SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Prevalence among Industrial Livestock Operation Workers and Nearby Community Residents, North Carolina, 2021 to 2022

Gigot, Carolyn; Pisanic, Nora; Kruczynski, Kate; Rivera, Magdielis Gregory; Spicer, Kristoffer; Kurowski, Kathleen; Randad, Pranay R.; Koehler, Kirsten; Clarke, William; Holmes, Phyla; Hall, Devon; Heaney, Christopher D.

doi:10.1128/msphere.00522-22

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[24]observationalUSAmask mandates for reducing transmissionnucleic acid or antigenmandate dataGigot et al . [25]observationalUSAmasks for reducing transmissionsaliva antibody testingquestionnaireGoncalves et al . [26]observationalBrazilmasks for reducing transmissionRT-PCR or antibody testing (non-specific)interviewHast et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

Boulos,

Curran,

Gallant

et al. 2023

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare settings. A search of studies published 1 January 2020–27 January 2023 yielded 5185 unique records. Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. We analysed 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). Ninety-five per cent of studies included were conducted before highly transmissible Omicron variants emerged. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at ‘critical’ risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions. More studies found that masks ( n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates ( n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect ( n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls ( n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types. Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forty-seven studies reported on the effectiveness of masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2 as their primary outcome: 24 studies (two RCTs, 22 observational) in community settings [14–18,20,21,23,25–27,29,33,34,36–41,43,44,46,48] and 23 observational studies in healthcare settings [50,53–61,63–66,68,69,75–77,81,82,84,85].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

Boulos,

Curran,

Gallant

et al. 2023

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…48 The association between race, immune response, and disease severity highlights the importance of assessing demographic features for protection against SARS-CoV-2. 43,49 Further, demographic-based risk assessment and monitoring of HCWs to enhance their protection and ensure a safe work environment is critical. Additionally, maintenance of the vaccine schedule and adherence to booster doses have been shown…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethno‐demographic disparities in humoral responses to the COVID‐19 vaccine among healthcare workers

Ahluwalia,

Vashisht,

Singh

et al. 2023

Journal of Medical Virology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID‐19 pandemic had a profound impact on global health, but rapid vaccine administration resulted in a significant decline in morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. In this study, we sought to explore the temporal changes in the humoral immune response against SARS‐CoV‐2 healthcare workers (HCWs) in Augusta, GA, USA, and investigate any potential associations with ethno‐demographic features. Specifically, we aimed to compare the naturally infected individuals with naïve individuals to understand the immune response dynamics after SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination. A total of 290 HCWs were included and assessed prospectively in this study. COVID status was determined using a saliva‐based COVID assay. Neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels were quantified using a chemiluminescent immunoassay system, and IgG levels were measured using an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay method. We examined the changes in antibody levels among participants using different statistical tests including logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis. Our findings revealed a significant decline in NAb and IgG levels at 8−12 months postvaccination. Furthermore, a multivariable analysis indicated that this decline was more pronounced in White HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07−4.08, p = 0.02) and IgG (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.04−4.11, p = 0.03) among the whole cohort. Booster doses significantly increased IgG and NAb levels, while a decline in antibody levels was observed in participants without booster doses at 12 months postvaccination. Our results highlight the importance of understanding the dynamics of immune response and the potential influence of demographic factors on waning immunity to SARS‐CoV‐2. In addition, our findings emphasize the value of booster doses to ensure durable immunity.

show abstract

“…We have previously reported on demographics and antibody results for all participants of any age and industry (including not employed) enrolled between February 2021 and July 2022 (Gigot et al 2023). Study enrollment continued for one additional month.…”

Section: Study Design and Populationmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence by industry, workplace characteristics, and workplace infection prevention and control measures, North Carolina, 2021 to 2022

Gigot,

Pisanic,

Spicer

et al. 2024

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected workers in certain industries and occupations, and the workplace can be a high risk setting for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In this study, we measured SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence and identified work-related risk factors in a population primarily working at industrial livestock operations. Methods: We used a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay to determine infection-induced antibody prevalence among 236 adult (>=18 years) North Carolina residents between February 2021 and August 2022. We used the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System (NIOCCS) to classify employed participants' industry and compared infection-induced IgG prevalence by participant industry and with the North Carolina general population. We also combined antibody results with reported SARS-CoV-2 molecular test positivity and vaccination history to identify evidence of prior infection. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of prior infection by potential work-related risk factors, adjusting for industry and date. Results: Most participants (55%) were infection-induced IgG positive, including 71% of animal slaughtering and processing industry workers, which is 1.5 to 4.3 times higher compared to the North Carolina general population, as well as higher than molecularly-confirmed cases and the only other serology study we identified of animal slaughtering and processing workers. Considering questionnaire results in addition to antibodies, the proportion of participants with evidence of prior infection increased slightly, to 61%, including 75% of animal slaughtering and processing workers. Participants with more than 1000 compared to 10 or fewer coworkers at their jobsite had higher odds of prior infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 21.0). Conclusions: This study contributes evidence of the severe and disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on animal processing and essential workers and workers in large congregate settings. We also demonstrate the utility of combining non-invasive biomarker and questionnaire data for the study of workplace exposures.

show abstract

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Prevalence among Industrial Livestock Operation Workers and Nearby Community Residents, North Carolina, 2021 to 2022

Abstract: Few studies have measured COVID-19 seroprevalence in North Carolina, especially among rural, Black, and Hispanic/Latino communities that have been heavily affected. Antibody results show high rates of COVID-19 among industrial livestock operation workers and their household members.

Cited by 6 publications

References 44 publications

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review

Ethno‐demographic disparities in humoral responses to the COVID‐19 vaccine among healthcare workers

SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence by industry, workplace characteristics, and workplace infection prevention and control measures, North Carolina, 2021 to 2022

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About