SARS-CoV-2-Antikörper bei Intensiv- und Klinikpersonal

Finkenzeller, Thomas; Faltlhauser, Andreas; Dietl, K.-H.; Paetzel, Christian; Szczypien, Natasza; Klawonn, Frank; Bodmann, Klaus-Friedrich; Meyer, Alexander

doi:10.1007/s00063-020-00761-5

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We should stress, however, that the metanalysis included just two studies with low-risk-HCW from Europe, and the overall seroprevalence of 3.1% was based on data from just one study performed in March and April of 2020 in Western Germany [16]. More strikingly, a study from Southern Germany evaluating the COVID-19 seroprevalence in HCW showed a higher seroprevalence in HCW with patient contact (n = 2387) vs. a low-risk group (n = 1,850) without patient contact (15.1% vs. 3.7%) [17]. In addition, members from the non-COVID-19 ward had lower SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection rates in comparison to COVID-19 wards (14.4% vs. 26.2%), which was much higher compared to our results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Workers in Germany: A Follow-Up Study

Korth

Wilde

Dolff

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SARS-CoV-2 is a worldwide challenge for the medical sector. Healthcare workers (HCW) are a cohort vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection due to frequent and close contact with COVID-19 patients. However, they are also well trained and equipped with protective gear. The SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody status was assessed at three different time points in 450 HCW of the University Hospital Essen in Germany. HCW were stratified according to contact frequencies with COVID-19 patients in (I) a high-risk group with daily contacts with known COVID-19 patients (n = 338), (II) an intermediate-risk group with daily contacts with non-COVID-19 patients (n = 78), and (III) a low-risk group without patient contacts (n = 34). The overall seroprevalence increased from 2.2% in March–May to 4.0% in June–July to 5.1% in October–December. The SARS-CoV-2 IgG detection rate was not significantly different between the high-risk group (1.8%; 3.8%; 5.5%), the intermediate-risk group (5.1%; 6.3%; 6.1%), and the low-risk group (0%, 0%, 0%). The overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence remained low in HCW in western Germany one year after the outbreak of COVID-19 in Germany, and hygiene standards seemed to be effective in preventing patient-to-staff virus transmission.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Workers in Germany: A Follow-Up Study

Korth

Wilde

Dolff

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to a recent meta‐analysis including 127,480 HCWs, the estimated overall seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies was 8.7% (range: 0.0%–45.3%) and varied among continents (12.7% in North America, 8.5% in Europe, 8.2% in Africa, 4.0% in Asia) (Galanis et al., 2021). However, in the literature reported seroprevalence rates among HCWs show a high variability even within the countries: 1.6%–15.1% in Germany (Finkenzeller et al., 2020; Korth et al., 2020), 4.0%–11.0% in Spain (Dacosta‐Urbieta et al., 2020; Garcia‐Basteiro et al., 2020), 24.4%–31.6% in UK (Shields et al., 2020; Grant et al, 2020), 6.0%–27.0% in United States (Self et al., 2020; Venugopal et al, 2021) and 0.0%–11.1% in India (Kumar, Sathyapalan et al, 2020; Kumar, Bhartiya et al, 2020). Although only moderate seroprevalence rates among HCWs were reported from China (1.3%–3.8%) (Xu et al., 2020), a rapid review and meta‐analysis found that the proportion of nosocomial infections among confirmed COVID‐19 cases was 44% in China during the early outbreak and that 33% of COVID‐19 patients infected in hospitals were medical staff (Zhou et al., 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective surveillance study in a 1,400‐bed university hospital: COVID‐19 exposure at home was the main risk factor for SARS‐CoV‐2 point seroprevalence among hospital staff

Bahrs

Kimmig

Weis

et al. 2021

Transbounding Emerging Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Co‐HCW study is a prospective cohort study among hospital staff, including healthcare workers (HCWs) and administration staff, at the Jena University Hospital (JUH), Germany. The objectives of this study were to assess SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG seroprevalence, individual exposure risk factors and compliance of HCWs to wear personal protective equipment (PPE). After the first nosocomial COVID‐19 outbreak at JUH, mandatory masking was implemented on 20th March 2020. We evaluated point seroprevalence using two IgG detecting immunoassays and issued a questionnaire to assess COVID‐19 exposure, clinical symptoms and compliance to wear PPE. Antibody retesting was offered to participants with a divergent result of both immunoassays 5–10 weeks after the first test. Between 19th May and 19th June 2020, we analysed 660 participants [out of 3,228; 20.4%]. Among them, 212 participants (32.1%) had received a previous COVID‐19 test. Four of them (1.9%) reported a positive test result. After recruitment, 18 participants (2.7%) had SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in at least one immunoassay. Overall, 21 participants (3.2%) had any evidence of a past or current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Among them, 13 (61.9%) were not aware of direct COVID‐19 exposure and 9 (42.9%) did not report any clinical symptoms. COVID‐19 exposure at home (adjusted OR (aOR) with 95% CI: 47.82 (5.49, 416.62)) was associated with SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence. We observed no evidence for an association between seroprevalence and exposure at work (aOR 0.48 (0.13, 1.70)) or with COVID‐19 risk area according to the working place (aOR for intermediate‐risk vs. high‐risk: 1.97 (0.42, 9.22), aOR for low‐risk versus high‐risk: 2.10 (0.40, 11.06); p = .655). Reported compliance of HCWs to wear PPE differed ( p < .001) between working in high‐risk (98.3%) and in intermediate‐risk areas (69.8%). In conclusion, compared to administration staff, we observed no additional risk to acquire SARS‐CoV‐2 infections by patient care, probably due to high compliance to wear PPE.

show abstract

“…In einer Studie aus Bayern (Finkenzeller et al 2020) in der damals am stärksten von der COVID-19-Pandemie betroffenen Region wurden bei Beschäftigten der Kliniken Nordoberpfalz sowie einer Kontrollgruppe Antikörper gegen COVID-19 bestimmt sowie anamnestische Daten mittels eines Fragebogens erhoben. Eine deutlich erhöhte Antikörperprävalenz zeigte sich unter anderem beim Pflegepersonal und beim Reinigungspersonal.…”

Section: Infektionsquote In %unclassified

COVID-19-Infektionsquote im Bau- und Reinigungsgewerbe: bekannte Infektionen und Dunkelziffer. Teil 1 – Männer

Solbach¹,

Seidel²,

Wahl-Wachendorf³

2022

ASU

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

COVID-19 infection rate in the construction and cleaning industry: known infections and unrecorded cases. Part 1 – men Aim: The aims of this study were to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 in the construction industry in Germany, the number of unreported cases (under-recording factor) and whether an increase in risk compared to the general population can be assumed in the construction industry, and to examine the influence of certain possible job-specific risk factors such as the location and nature of the activity on the infection-rate. Methods: We conducted a COVID-19 seroepidemiological study of n = 3,493 men who attended one of the participating occupational health service centres for occupational medical examinations. A questionnaire was also completed by the study participants on living conditions, occupational activity, position in the occupation and known previous infections, among other factors. Results: 3.4% of the men disclosed a previous COVID-19 Infection. Of the n = 3,374 men with no known infection, COVID-19 antibodies were found in n = 84 of the subject group (2.4 % relative to the basic population), hence 5.8 % of the men had a COVID-19 infection. Relative to the known COVID-19 infections, the number of unreported cases of non-diagnosed COVID-19 Infections (under-reporting factor) was thus 70 %. A clear influence of work on construction sites and in the cleaning industry could not be detected. For office work, there were indications of an increased risk of infection. Compared to the general population, it is unlikely that there is an increased risk associated with working on construction sites. The infection rate was lower in smokers than in non-smokers. Conclusion: Given 70 % unreported cases, company doctors, for instance, should use the determination of COVID-19 antibodies in unvaccinated men without a known infection to offer a booster vaccination to them as well as to persons with a known infection. Furthermore, the under-reporting factor, which is not low, indicates that not all people with an infection are successfully recorded, so that compliance with general protective measures is of great importance for containing the pandemic. Keywords: COVID-19 – infection rate – unrecorded cases – construction industry

show abstract

SARS-CoV-2-Antikörper bei Intensiv- und Klinikpersonal

Cited by 18 publications

References 21 publications

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Workers in Germany: A Follow-Up Study

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Healthcare Workers in Germany: A Follow-Up Study

Prospective surveillance study in a 1,400‐bed university hospital: COVID‐19 exposure at home was the main risk factor for SARS‐CoV‐2 point seroprevalence among hospital staff

COVID-19-Infektionsquote im Bau- und Reinigungsgewerbe: bekannte Infektionen und Dunkelziffer. Teil 1 – Männer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About