SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among healthcare workers
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
Monitoring COVID-19 infection risk among health care workers (HCWs) is a public health priority. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs following the fall infection surge in Minnesota, and before and after COVID-19 vaccination. Additionally, we assessed demographic and occupational risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Methods
We conducted two rounds of seroprevalence testing among a cohort of HCWs: samples in round 1 were collected from 11/22/20–02/21/21 and in round 2 from 12/18/20–02/15/21. Demographic and occupational exposures assessed with logistic regression were age, sex, healthcare role and setting, and number of children in the household. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 IgG seropositivity. A secondary outcome, SARS-CoV-2 infection, included both seropositivity and self-reported SARS-CoV-2 test positivity.
Results
In total, 459 HCWs were tested. 43/454 (9.47%) had a seropositive sample 1 and 75/423 (17.7%) had a seropositive sample 2. By time of sample 2 collection, 54% of participants had received at least one vaccine dose and seroprevalence was 13% among unvaccinated individuals. Relative to physicians, the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection in other roles were increased (Nurse Practitioner: OR[95%CI] 1.93[0.57,6.53], Physician’s Assistant: 1.69[0.38,7.52], Nurse: 2.33[0.94,5.78], Paramedic/EMTs: 3.86[0.78,19.0], other: 1.68[0.58,4.85]). The workplace setting was associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (p = 0.04). SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among HCWs reporting duties in the ICU vs. those working in an ambulatory clinic was elevated: OR[95%CI] 2.17[1.01,4.68].
Conclusions
SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCW increased during our study period which was consistent with community infection rates. HCW role and setting—particularly working in the ICU—is associated with higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.02.21264468: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The study was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (#STUDY00009404).
Consent: All participants provided informed consent.Sex as a biological variable Eligibility criteria were: i) employed or volunteering in a healthcare facility; ii) free of fever, chills, anosmia, pharyngitis, recently developed persistent cough, nasal congestion suspected to be unrelated to season allergies; iii) age 18-80 years; iv) not pregnant. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody testing was performed at a central Quansys Bioscience laboratory using Quansys Biosciences’ SARS-CoV-2 …SciScore for 10.1101/2021.10.02.21264468: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Ethics IRB: The study was approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (#STUDY00009404).
Consent: All participants provided informed consent.Sex as a biological variable Eligibility criteria were: i) employed or volunteering in a healthcare facility; ii) free of fever, chills, anosmia, pharyngitis, recently developed persistent cough, nasal congestion suspected to be unrelated to season allergies; iii) age 18-80 years; iv) not pregnant. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Table 2: Resources
Antibodies Sentences Resources SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody testing was performed at a central Quansys Bioscience laboratory using Quansys Biosciences’ SARS-CoV-2 IgGsuggested: None17 The Quansys SARS-CoV-2 Human IgG (4-Plex) ELISA tests for IgG antibodies to either SARS-CoV-2 spike proteins, S1 and S2. 4-Plex) ELISA tests for IgGsuggested: NoneS2suggested: NoneResults 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:Our study included the following limitations: The results of this study are not generalizable to the larger population as we only enrolled a convenience sample of healthcare workers. As there is still limited information on the duration and variability of SARS-CoV-2 antibody response to infection, it is likely that our seroprevalence estimates are underestimates; specifically, we might have missed infections that occurred early in the pandemic for which antibody response waned or infections that occurred shortly before serology testing. Additionally, there are several potential sources of bias including information bias on reporting of previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 and recall bias related to vaccination dates, albeit this potential is minimized among healthcare professionals. Finally, the imperfect test sensitivity may bias the seroprevalence estimates, although we adjusted for testing error and found little impact on our estimates. It is also possible that information on setting and role, which was collected in April 2020 – June 2020, changed before participation in our seroprevalence studies conducted in November 2020 – January 2021. Among a population of HCWs in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN metropolitan area, approximately one-in-six were infected with SARS-CoV-2 based on seropositivity. Seroprevalence ∼doubled during a three-month period between November 2020 and January 2021. Among unvaccinated individuals, physicians were at an empirically lower risk of being serop...
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.
-
