Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers in a German tertiary care center: A sequential follow-up study

Brehm, Thomas Theo; Schwinge, Dorothee; Lampalzer, Sibylle; Schlicker, Veronika; Küchen, Julia; Thompson, M.C.; Ullrich, Felix; Huber, Samuel; Schmiedel, Stefan; Addo, Marylyn M.; Lütgehetmann, Marc; Knobloch, J; Wiesch, Julian Schulze zur; Lohse, Ansgar W.

doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113671

Cited by 39 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Seropositivity either from IgG, IgM or IgA against SARS-CoV-2 was reported at 9.3%. A German-based study by Brehm et al showed a notoriously low seroprevalence in HCW from a tertiary care center in November, with an overall seroprevalence of 1.8% (17). Similar studies have been done in China and India, with antibody positivity rates of 17.14% and 11.1% in July and November respectively, in HCW with negative swab samples (18,19).…”

Section: Seroprevalencementioning

confidence: 68%

Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to spread worldwide as a severe pandemic. Although its seroprevalence is highly variable among territories, it has been reported at around 10%, but higher in health workers. Evidence regarding cross-neutralizing response between SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 is still controversial. However, other previous coronaviruses may interfere with SARS-CoV-2 infection, since they are phylogenetically related and share the same target receptor. Further, the seroconversion of IgM and IgG occurs at around 12 days post onset of symptoms and most patients have neutralizing titers on days 14-20, with great titer variability. Neutralizing antibodies correlate positively with age, male sex, and severity of the disease. Moreover, the use of convalescent plasma has shown controversial results in terms of safety and efficacy, and due to the variable immune response among individuals, measuring antibody titers before transfusion is mostly required. Similarly, cellular immunity seems to be crucial in the resolution of the infection, as SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ and CD8+ T cells circulate to some extent in recovered patients. Of note, the duration of the antibody response has not been well established yet.

show abstract

Section: Seroprevalencementioning

confidence: 68%

Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Better knowledge about risk factors for a severe clinical course may have facilitated a better selection of patients requiring hospital admission [ 27 ]. Importantly, various infection control measures, including universal masking of healthcare workers and routine RT-PCR-screening of all patients upon admission, were established at our center [ 28 ], as the knowledge of the particular SARS-CoV-2 transmission patterns increased during the early months of 2020 [ 29 , 30 ]. Thus, the rate of nosocomial infections significantly decreased throughout the study period and vulnerable patient groups were more efficiently protected from COVID-19.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient Characteristics and Clinical Course of COVID-19 Patients Treated at a German Tertiary Center during the First and Second Waves in the Year 2020

Brehm

Heyer

Roedl

et al. 2021

JCM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we directly compared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients hospitalized during the first (27 February–28 July 2020) and second (29 July–31 December 2020) wave of the pandemic at a large tertiary center in northern Germany. Patients who presented during the first (n = 174) and second (n = 331) wave did not differ in age (median [IQR], 59 years [46, 71] vs. 58 years [42, 73]; p = 0.82) or age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (median [IQR], 2 [1, 4] vs. 2 [0, 4]; p = 0.50). During the second wave, a higher proportion of patients were treated as outpatients (11% [n = 20] vs. 20% [n = 67]), fewer patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (43% [n = 75] vs. 29% [n = 96]), and duration of hospitalization was significantly shorter (median days [IQR], 14 [8, 34] vs. 11 [5, 19]; p < 0.001). However, in-hospital mortality was high throughout the pandemic and did not differ between the two periods (16% [n = 27] vs. 16% [n = 54]; p = 0.89). While novel treatment strategies and increased knowledge about the clinical management of COVID-19 may have resulted in a less severe disease course in some patients, in-hospital mortality remained unaltered at a high level. These findings highlight the unabated need for efforts to hamper severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission, to increase vaccination coverage, and to develop novel treatment strategies to prevent mortality and decrease morbidity.

show abstract

“…A study from Northern Germany performed in July 2020 observed an overall seroprevalence of 1.8% in 1,253 HCW. They could not detect a significant difference in HCW directly involved in patient care compared to other hospital employees [ 19 ]. A longitudinal study of 679 HCW conducted in Milan, Italy observed similar seroprevalence rates as the current study: March 0.5%; April 5.4%; May 5.9% [ 20 ].…”

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

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital workers in a German tertiary care center: A sequential follow-up study

Cited by 39 publications

References 16 publications

Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review

Antibody Responses in COVID-19: A Review

Patient Characteristics and Clinical Course of COVID-19 Patients Treated at a German Tertiary Center during the First and Second Waves in the Year 2020

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About