SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Drug Use in Trauma Patients from Six Sites in the United States

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

In comparison to the general patient population, trauma patients show higher level detections of bloodborne infectious diseases, such as Hepatitis and Human Immunodeficiency Virus. In comparison to bloodborne pathogens, the prevalence of respiratory infections such as SARS-CoV-2 and how that relates with other variables, such as drug usage and trauma type, is currently unknown in trauma populations. Here, we evaluated SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity and antibody isotype profile in 2,542 trauma patients from six Level-1 trauma centers between April and October of 2020 during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We found that the seroprevalence in trauma victims 18-44 years old (9.79%, 95% confidence interval/CI: 8.33 11.47) was much higher in comparison to older patients (45-69 years old: 6.03%, 4.59-5.88; 70+ years old: 4.33%, 2.54 – 7.20). Black/African American (9.54%, 7.77 – 11.65) and Hispanic/Latino patients (14.95%, 11.80 – 18.75) also had higher seroprevalence in comparison, respectively, to White (5.72%, 4.62 7.05) and Non-Latino patients (6.55%, 5.57 – 7.69). More than half (55.54%) of those tested for drug toxicology had at least one drug present in their system. Those that tested positive for narcotics or sedatives had a significant negative correlation with seropositivity, while those on anti-depressants trended positive. These findings represent an important consideration for both the patients and first responders that treat trauma patients facing potential risk of respiratory infectious diseases like SARS-CoV-2.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.08.10.21261849: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: The Chesapeake/Advarra Institutional Review Board served as the central IRB for five sites, and the University of Florida Institutional Review Board served as the IRB of record for the Jacksonsville, FL site.
    Consent: De-identified samples and other data were included in the study under IRB-approved waivers of consent and authorization.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Then, goat anti-human IgA, IgM, and IgG horseradish peroxidase (HRP) secondary antibodies (ThermoFisher) were diluted at 1:4000 in blocking buffer and 100 μL of each secondary antibody solution was added to each well for 1 hour.
    anti-human IgA, IgM
    suggested: None

    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.