Sanitary safety of the 2021 French Intensive Care Society medical conference: a case/control study

Abstract

Background In-person mass gathering events (MGE) are returning after a period of restrictions, yet few prospective scientific evaluations of their safety are available. Methods Prospective observational study, including both attendees of the French Intensive Care Society (FICS) annual meeting held in Paris between June the 9th and June the 11th, 2021 and matched controls (healthcare professionals who stayed in the ICU during the conference). SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test was performed on day 7. Follow-up occurred until day 21. Results Out of the 1824 healthcare professionals attending the congress (all of which fulfilled legal requirements: 7 days or more following a second dose of vaccine or a negative PCR test performed within less than 72 h), 520 (28.5%) agreed to participate. Follow-up data were received for 216 (41.5%) out of the 520 included attendees, and for 191 matched controls. No positive SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow test was reported in the attendees or in the matched controls. The probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the MGE was less than 1.7% in the attendees (95% confidence interval [0;1.7%]), less than 2% in the controls (95%CI [0;2%]) and the difference in probabilities of infection was less than 1.9% (95% CI [0;1.9%]). Conclusion During a low incidence period, in this population of congress attendees screened for SARS-CoV-2 by a lateral flow test at day 7, no positive cases could be documented, no concomitant infection occurred in the matched controls; suggesting no extra risk of infection during the MGE. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov, #NCT04918160.

Development of a COVID-19 risk assessment model for participants at outdoor music festivals: evaluation of the validity and control measure effectiveness based on two actual events in Japan and Spain

“…1 , previous studies included various types of events ( e.g., sports, music, meeting, religious events) and study designs ( e.g. simulations, epidemiological studies) ( Heese et al, 2022 ; Murakami et al, 2021 ; Revollo et al, 2021 ; Sami et al, 2022 ; Shukla et al, 2021 ; Smith et al, 2022 ; SRLF Trial Group, 2022 ; Suñer et al, 2022 ; Yasutaka et al, 2022 ). Previous epidemiological studies could assess the effectiveness in reducing the risk of acquiring infections among exposed individuals but were not able to evaluate the effectiveness in preventing the spread of infection by viruses emitted from already infected individuals ( Murakami, 2022 ).…”

“…Both events were held during the emergence of the Delta variant. Figure 1 shows the locations of target events and other events in previous studies regarding COVID-19 infection risk at mass gathering events ( Heese et al, 2022 ; Murakami et al, 2021 ; Revollo et al, 2021 ; Sami et al, 2022 ; Shukla et al, 2021 ; Smith et al, 2022 ; SRLF Trial Group, 2022 ; Suñer et al, 2022 ; Yasutaka et al, 2022 ).…”

“… The design, type of events, and key findings in previous studies are described ( Heese et al, 2022 ; Murakami et al, 2021 ; Revollo et al, 2021 ; Sami et al, 2022 ; Shukla et al, 2021 ; Smith et al, 2022 ; SRLF Trial Group, 2022 ; Suñer et al, 2022 ; Yasutaka et al, 2022 ). The map was created by using Arc GIS (Esri Japan; https://www.esrij.com/ ).…”

Low-cost microfluidics: Towards affordable environmental monitoring and assessment

“…The COVID-19 pandemic also necessitated the development and applications of low-cost analytical analysis tools (Adyel, 2020;Patrício Silva et al, 2021). For example, the Flowflex COVID-19 Antigen Home Test is built on top of a lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay, in which samples can be directly placed on the test device and the results are displayed on control and test lines in a few minutes (Boelle et al, 2022). Besides paper, plastics are important materials used in low-cost microfluidics and have been used as substrates or housing that protects major components.…”