Critical Care Workers Have Lower Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG Compared with Non-patient Facing Staff in First Wave of COVID19

Abstract

Introduction: In early 2020, at first surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many health care workers (HCW) were re-deployed to critical care environments to support intensive care teams looking after patients with severe COVID-19. There was considerable anxiety of increased risk of COVID-19 for these staff. To determine whether critical care HCW were at increased risk of hospital acquired infection, we explored the relationship between workplace, patient facing role and evidence of immune exposure to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) within a quaternary hospital providing a regional critical care response. Routine viral surveillance was not available at this time. Methods: We screened over 500 HCW (25% of the total workforce) for history of clinical symptoms of possible COVID19, assigning a symptom severity score, and quantified SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies as evidence of immune exposure to the virus. Results: Whilst 45% of the cohort reported symptoms that they consider may have represented COVID-19, 14% had evidence of immune exposure. Staffs in patient facing critical care roles were least likely to be seropositive (9%) and staff working in non-patient facing roles most likely to be seropositive (22%). Anosmia and fever were the most discriminating symptoms for seropositive status. Older males presented with more severe symptoms. Of the 12 staff screened positive by nasal swab (10 symptomatic), 3 showed no evidence of seroconversion in convalescence. Conclusions: Patient facing staff working in critical care do not appear to be at increased risk of hospital acquired infection however the risk of nosocomial infection from non-patient facing staff may be more significant than previous recognised. Most symptoms ascribed to possible COVID-19 were found to have no evidence of immune exposure however seroprevalence may underrepresent infection frequency. Older male staff were at the greatest risk of more severe symptoms.

SARS-COV-2 antibody responses to AZD1222 vaccination in West Africa

“…T cell responses in particular have been reported to contribute to attenuated disease severity 35 and cellular immunity could explain our lack of association here and in India 3 between neutralising antibody titres and breakthrough infection with Delta. One further consideration relates to cross reactive binding antibody responses with seasonal CoV; this possibility arises due to finding a small fraction of N antibody positive individuals (around 5%) with negative RBD and S antibodies, also observed previously in a UK early pandemic cohort with our assay 36 ; however, this observation could also arise due to faster decline of spike specific antibodies compared to N specific antibodies. Due to limited sample volume, we were unable to perform experiments to evaluate cross-reactivity to seasonal coronaviruses.…”

Neutralisation Hierarchy of SARS-CoV-2 Variants of Concern Using Standardised, Quantitative Neutralisation Assays Reveals a Correlation With Disease Severity; Towards Deciphering Protective Antibody Thresholds

“…For cross-sectional comparison, representative convalescent serum and plasma samples from seronegative HCWs, seropositive HCWs and convalescent PCR-positive COVID-19 patients. The serological screening used to classify convalescent HCW as positive or negative was done according to the results provided by a CE-validated Luminex assay detecting N-, RBD- and S-specific IgG ( 30 ), a lateral flow diagnostic test (IgG/IgM) and an Electro-chemiluminescence assay (ECLIA) detecting N- and S-specific IgG. Any sample that produced a positive result by any of these assays was classified as positive.…”

Human seasonal coronavirus neutralization and COVID‐19 severity

“…The seropositive cutoff for pMN was the 95% upper confidence interval of pre‐pandemic samples in previous work. 19 The classification based on IgG binding is described in Baxendale et al, 20 but in brief, a linear support vector machine was trained to distinguish a set of pre‐pandemic sera from COVID‐19 patient sera. This classification method considers the three antigens jointly so there is no single cut‐off to report.…”