Summary
Background
Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19.
Methods
In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period.
Findings
Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82–4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12–1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31–1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22–1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34–2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive
vs
786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22–12·68]). The study is registered at
ClinicalTrials.gov
,
NCT04346186
.
Interpretation
The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19.
Funding
Lundbeck Foundation.
Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates SARS-CoV-2 transmission. It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. This randomized controlled trial investigates whether recommending surgical mask use when outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures.
SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are crucial in controlling COVID-19, but knowledge of which factors determine waning immunity is limited. We examined antibody levels and T-cell gamma-interferon release after two doses of BNT162b2 vaccine or a combination of ChAdOx1-nCoV19 and BNT162b2 vaccines for up to 230 days after the first dose. Generalized mixed models with and without natural cubic splines were used to determine immunity over time. Antibody responses were influenced by natural infection, sex, and age. IgA only became significant in naturally infected. A one-year IgG projection suggested an initial two-phase response in those given the second dose delayed (ChAdOx1/BNT162b2) followed by a more rapid decrease of antibody levels. T-cell responses correlated significantly with IgG antibody responses. Our results indicate that IgG levels will drop at different rates depending on prior infection, age, sex, T-cell response, and the interval between vaccine injections. Only natural infection mounted a significant and lasting IgA response.
Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (total-Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated fifteen commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild or moderate COVID-19; nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), collected 13-73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO/in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche/Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott/Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai/ELISA-IgM showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.
SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern have continuously evolved and may erode vaccine induced immunity. In this observational cohort study, we determine the risk of breakthrough infection in a fully vaccinated cohort. SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG levels were measured before first SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and at day 21–28, 90 and 180, as well as after booster vaccination. Breakthrough infections were captured through the Danish National Microbiology database. incidence rate ratio (IRR) for breakthrough infection at time-updated anti-spike IgG levels was determined using Poisson regression. Among 6076 participants, 127 and 364 breakthrough infections due to Delta and Omicron variants were observed. IRR was 0.29 (95% CI 0.15–0.56) for breakthrough infection with the Delta variant, comparing the highest and lowest quintiles of anti-spike IgG. For Omicron, no significant differences in IRR were observed. These results suggest that quantitative level of anti-spike IgG have limited impact on the risk of breakthrough infection with Omicron.
Background. People with HIV (PWH) are at increased risk of severe COVID-19. We aimed to determine humoral responses in PWH and controls who received two doses of BNT162b2.
Methods.In 269 PWH and 538 age-matched controls, we measured IgG and neutralizing antibodies specific for the receptor-binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 at baseline, 3 weeks and 2 months after the first dose of BNT162b2.
Results.IgG antibodies increased from baseline to 3 weeks and from 3 weeks to 2 months in both groups, but the concentrations of IgG antibodies were lower in PWH than that in controls at 3 weeks and 2 months (p = 0.025 and <0.001), respectively. The IgG titres in PWH with a humoral response at 2 months were 77.9% (95% confidence interval [62.5%-97.0%], age-and sex-adjusted p = 0.027) of controls.Conclusions. Reduced IgG antibody response to vaccination with BNT162b2 was found in PWH, and thus increased awareness of breakthrough infections in PWH is needed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.