Jeong Yun Yang1, Michael D Parkins2, Andrew Canakis3, Olga C Aroniadis4, Dhiraj Yadav5, Rebekah E Dixon1, B Joseph Elmunzer6, Nauzer Forbes7,8. 1. Department of Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York. 2. Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Stony Brook Hospital, Stony Brook, New York. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston. 7. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 8. Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
Importance: Although health care workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is unclear whether they are at risk of poorer outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association between HCW status and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational cohort study included consecutive adult patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 across 36 North American centers from April 15 to June 5, 2020. Data were collected from 1992 patients. Data were analyzed from September 10 to October 1, 2020. Exposures: Data on patient baseline characteristics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, treatments, and outcomes were collected, including HCW status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a requirement for mechanical ventilation or death. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs for the association between HCW status and COVID-19-related outcomes in a 3:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for residual confounding after matching. Results: In total, 1790 patients were included, comprising 127 HCWs and 1663 non-HCWs. After 3:1 propensity score matching, 122 HCWs were matched to 366 non-HCWs. Women comprised 71 (58.2%) of matched HCWs and 214 (58.5%) of matched non-HCWs. Matched HCWs had a mean (SD) age of 52 (13) years, whereas matched non-HCWs had a mean (SD) age of 57 (17) years. In the matched cohort, the odds of the primary outcome, mechanical ventilation or death, were not significantly different for HCWs compared with non-HCWs (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.04). The HCWs were less likely to require admission to an intensive care unit (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34-0.92) and were also less likely to require an admission of 7 days or longer (AOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83). There were no differences between matched HCWs and non-HCWs in terms of mechanical ventilation (AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.17), death (AOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.18-1.27), or vasopressor requirements (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.37-1.24). Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched multicenter cohort study, HCW status was not associated with poorer outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and, in fact, was associated with a shorter length of hospitalization and decreased likelihood of intensive care unit admission. Further research is needed to elucidate the proportion of HCW infections acquired in the workplace and to assess whether HCW type is associated with outcomes.
Importance: Although health care workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), it is unclear whether they are at risk of poorer outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the association between HCW status and outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, observational cohort study included consecutive adult patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 across 36 North American centers from April 15 to June 5, 2020. Data were collected from 1992 patients. Data were analyzed from September 10 to October 1, 2020. Exposures: Data on patient baseline characteristics, comorbidities, presenting symptoms, treatments, and outcomes were collected, including HCW status. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a requirement for mechanical ventilation or death. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to yield adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% CIs for the association between HCW status and COVID-19-related outcomes in a 3:1 propensity score-matched cohort, adjusting for residual confounding after matching. Results: In total, 1790 patients were included, comprising 127 HCWs and 1663 non-HCWs. After 3:1 propensity score matching, 122 HCWs were matched to 366 non-HCWs. Women comprised 71 (58.2%) of matched HCWs and 214 (58.5%) of matched non-HCWs. Matched HCWs had a mean (SD) age of 52 (13) years, whereas matched non-HCWs had a mean (SD) age of 57 (17) years. In the matched cohort, the odds of the primary outcome, mechanical ventilation or death, were not significantly different for HCWs compared with non-HCWs (AOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34-1.04). The HCWs were less likely to require admission to an intensive care unit (AOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.34-0.92) and were also less likely to require an admission of 7 days or longer (AOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83). There were no differences between matched HCWs and non-HCWs in terms of mechanical ventilation (AOR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.37-1.17), death (AOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.18-1.27), or vasopressor requirements (AOR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.37-1.24). Conclusions and Relevance: In this propensity score-matched multicenter cohort study, HCW status was not associated with poorer outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and, in fact, was associated with a shorter length of hospitalization and decreased likelihood of intensive care unit admission. Further research is needed to elucidate the proportion of HCW infections acquired in the workplace and to assess whether HCW type is associated with outcomes.
Authors: Chung-Ming Chu; Leo L M Poon; Vincent C C Cheng; Kin-Sang Chan; Ivan F N Hung; Maureen M L Wong; Kwok-Hung Chan; Wah-Shing Leung; Bone S F Tang; Veronica L Chan; Woon-Leung Ng; Tiong-Chee Sim; Ping-Wing Ng; Kin-Ip Law; Doris M W Tse; Joseph S M Peiris; Kwok-Yung Yuen Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-11-23 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Michelle L Holshue; Chas DeBolt; Scott Lindquist; Kathy H Lofy; John Wiesman; Hollianne Bruce; Christopher Spitters; Keith Ericson; Sara Wilkerson; Ahmet Tural; George Diaz; Amanda Cohn; LeAnne Fox; Anita Patel; Susan I Gerber; Lindsay Kim; Suxiang Tong; Xiaoyan Lu; Steve Lindstrom; Mark A Pallansch; William C Weldon; Holly M Biggs; Timothy M Uyeki; Satish K Pillai Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2020-01-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Veronika Pacutova; Andrea Madarasova Geckova; Peter Kizek; Martin Novotny; Andrea F de Winter; Sijmen A Reijneveld Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-07-07
Authors: Ilyse Darwish; Luke B Harrison; Ana Maria Passos-Castilho; Annie-Claude Labbé; Sapha Barkati; Me-Linh Luong; Ling Yuan Kong; Marc-Antoine Tutt-Guérette; James Kierans; Cécile Rousseau; Andrea Benedetti; Laurent Azoulay; Christina Greenaway Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-08-24 Impact factor: 3.752