Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 49
Filtrar
4.
Rev Med Suisse ; 20(872): 881-885, 2024 May 01.
Artículo en Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38693801

RESUMEN

Marburg virus disease (MVD) is a dreadful but exceptional disease. Formerly mainly identified in Uganda, Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo, it has recently appeared in the Republic of Guinea, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea and Tanzania, adding West Africa to the affected regions. Humans become infected through exposure to bats Roussettus aegyptiacus or during unprotected care of infected people. Five cases are linked to travellers, the last one dates to 2008 and involved a visit to caves colonized by bats. At present, there is no specific treatment or vaccine. Despite its rarity, adventurous travelers should be aware of the risks of exposure and avoid entering places inhabited by bats.


La maladie à virus Marburg est une maladie redoutable mais exceptionnelle. Autrefois identifiée en Ouganda, Angola et République démocratique du Congo, elle a récemment fait son apparition en République de Guinée, au Ghana, en Guinée équatoriale et en Tanzanie, ajoutant l'Afrique de l'Ouest aux régions touchées. Les humains s'infectent lors d'une exposition avec les chauves-souris roussettes d'Égypte ou lors de la prise en charge sans protection de personnes infectées. Cinq cas sont liés à des voyageurs, le dernier remonte à 2008 et était associé à la visite de grottes colonisées par des roussettes d'Égypte. Actuellement, il n'existe aucun traitement spécifique ni vaccin. Malgré sa rareté, les voyageurs aventureux doivent être informés des risques d'exposition et éviter de pénétrer dans des lieux habités par des chauves-souris.


Asunto(s)
Marburgvirus , Viaje , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Enfermedad del Virus de Marburg/epidemiología , Enfermedad del Virus de Marburg/transmisión , Enfermedad del Virus de Marburg/virología , Marburgvirus/aislamiento & purificación , Zoonosis Virales/epidemiología , Zoonosis Virales/transmisión , Zoonosis Virales/virología , Quirópteros/virología
6.
Rev Med Suisse ; 19(825): 858-864, 2023 May 03.
Artículo en Francés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37139881

RESUMEN

In 2022, mpox - a neglected tropical zoonosis - emerged to the world stage. From 1980, the disease was periodically noted, with increasing frequency, in endemic regions of Africa. In 2017, a large outbreak in Nigeria marks a turning point in the evolution of mpox and seems to be at the origin of the 2022 pandemic. The factors for mpox emergence are complex and include loss of cross-protection conferred by smallpox vaccination, increased exposure to the animal reservoir, and increased human-to-human transmission due to behavioral factors. While the current epidemic seems under control, an evolution towards a more transmissible or more virulent virus is not excluded. The 2022 pandemic is an opportunity to initiate and strengthen mpox surveillance, prevention and care management among all affected populations.


En 2022, le mpox ­ une zoonose tropicale négligée ­ a émergé sur la scène mondiale. Depuis 1980, la maladie a été notifiée avec une fréquence croissante dans les régions endémiques d'Afrique. En 2017, une large épidémie au Nigeria marque un tournant dans l'évolution du mpox et semble à l'origine de la pandémie 2022. Les facteurs d'émergence du mpox sont complexes et incluent la perte de la protection croisée conférée par la vaccination antivariolique, une exposition accrue au réservoir animal et une augmentation de la transmission interhumaine due à des facteurs comportementaux. Alors que l'épidémie actuelle semble sous contrôle, une évolution vers un virus plus transmissible ou plus virulent n'est pas exclue. La pandémie 2022 est une opportunité pour initier et renforcer la surveillance, la prévention et la prise en charge clinique du mpox auprès de toutes les populations affectées.


Asunto(s)
Mpox , Viruela , Animales , Humanos , Viruela/epidemiología , Viruela/prevención & control , Mpox/diagnóstico , Mpox/epidemiología , Mpox/prevención & control , Zoonosis/epidemiología , Zoonosis/prevención & control , África , Pandemias
7.
Clin Infect Dis ; 77(1): 135-137, 2023 07 05.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36905148

RESUMEN

A healthy young man first diagnosed with mpox in May 2022 presented again in November 2022 with anal proctitis and a positive polymerase chain reaction on a rectal swab for Monkeypox virus after a recent trip to Brazil, where he engaged in condomless sexual intercourse with multiple male partners.


Asunto(s)
Mpox , Humanos , Masculino , Reinfección , Brasil , Monkeypox virus , Reacción en Cadena de la Polimerasa
8.
11.
Microbiol Spectr ; 10(4): e0085322, 2022 08 31.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35938792

RESUMEN

The emergence of each novel SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern (VOC) requires investigation of its potential impact on the performance of diagnostic tests in use, including antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs). Although anecdotal reports have been circulating that the newly emerged Omicron-BA.1 variant is in principle detectable by Ag-RDTs, few data on sensitivity are available. We have performed (i) analytical sensitivity testing with cultured virus in eight Ag-RDTs and (ii) retrospective testing in duplicates with clinical samples from vaccinated individuals with Omicron-BA.1 (n = 59) or Delta (n = 54) breakthrough infection on seven Ag-RDTs. Overall, in our analytical study we have found heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs for detecting Omicron-BA.1. When using cultured virus, we observed a trend toward lower endpoint sensitivity for Omicron-BA.1 detection than for earlier circulating SARS-CoV-2 and the other VOCs. In our retrospective study, the detection of Delta and Omicron-BA.1 was assessed in a comparable set of stored clinical samples using seven Ag-RDTs. Four hundred ninety-seven of all 826 tests (60.17%) performed on Omicron-BA.1 samples were positive, compared to 489/756 (64.68%) for Delta samples. In the analytical study, the sensitivity for both Omicron-BA.1 and Delta between the Ag-RDTs was variable. All seven Ag-RDTs showed comparable sensitivities to detect Omicron-BA.1 and Delta in the retrospective study. IMPORTANCE Sensitivity for detecting Omicron-BA.1 shows high heterogenicity between Ag-RDTs, necessitating a careful consideration when using these tests to guide infection prevention measures. Analytical and retrospective testing is a proxy and timely solution to generate rapid performance data, but it is not a replacement for clinical evaluations, which are urgently needed. Biological and technical reasons for detection failure by some Ag-RDTs need to be further investigated.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/diagnóstico , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Sensibilidad y Especificidad
12.
Prev Med Rep ; 29: 101899, 2022 Oct.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35822203

RESUMEN

Healthcare workers have potentially been among the most exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the deleterious toll of the pandemic. This study has the objective to differentiate the pandemic toll from post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers compared to the general population. The study was conducted between April and July 2021 at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. Eligible participants were all tested staff, and outpatient individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at the same hospital. The primary outcome was the prevalence of symptoms in healthcare workers compared to the general population, with measures of COVID-related symptoms and functional impairment, using prevalence estimates and multivariable logistic regression models. Healthcare workers (n = 3083) suffered mostly from fatigue (25.5 %), headache (10.0 %), difficulty concentrating (7.9 %), exhaustion/burnout (7.1 %), insomnia (6.2 %), myalgia (6.7 %) and arthralgia (6.3 %). Regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection, all symptoms were significantly higher in healthcare workers than the general population (n = 3556). SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers was associated with loss or change in smell, loss or change in taste, palpitations, dyspnea, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and headache. Functional impairment was more significant in healthcare workers compared to the general population (aOR 2.28; 1.76-2.96), with a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR 3.81; 2.59-5.60). Symptoms and functional impairment in healthcare workers were increased compared to the general population, and potentially related to the pandemic toll as well as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings are of concern, considering the essential role of healthcare workers in caring for all patients including and beyond COVID-19.

14.
J Intern Med ; 292(1): 103-115, 2022 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35555926

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Persistent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 are prevalent weeks to months following the infection. To date, it is difficult to disentangle the direct from the indirect effects of SARS-CoV-2, including lockdown, social, and economic factors. OBJECTIVE: The study aims to characterize the prevalence of symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life at 12 months in outpatient symptomatic individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to individuals tested negative. METHODS: From 23 April to 27 July 2021, outpatient symptomatic individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at the Geneva University Hospitals were followed up 12 months after their test date. RESULTS: At 12 months, out of the 1447 participants (mean age 45.2 years, 61.2% women), 33.4% reported residual mild to moderate symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to 6.5% in the control group. Symptoms included fatigue (16% vs. 3.1%), dyspnea (8.9% vs. 1.1%), headache (9.8% vs. 1.7%), insomnia (8.9% vs. 2.7%), and difficulty concentrating (7.4% vs. 2.5%). When compared to the control group, 30.5% of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals reported functional impairment at 12 months versus 6.6%. SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with the persistence of symptoms (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.1; 2.60-6.83) and functional impairment (aOR 3.54; 2.16-5.80) overall, and in subgroups of women, men, individuals younger than 40 years, those between 40-59 years, and in individuals with no past medical or psychiatric history. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 infection leads to persistent symptoms over several months, including in young healthy individuals, in addition to the pandemic effects, and potentially more than other common respiratory infections. Symptoms impact functional capacity up to 12 months post infection.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiología , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pandemias , Calidad de Vida
15.
Nat Med ; 28(7): 1491-1500, 2022 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35395151

RESUMEN

Infectious viral load (VL) expelled as droplets and aerosols by infected individuals partly determines transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). RNA VL measured by qRT-PCR is only a weak proxy for infectiousness. Studies on the kinetics of infectious VL are important to understand the mechanisms behind the different transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 variants and the effect of vaccination on transmission, which allows guidance of public health measures. In this study, we quantified infectious VL in individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the first five symptomatic days by in vitro culturability assay in unvaccinated or vaccinated individuals infected with pre-variant of concern (pre-VOC) SARS-CoV-2, Delta or Omicron BA.1. Unvaccinated individuals infected with pre-VOC SARS-CoV-2 had lower infectious VL than Delta-infected unvaccinated individuals. Full vaccination (defined as >2 weeks after receipt of the second dose during the primary vaccination series) significantly reduced infectious VL for Delta breakthrough cases compared to unvaccinated individuals. For Omicron BA.1 breakthrough cases, reduced infectious VL was observed only in boosted but not in fully vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. In addition, infectious VL was lower in fully vaccinated Omicron BA.1-infected individuals compared to fully vaccinated Delta-infected individuals, suggesting that mechanisms other than increased infectious VL contribute to the high infectiousness of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron BA.1. Our findings indicate that vaccines may lower transmission risk and, therefore, have a public health benefit beyond the individual protection from severe disease.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , Pruebas Serológicas , Carga Viral
18.
EClinicalMedicine ; 42: 101188, 2021 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34778734

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, no direct antiviral treatment is effective as post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP). Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) was repurposed as a potential PEP agent against COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic open-label, parallel, cluster-randomised superiority trial in four sites in Switzerland and Brazil between March 2020 to March 2021. Clusters were randomised to receive LPV/r PEP (400/100 mg) twice daily for 5 days or no PEP (surveillance). Exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was defined as a close contact of >15 minutes in <2 metres distance or having shared a closed space for ≥2 hours with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome is the occurrence of COVID-19 defined by a SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive oropharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 PCR and/or a seroconversion) and ≥1 compatible symptom within 21 days post-enrolment. ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04364022); Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal: SNCTP 000003732. FINDINGS: Of 318 participants, 157 (49.4%) were women; median age was 39 (interquartile range, 28-50) years. A total of 209 (179 clusters) participants were randomised to LPV/r PEP and 109 (95 clusters) to surveillance. Baseline characteristics were similar, with the exception of baseline SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity, which was 3-fold more frequent in the LPV/r arm (34/209 [16.3%] vs 6/109 [5.5%], respectively). During 21-day follow-up, 48/318 (15.1%) participants developed COVID-19: 35/209 (16.7%) in the LPV/r group and 13/109 (11.9%) in the surveillance group (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.44; 95% CI, 0.76-2.73). In the primary endpoint analysis, which was adjuted for baseline imbalance, the hazard ratio for developing COVID-19 in the LPV/r group vs surveillance was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.29-1.26; p =0.18). INTERPRETATION: The role of LPV/r as PEP for COVID-19 remains unanswered. Although LPV/r over 5 days did not significantly reduce the incidence of COVID-19 in exposed individuals, we observed a change in the directionality of the effect in favour of LPV/r after adjusting for baseline imbalance. LPV/r for this indication merits further testing against SARS-CoV-2 in clinical trials. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation (project no.: 33IC30_166819) and the Private Foundation of Geneva University Hospitals (Edmond Rothschild (Suisse) SA, Union Bancaire Privée and the Fondation pour la recherche et le traitement médical).

19.
Front Public Health ; 9: 731981, 2021.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34805064

RESUMEN

To date, most of the evidence suggests that smoking is negatively associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. However, evidence has several methodological limitations. Using an outpatient sample population, we analyzed the association of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and smoking considering comorbidities, socioeconomic and demographic factors. Baseline data were obtained from a cohort during the first wave of the pandemic in Geneva, Switzerland (March-April 2020). RT-PCR tests were carried out on individuals suspected of having SARS-CoV-2 according to the testing strategy at that time. Logistic regressions were performed to test the association of smoking and testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and further adjusted for comorbidities, socioeconomic and demographic factors. The sample included 5,169 participants; 60% were women and the mean age was 41 years. The unadjusted OR for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 was 0.46 (CI: 0.38-0.54). After adjustment for comorbidities, socioeconomic and demographic factors, smoking was still negatively associated with testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (OR: 0.44; CI: 0.35-0.77). Women (OR: 0.79; CI: 0.69-0.91), higher postal income (OR: 0.97; CI: 0.95-0.99), having respiratory (OR: 0.68; CI: 0.55-0.84) and immunosuppressive disorders (OR: 0.63; CI: 0.44-0.88) also showed independent negative associations with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Smoking was negatively associated with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 independently of comorbidities, socioeconomic and demographic factors. Since having respiratory or immunosuppressive conditions and being females and healthcare workers were similarly negatively associated with SARS-CoV-2 positive testing, we hypothesize that risk factor-related protective or testing behaviors could have induced a negative association with SARS-CoV-2.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , Fumar/efectos adversos , Suiza/epidemiología
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA