Risk Factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Hospital Workers: Results From a Screening Study in New Jersey, United States in Spring 2020

Abstract

Background SARS-CoV-2 infection is a critical concern among health care workers (HCW). Other studies have assessed SARS-CoV-2 virus and antibodies in HCW, with disparate findings regarding risk based on role and demographics. Methods We screened 3,904 employees and clinicians for SARS-CoV-2 virus positivity and serum IgG at a major New Jersey hospital from April 28-June 30, 2020. We assessed positive tests in relation to demographic and occupational characteristics and prior COVID-19 symptoms using multivariable logistic regression models. Results Thirteen participants (0.3%) tested positive for virus and 374 (9.6%) tested positive for IgG (total positive: 381 [9.8%]). Compared to participants with no patient care duties, the odds of positive testing (virus or antibodies) were higher for those with direct patient contact: below-median patient contact, adjusted OR (aOR): 1.71, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.48); above-median patient contact aOR: 1.98, 95% CI: 1.35, 2.91. The proportion of participants testing positive was highest for phlebotomists (23.9%), maintenance/housekeeping (17.3%), dining/food services (16.9%), and interpersonal/support roles (13.7%) despite lower levels of direct patient care duties. Positivity rates were lower among doctors (7.2%) and nurses (9.1%), roles with fewer under-represented minorities. After adjusting for job role and patient care responsibilities and other factors, Black and Latinx workers had two-fold increased odds of a positive test compared to White workers. Loss of smell, taste, and fever were associated with positive testing. Conclusions The HCW categories at highest risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection include support staff and underrepresented minorities with and without patient care responsibilities. Future work is needed to examine potential sources of community and nosocomial exposure among these under-studied HCW.

Early and long term antibody kinetics of asymptomatic and mild disease COVID-19 patients

“…The input training vectors V(i,j) are the [antibody(i) concentration/ cut-off level(i)] of the sample i, where i = 1: 3 assays, and j = 1: number of samples. Each vector was labeled with one of the three phases of the disease: infection phase (visit 1), inflammation phase (visits 2–4) and recovery phase (visits 5–11) 32 , as shown in Fig. 4 A.…”

COVID-19 infection rates early in the pandemic among full time clinicians in a home health care and hospice organization

“…Not surprisingly, among HCW, patient-facing staff are more likely to test positive. 4 , 5 A few studies have suggested a dose-response relationship, observing higher rates of infection among HCW caring for a greater number of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 5 , 6 A notable exception is lower rates of infection among HCW in Intensive Care Units (ICUs).…”

“…4 , 5 A few studies have suggested a dose-response relationship, observing higher rates of infection among HCW caring for a greater number of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 5 , 6 A notable exception is lower rates of infection among HCW in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). While HCW in ICUs provide care for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 positive patients, and therefore may have the highest workplace exposure to COVID-19, several studies have documented lower rates of infection compared to other HCW with less exposure.…”

What Caused Dire Clusters ? ~Analysis of Nosocomial COVID-19 Outbreaks in Kyoto City, Japan From the 1st Wave Through 3rd Wave in 2020/21

“…To date, nosocomial infection by COVID-19 has been discovered and reported in numerous healthcare facilities on a global scale; however, concise analysis of nosocomial clusters is limited. [1][2][3] In this study, we clari ed the characteristics and impact of nosocomial clusters that occurred in Kyoto City in the rst year of the pandemic in order to examine preventive measures.…”