicron variant was declared a variant of concern, were included. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined over 2 months during an Omicron variant surge. Protection provided by boosting was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression. Analyses were adjusted for time since proximate SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Results Among 39 766 employees, 8037 (20%) previously infected and the remaining previously vaccinated, COVID-19 occurred in 6230 (16%) during the study. Risk of COVID-19 increased with time since proximate SARS-CoV-2 exposure, and boosting protected those >6 months since prior infection or vaccination. In multivariable analysis, boosting was independently associated with lower risk of COVID-19 among those vaccinated but not previously infected (hazard ratio [HR], .43; 95% confidence interval [CI], .41–.46) as well as those previously infected (HR, .66; 95% CI, .58–.76). Among those previously infected, receipt of 2 compared with 1 dose of vaccine was associated with higher risk of COVID-19 (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.21–1.97). Conclusions Administering a COVID-19 vaccine not designed for the Omicron variant >6 months after prior infection or vaccination protects against Omicron variant infection. There is no advantage to administering more than 1 dose of vaccine to previously infected persons.

Background The purpose of this study was to evaluate the necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in persons previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Methods Employees of the Cleveland Clinic Health System working in Ohio on Dec 16, 2020, the day COVID-19 vaccination was started, were included. Any subject who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 at least 42 days earlier was considered previously infected. One was considered vaccinated 14 days after receipt of the second dose of a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection over the next five months, among previously infected subjects who received the vaccine, was compared with those of previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated, previously uninfected subjects who received the vaccine, and previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Results Among the 52238 included employees, 1359 (53%) of 2579 previously infected subjects remained unvaccinated, compared with 22777 (41%) of 49659 not previously infected. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection remained almost zero among previously infected unvaccinated subjects, previously infected subjects who were vaccinated, and previously uninfected subjects who were vaccinated, compared with a steady increase in cumulative incidence among previously uninfected subjects who remained unvaccinated. Not one of the 1359 previously infected subjects who remained unvaccinated had a SARS-CoV-2 infection over the duration of the study. In a Cox proportional hazards regression model, after adjusting for the phase of the epidemic, vaccination was associated with a significantly lower risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among those not previously infected (HR 0.031, 95% CI 0.015 to 0.061) but not among those previously infected (HR 0.313, 95% CI 0 to Infinity). Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before. Summary Cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was examined among 52238 employees in an American healthcare system. COVID-19 did not occur in anyone over the five months of the study among 2579 individuals previously infected with COVID-19, including 1359 who did not take the vaccine.

The muscle on your frame is a prime indicator of health and longevity. Dr. Paul Terpeluk with the Cleveland Clinic has stated that muscular strength is the new vital sign of workplace health and safety. Research studies focusing on Type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, musculo-skeletal injuries, certain cancers and the delay of dementia have shown a strong correlation between disease prevention and muscular strength. IPCS’ database of over 500,000 strength tests have shown a workers’ absolute strength today is at least 14% weaker than the worker 15 years ago and weighs about 8 pounds more. Over the last 10 years, there has been a significant shift by 52% with an increase in the number of workers with a BMI of 35 or greater. The Cleveland Clinic implemented a new hire muscular strength assessment to place new hire applicants into jobs that match their physical capability in 2011. The outcomes show a statistically significant reduction in number of employee health, pharmacy and workers’ compensation claims and costs with overall savings near $25 million. Musculo-skeletal health of the worker can be improved. When a worker maintains good muscular strength, the worker is more productive, has fewer medical claims and workers’ compensation claims.

Background: Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial.Objective: Utilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.Design: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting.Participants: Individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N=72,909) from March 8-June 9 2020 stratified by HCW and patient-facing status. Main Measures: SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection. Key Results: Of 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6,145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, pConclusions: In a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and viral transport media, necessitating the search for alternate diagnostic specimens, such as saliva. We directly compared matched saliva and NPS specimens from symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19. An enhanced saliva specimen (i.e., strong sniff, elicited cough, and collection of saliva/secretions) was collected without transport medium prior to collection of NPS from 224 patients with symptoms deemed consistent with COVID-19., The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in shortages of nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) and viral transport media, necessitating the search for alternate diagnostic specimens, such as saliva. We directly compared matched saliva and NPS specimens from symptomatic patients suspected of having COVID-19. An enhanced saliva specimen (i.e., strong sniff, elicited cough, and collection of saliva/secretions) was collected without transport medium prior to collection of NPS from 224 patients with symptoms deemed consistent with COVID-19. Both specimens were tested with the CDC 2019 nCoV real-time RT-PCR diagnostic panel (4 February 2020 version), with the NPS result used as the reference standard. For the 216 patients included in the final analysis, there was 100% positive agreement (38/38 positive specimens) and 99.4% negative agreement (177/178 negative specimens). The one discrepant specimen had the presence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) confirmed in the saliva specimen using an alternate FDA EUA assay. The overall mean difference in cycle threshold (CT) values for the positive NPS and saliva specimens was −3.61 (95% confidence interval [CI], −5.78 to −1.44; P = 0.002). An enhanced saliva specimen performed as well as NPS for the qualitative detection of SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients, although the overall mean viral load in saliva was lower.

On June 13, 2012, a group of key stakeholders, leaders, and national experts on tuberculosis (TB), occupational health, and laboratory science met in Atlanta, Georgia, to focus national discussion on the higher than expected positive results occurring among low-risk, unexposed healthcare workers undergoing serial testing with interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs). The objectives of the meeting were to present the latest clinical and operational research findings on the topic, to discuss evaluation and treatment algorithms that are emerging in the absence of national guidance, and to develop a consensus on the action steps needed to assist programs and physicians in the interpretation of serial testing IGRA results. This report summarizes its proceedings.

Nurses often encounter situations that require lifting patients, often using awkward body positions. Hiring nurses with strength suitable for these jobs decreases nurses’ risk for illness and injury and would be expected to result in more appropriate and lower health care, pharmacy, and disability costs. The physical strength of new hire nurse applicants was assessed using a defensible isokinetic evaluation in the years 2011 and 2012. Health care and pharmacy costs were monitored for the first 12 months following date of hire and compared with costs for nurses hired without screening during the prior 2 years (2009 and 2010). The strength assessment group had significantly ( p < .05) lower health care and pharmacy costs per member per month (PMPM) compared with the comparison group. The study suggests that use of physical capability strength assessment is effective in hiring nurses with appropriate strength capability, resulting in significant health care and pharmacy cost avoidance.

We implemented the QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G) In-Tube test to identify latent tuberculosis infection among potential employees prior to employment. The rates of indeterminate QFT-G In-Tube test results were higher than expected and prompted an investigation that led to successful interventions (eg, manual vortexing before incubation and the use of a modified in-tube method). The tracking of indeterminate results is suggested as an important quality control measure.

We describe a healthcare worker with a previously positive tuberculin skin test result who developed active tuberculosis. An investigation revealed 280 potential contacts, 3 of whom had positive tuberculin skin test results. Our experience demonstrates the potential benefits of therapy for latent tuberculosis infection as a component of a tuberculosis-control program.

Objective. To find a statistically significant separation point for the QuantiFERON Gold In-Tube (QFT) interferon gamma release assay that could define an optimal “retesting zone” for use in serially tested low-risk populations who have test “reversions” from initially positive to subsequently negative results.Method. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis (ROC) to analyze retrospective data collected from 3 major hospitals, we searched for predictors of reversion until statistically significant separation points were revealed. A confirmatory regression analysis was performed on an additional sample.Results. In 575 initially positive US healthcare workers (HCWs), 300 (52.2%) had reversions, while 275 (47.8%) had two sequential positive tests. The most statistically significant (Kappa = 0.48, chi-square = 131.0,P<0.001) separation point identified by the ROC for predicting reversion was the tuberculosis antigen minus-nil (TBag-nil) value at 1.11 International Units per milliliter (IU/mL). The second separation point was found at TBag-nil at 0.72 IU/mL (Kappa = 0.16, chi-square = 8.2,P<0.01). The model was validated by the regression analysis of 287 HCWs.Conclusion. Reversion likelihood increases as the TBag-nil approaches the manufacturer's cut-point of 0.35 IU/mL. The most statistically significant separation point between those who test repeatedly positive and those who revert is 1.11 IU/mL. Clinicians should retest low-risk individuals with initial QFT results