Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and associated risk factors: A testing program and nested case-control study conducted at Sapienza University of Rome between March and June 2021.
COVID-19
case-control study
risk factors
students
testing program
university
Journal
Frontiers in public health
ISSN: 2296-2565
Titre abrégé: Front Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101616579
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
02
08
2022
accepted:
05
10
2022
entrez:
7
11
2022
pubmed:
8
11
2022
medline:
9
11
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To safely resume in-person activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sapienza University of Rome implemented rigorous infection prevention and control measures, a successful communication campaign and a free SARS-CoV-2 testing program. In this study, we describe the University's experience in carrying out such a program in the context of the COVID-19 response and identify risk factors for infection. Having identified resources, space, supplies and staff, from March to June 2021 Sapienza offered to all its enrollees a molecular test service (8.30 AM to 4 PM, Monday to Thursday). A test-negative case-control study was conducted within the program. Participants underwent structured interviews that investigated activity-related exposures in the 2 weeks before testing. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were performed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated. A total of 8,959 tests were administered, of which 56 were positive. The detection trend followed regional tendencies. Among 40 cases and 80 controls, multivariable analysis showed that a known exposure to a COVID-19 case increased the likelihood of infection (aOR: 8.39, 95% CI: 2.38-29.54), while having a job decreased it (aOR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.88). Of factors that almost reached statistical significance, participation in activities in the university tended to reduce the risk (aOR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.09-1.06), while attendance at private gatherings showed an increasing risk trend (aOR: 3.48, 95% CI: 0.95-12.79). Age, gender, activities in the community, visiting bars or restaurants, and use of public transportation were not relevant risk factors. When those students regularly attending the university campus were excluded from the analysis, the results were comparable, except that attending activities in the community came close to having a statistically significant effect (aOR: 8.13, 95% CI: 0.91-72.84). The testing program helped create a safe university environment. Furthermore, promoting preventive behavior and implementing rigorous measures in public places, as was the case in the university setting, contributed to limit the virus transmission.
Sections du résumé
Background
To safely resume in-person activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, Sapienza University of Rome implemented rigorous infection prevention and control measures, a successful communication campaign and a free SARS-CoV-2 testing program. In this study, we describe the University's experience in carrying out such a program in the context of the COVID-19 response and identify risk factors for infection.
Methods
Having identified resources, space, supplies and staff, from March to June 2021 Sapienza offered to all its enrollees a molecular test service (8.30 AM to 4 PM, Monday to Thursday). A test-negative case-control study was conducted within the program. Participants underwent structured interviews that investigated activity-related exposures in the 2 weeks before testing. Multivariable conditional logistic regression analyses were performed. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated.
Results
A total of 8,959 tests were administered, of which 56 were positive. The detection trend followed regional tendencies. Among 40 cases and 80 controls, multivariable analysis showed that a known exposure to a COVID-19 case increased the likelihood of infection (aOR: 8.39, 95% CI: 2.38-29.54), while having a job decreased it (aOR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.06-0.88). Of factors that almost reached statistical significance, participation in activities in the university tended to reduce the risk (aOR: 0.32, 95% CI: 0.09-1.06), while attendance at private gatherings showed an increasing risk trend (aOR: 3.48, 95% CI: 0.95-12.79). Age, gender, activities in the community, visiting bars or restaurants, and use of public transportation were not relevant risk factors. When those students regularly attending the university campus were excluded from the analysis, the results were comparable, except that attending activities in the community came close to having a statistically significant effect (aOR: 8.13, 95% CI: 0.91-72.84).
Conclusions
The testing program helped create a safe university environment. Furthermore, promoting preventive behavior and implementing rigorous measures in public places, as was the case in the university setting, contributed to limit the virus transmission.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36339150
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1010130
pmc: PMC9627192
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1010130Investigateurs
Federica Maria Di Lella
(F)
Sofia Di Virgilio
(S)
Pierluigi Donia
(P)
Emiliano Rapiti
(E)
Donatella Maria Rodio
(D)
Geltrude Taddeo
(G)
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Baccolini, Siena, Renzi, Migliara, Colaprico, Romano, Massimi, Marzuillo, De Vito, Casini, Antonelli, Turriziani, Angeloni, D'Alba, Villari, Polimeni and Collaborating Group.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
PLoS One. 2022 Feb 11;17(2):e0263597
pubmed: 35148359
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Oct 20;173(8):638-641
pubmed: 32614638
JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Aug 1;181(8):1090-1099
pubmed: 34152363
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 24;17(23):
pubmed: 33255181
J Public Health Res. 2021 Jan 27;9(Suppl 1):1957
pubmed: 33575228
J Prof Nurs. 2021 Sep-Oct;37(5):948-953
pubmed: 34742527
Eur J Epidemiol. 2021 Feb;36(2):179-196
pubmed: 33634345
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 04;18(23):
pubmed: 34886516
Nat Commun. 2021 Jul 27;12(1):4570
pubmed: 34315899
Epidemiology. 2019 Nov;30(6):838-844
pubmed: 31430265
J Occup Health. 2021 Jan;63(1):e12209
pubmed: 33665926
J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb 24;223(4):550-561
pubmed: 33249484
N Engl J Med. 2020 Mar 26;382(13):1194-1196
pubmed: 32074416
Front Public Health. 2021 Nov 04;9:772782
pubmed: 34805081
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Sep 11;69(36):1258-1264
pubmed: 32915165
Front Psychol. 2021 Apr 22;12:648443
pubmed: 33967909
EuroMediterr J Environ Integr. 2021;6(1):30
pubmed: 33585671
Int J Surg. 2020 Jun;78:185-193
pubmed: 32305533
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 17;16(12):e0261230
pubmed: 34919584
Vaccines (Basel). 2021 Nov 07;9(11):
pubmed: 34835223
JAMA. 2021 Apr 13;325(14):1464-1465
pubmed: 33616617
BMC Public Health. 2021 Aug 6;21(1):1520
pubmed: 34362333
Front Psychol. 2021 Oct 12;12:769622
pubmed: 34712192
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Apr 27;118(17):
pubmed: 33827987
J Infect Public Health. 2020 Nov;13(11):1630-1638
pubmed: 32855090
Cell Rep Med. 2022 Feb 21;3(3):100556
pubmed: 35474742
Front Psychol. 2021 Jul 14;12:692503
pubmed: 34335409
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Aug;7:100148
pubmed: 34124709
Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2022 Jun;3:100255
pubmed: 35403074
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021 Apr 09;70(14):528-532
pubmed: 33830981
Public Health. 2022 Mar;204:70-75
pubmed: 35176623
Nat Med. 2021 Dec;27(12):2120-2126
pubmed: 34707317