Beniamino Schiavone

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has been a health emergency with a significant impact on the world due to its high infectiousness. The disease, primarily identified in the lower respiratory tract, develops with numerous clinical symptoms affecting multiple organs and displays a clinical finding of anosmia. Several authors have investigated the pathogenetic mechanisms of the olfactory disturbances caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection, proposing different hypotheses and showing contradictory results. Since uncertainties remain about possible virus neurotropism and direct damage to the olfactory bulb, we investigated the expression of SARS-CoV-2 as well as ACE2 receptor transcripts in autoptic lung and olfactory bulb tissues, with respect to the histopathological features. Methods: Twenty-five COVID-19 olfactory bulbs and lung tissues were randomly collected from 200 initial autopsies performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Routine diagnosis was based on clinical and radiological findings and were confirmed with post-mortem swabs. Real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2 receptor RNA was carried out on autoptic FFPE lung and olfactory bulb tissues. Histological staining was performed on tissue specimens and compared with the molecular data. Results: While real-time RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 was positive in 23 out of 25 lung samples, the viral RNA expression was absent in olfactory bulbs. ACE2-receptor RNA was present in all tissues examined, being highly expressed in lung samples than olfactory bulbs. Conclusions: Our finding suggests that COVID-19 anosmia is not only due to neurotropism and the direct action of SARS-CoV-2 entering the olfactory bulb. The mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 neuropathogenesis in the olfactory bulb requires a better elucidation and further research studies to mitigate the olfactory bulb damage associated with virus action.

The successful deployment of safe and effective vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been crucial in reducing the global disease burden. Owing to the need for vaccination series over time, continuous observational studies are needed to estimate the COVID-19 vaccine response in real-world conditions. In particular, the detection, assessment, and understanding of adverse effects following immunization (AEFI) with a COVID-19 vaccine are crucial to better address vaccination strategies. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of repeated AEFI post-administration of a booster dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in a sample of healthcare workers (HCWs) in an Italian teaching hospital. The data on any local and systemic AEFI were studied in multivariate Poisson regression analyses to model the association between the incidence of each postvaccination symptom and its prior reporting after the administration of the previous doses. Overall, compared with the primary vaccination series, the majority of post-third dose AEFI were less reported. The results from multivariable models showed that the likelihood of reporting an AEFI after the third dose was higher in those who experienced the same postvaccination symptom after the second dose (all AEFI except for itch at injection site) and, although not significant for all AEFI, after the first dose. Any associations with age, gender, smoking habits, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and other characteristics, as well as the health impact of AEFI were also assessed. Taken together, the results from this research support reframe AEFI symptoms as signals of a robust postvaccination reaction as well as of common vaccine response, and they add important data to inform booster vaccination strategies in HCWs and, extensively, in the adult population.

This longitudinal observational study investigated the risk of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 6 months after a booster dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine in infection-naïve vs. previously infected healthcare workers (HCWs), and whether this difference varied over time. A Cox proportional hazard regression model with Aalen’s additive analysis was fitted to examine the association between the risk of infections and predictor variables. Overall, we observed an incidence rate of 2.5 cases per 1000 person-days (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0–3.0), which dropped at 0.8 per 1000 person-days (95% CI 0.3–2.0) in recipients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. The fitted analysis indicated an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.32 (95% CI 0.13–0.80; p-value = 0.01) for those with hybrid immunity with a slope that became steeply negative roughly starting from day 90. No difference was seen according to participants’ smoking habits. Characteristics of infected HCWs were also described. Our study quantifies the time-varying effects of vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity after the booster dose (during the Omicron variant predominance in Italy) and observed that the protection waned more rapidly in infection-naïve recipients starting from the third month. The results add important evidence that can be used to inform COVID-19 vaccination strategies.

We read the recent review article by Marta Kopańska et al.

This sero-survey describes the level and time-trend of antibodies elicited by BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months. A strong seroconversion was seen at 30-day serology, with persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S-RBD IgG through 6 months from vaccination. However, the level of vaccine-induced antibodies started to decrease from the second month.

Background: Facebook is the most popular social network across the world and also allows users access to health information. Our study presents an overview of the official Facebook profiles of hospitals in Italy (n = 1351) and how much they are used. Methods: All hospitals were surveyed on the number of Facebook posts in May (post-lockdown) and October (second pandemic wave) 2020. The number of followers, the creation date of the official page, and the frequency of publication—that is, the average number of days between two subsequent posts—were determined. Results: In Italy, only 28% (n = 379) of the hospitals had official Facebook pages, of which 20.6% (n = 78) were public hospitals, and 79.4% (n = 301) were private hospitals. Of the hospitals with Facebook pages, 49.1% used them every week, and public hospitals published more often. Conclusions: Despite the differences between regions and types of management, the number of hospitals in Italy that use Facebook as a tool for the public dissemination of health information is still low. Hospitals should adopt an effective communication strategy using social networks to improve the quality of health care.