COVID-19 in patients hospitalized and healthcare workers: what have changed after the first wave in a university hospital

  1. Luiz Vinicius Leão Moreira
  2. Gabriela Rodrigues Barbosa
  3. Luciano Kleber de Souza Luna
  4. Alberto Fernando Oliveira Justo
  5. Ana Paula Cunha Chaves
  6. Danielle Dias Conte
  7. Joseane Mayara Almeida Carvalho
  8. Ana Helena Perosa
  9. Klinger Soares Faico Filho
  10. Clarice Neves Camargo
  11. Nancy Bellei

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objective

To assess the COVID-19 frequency rates in hospitalized patients (HP) and healthcare workers (HCW), viral load inference, and the impact of vaccination and variants of concern (VOC) during the first pandemic wave.

Methods

We evaluated the COVID-19 diagnostics at Hospital São Paulo, Brazil, from March 2020 to April 2021, in 10,202 samples (6,502 HP and 3,700 HCW) tested by RT-qPCR, inferring viral load by cycle threshold (Ct) values, and frequency rates.

Results

SARS-CoV-2 was detected in 31.27% of individuals (32.23% HP and 29.80% HCW). The mean age of HP positives was 57.26 ± 18.29 years (median = 59), with a mean Ct value of 25.55 ± 6.07. Neither age nor Ct values in both groups have significantly differed during the first and second waves or even since the predominance of VOC P.1 on March 2021.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 epidemic curves of HP and HCW accompanied the variations reported in São Paulo city, as well as the variation of hospitalization and occupancy of ICU beds. The VOC P.1 has no impact on the viral load, since its predominance in March 2021. The vaccination of HCW may have contributed to a decrease in the positivity rates, although more studies will provide a better understanding of the impact of immunization on the COVID-19 pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.11.21257011: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIACUC: The study was conducted in compliance with institutional guidelines, approved by the Ethics Committee of São Paulo Federal University (CEP/UNIFESP n. 29407720.4.0000.5505).
    IRB: The study was conducted in compliance with institutional guidelines, approved by the Ethics Committee of São Paulo Federal University (CEP/UNIFESP n. 29407720.4.0000.5505).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Molecular detection was performed by reverse transcription, real-time polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) assay, using the GeneFinder COVID-19 Plus RealAmp Kit (OSANG Healthcare, Korea), which targets the E (envelope), N (nucleocapsid), RdRp (RNA-dependent RNA Polymerase) genes of SARS-CoV-2, and human ribonuclease P (RNase P) as an internal control.
    GeneFinder
    suggested: (GENEFINDER, RRID:SCR_009190)
    OSANG Healthcare
    suggested: None
    All analyses were performed using the software GraphPad Prism v.6.01.
    GraphPad Prism
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2021.05.11.21257011v1 on medRxiv