SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among homeless people and shelter workers in Denmark: a nationwide cross-sectional study

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background

People experiencing homelessness (PEH) and associated shelter workers may be at higher risk of infection with “Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2” (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among PEH and shelter workers in Denmark.

Design and methods

In November 2020, we conducted a nationwide cross-sectional seroprevalence study among PEH and shelter workers at 21 recruitment sites in Denmark. The assessment included a point-of-care test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, followed by a questionnaire. The seroprevalence was compared to that of geographically matched blood donors considered as a proxy for the background population, tested using a total Ig ELISA assay.

Results

We included 827 participants in the study, of whom 819 provided their SARS-CoV-2 antibody results. Of those, 628 were PEH (median age 50.8 (IQR 40.9–59.1) years, 35.5% female) and 191 were shelter workers (median age 46.6 (IQR 36.1–55.0) years and 74.5% female). The overall seroprevalence was 6.7% and was similar among PEH and shelter workers (6.8% vs 6.3%, p  = 0.87); and 12.2% among all participants who engaged in sex work. The overall participant seroprevalence was significantly higher than that of the background population (2.9%, p  < 0.001). When combining all participants who reported sex work or were recruited at designated safe havens, we found a significantly increased risk of seropositivity compared to other participants (OR 2.23, 95%CI 1.06–4.43, p  = 0.02). Seropositive and seronegative participants reported a similar presence of at least one SARS-CoV-2 associated symptom (49% and 54%, respectively).

Interpretations

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was more than twice as high among PEH and associated shelter workers, compared to the background population. These results could be taken into consideration when deciding in which phase PEH are eligible for a vaccine, as part of the Danish national SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program rollout.

Funding

TrygFonden and HelseFonden.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2021.05.07.21256388: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Ethics: This study was performed as a national surveillance study under the authority task of Statens Serum Institut (SSI; Copenhagen, Denmark, the Danish National Institute for Infectious Disease Control and Prevention which performs the epidemiological surveillance of infectious diseases for the Danish government), hence does not require any formal approval from an ethics committee according to Danish law.
    Sex as a biological variableAlcohol abuse was defined as drinking more than the national recommendations of <1 or <2 beverages per day for women and men, respectively (22).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    This POCT is a single use lateral flow chromatographic immunoassay rapid test, intended for qualitative detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies.
    immunoglobulin G (IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    All personal data, obtained in REDCap, was kept in accordance with the general data protection regulation and data protection law stated by the Danish Data Protection Agency.
    REDCap
    suggested: (REDCap, RRID:SCR_003445)
    Analyses were performed using RStudio version 1.2.5001 (25).
    RStudio
    suggested: (RStudio, RRID:SCR_000432)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and Limitations: Our study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional study designs do not allow determination of time of infection nor provide information on when participants became seropositive. Individuals who might already have tested positive by PCR at an earlier point in time, might have chosen not to participate in this study. Individuals anticipating a positive result might have chosen not to participate, fearful of the consequences such as isolation. If so, our results could be biased and the seroprevalence be underestimated. However, our apprehension is that the desire to participate and get tested was high (10.2% of an estimated 6 431 homeless people in Denmark). Of the 827 participants in our study group, 544 (67.0%) reported having previously been tested (nasopharyngeal swab and/or antibody test) and still participated. Further, questions on sociodemographic characteristics, physical health, use of drugs and alcohol, co-morbidities, symptom manifestations and the use of personal protective equipment against SARS-CoV-2 were self-reported, hence an information bias could have affected our results We compared our seropositivity findings to that of blood donors serving as a proxy to the background population, with some limitations to consider. First, blood donors are required to have a good general health and are ineligible to donate blood if they have ever engaged in sex work, have certain medical conditions, travel to certain international desti...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.


    Results from Barzooka: We found bar graphs of continuous data. We recommend replacing bar graphs with more informative graphics, as many different datasets can lead to the same bar graph. The actual data may suggest different conclusions from the summary statistics. For more information, please see Weissgerber et al (2015).


    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.