Seroprevalence to SARS-CoV-2 Among Healthcare Workers in an Exclusive Pediatric Hospital

Madhusudan, Manoj; Sankar, Janani; Dhanalakshmi, K.; Putlibai, Sullochana; Balasubramanian, Sundaram

doi:10.1007/s13312-021-2170-1

Cited by 7 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been several studies examining the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 and the seroprevalence of IgM/IgG antibodies in HCWs compared to community levels, and results are varied [ 4 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. Though there have been fewer studies of pediatric HCWs to date, rates of positive serology in pediatric HCWs have consistently been found to be lower or equal to those measured in the general population, with the reported range of positive serology ranging from 0–16.9% [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 19 , 20 , 21 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the potential for increased exposure to SARS-CoV-2 among healthcare workers (HCWs) has led to numerous serologic studies, the pediatric HCW population remains somewhat less well surveyed [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ]. Pediatric HCW are in general exposed to a large variety of infectious diseases, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, at increased risk for both known and unknown exposure to SARS-CoV-2 given the varied presentation of COVID-19 in children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SARS-CoV-2 Serology Testing in an Asymptomatic, At-Risk Population: Methods, Results, Pitfalls

Heyming

Bacon

Lara

et al. 2021

Infectious Disease Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary aim of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a population of pediatric healthcare workers (HCWs). This study was conducted 14 May–13 July 2020. Study participants included pediatric HCWs at a pediatric hospital with either direct patient contact or close proximity to patient-care areas. SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were assessed via the Wytcote Superbio SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Fast Detection Kit and the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay. Participants underwent RT-PCR testing upon entry to the study and following rapid IgM+/IgG+ results; respiratory panel PCR (RP-PCR) was performed following IgM+ results. A total of 57 of 289 (19.7%) of participants demonstrated positive serology as assessed by the Wytcote rapid kit (12 on Day 1 and 45 throughout the study). However, only one of these participants demonstrated IgG+ serology via the Abbott assay. Two participants tested SARS-CoV-2+ via RT-PCR testing. One individual was adenovirus+ and enterovirus/rhinovirus+. In our study population, we observed a seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies of 0.35%. The lack of concordance between antibody tests suggests that the Wytcote rapid test kit may not be of use as a screening tool. However, the feasibility of the overall process indicates that a similar methodology may have potential for future epidemiologic surveillance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 Serology Testing in an Asymptomatic, At-Risk Population: Methods, Results, Pitfalls

Heyming

Bacon

Lara

et al. 2021

Infectious Disease Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conducted at a hospital/healthcare clinic/ICU Wang, [81] India Provides forecasted estimates Yadav, [82] India Focuses on patient cohort Ansari, [83] India Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Abraham, [84] India Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Giri, [85] India and hotspot regions Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Shah, [86] India and others Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Wong, [87] India and others Examines pediatric participants Zaveri, [88] India and others Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Bhattacharyya, [89] India and states Previous version Chauhan, [90] India and states Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Meghana, [91] India and states Provides forecasted estimates Mukherjee, [92] India and states Previous version Purkayastha, [93] India and states Previous version Patel, [94] India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Velumani, [95] India-12 cities across India Focuses on tested individuals Gupta, [96] India-52 districts and 20 states across India Focuses on SARI patient cohort Prakash, [97] India-Ahmedabad, Gujarat Focuses on healthcare workers Mahto, [98] India-Bihar Focuses on healthcare workers Malani, [99] India-Bihar Focuses on working individuals Madhusudan, [100] India-Chennai, Tamil Nadu Focuses on healthcare workers Pons Salort, [101] [105] India-Eastern India Focuses on healthcare workers Kataria, [106] India-Gurugram, Haryana Focuses on healthcare workers Ranjan, [107] India-Karnataka Provides no relevant seroprevalence or IFR Khan, [108] India-Kashmir Focuses on healthcare workers Kumar, [109] India-Kerala Focuses on healthcare workers Kaur, [110] India-Majha, Punjab Focuses on patient cohort Goenka, [111] India-metropolitan city Focuses on healthcare workers Kumar, [112] India-Mumbai, Maharashtra Focuses on healthcare workers . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.…”

Section: Acknowledgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rates in India: systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based estimation

Zimmermann

Bhattacharya

Purkayastha

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Fervorous investigation and dialogue surrounding the true number of SARS-CoV-2 related deaths and implied infection fatality rates in India have been ongoing throughout the pandemic, and especially pronounced during the nations devastating second wave. We aim to synthesize the existing literature on the true SARS-CoV-2 excess deaths and infection fatality rates (IFR) in India, through a systematic search followed by viable meta-analysis. We then provide updated epidemiological model-based estimates of the wave 1, wave 2 and combined IFRs using an extension of the Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Removed (SEIR) model, using data from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Methods Following PRISMA guidelines, the databases PubMed, Embase, Global Index Medicus, as well as BioRxiv, MedRxiv, and SSRN for preprints (accessed through iSearch), were searched on July 3, 2021 (with results verified through August 15, 2021). Altogether using a two-step approach, 4,765 initial citations were screened resulting in 37 citations included in the narrative review and 19 studies with 41 datapoints included in the quantitative synthesis. Using a random effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation, we meta-analyze IFR1 which is defined as the ratio of the total number of observed reported deaths divided by the total number of estimated infections and IFR2 (which accounts for death underreporting in the numerator of IFR1). For the latter, we provide lower and upper bounds based on the available range of estimates of death undercounting, often arising from an excess death calculation. The primary focus is to estimate pooled nationwide estimates of IFRs with the secondary goal of estimating pooled regional and state-specific estimates for SARS-CoV-2 related IFRs in India. We also try to stratify our empirical results across the first and the second wave. In tandem, we present updated SEIR model estimates of IFRs for waves 1, 2, and combined across the waves with observed case and death count data from April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021. Results For India countrywide, underreporting factors (URF) for cases (sourced from serosurveys) range from 14.3-29.1 in the four nationwide serosurveys; URFs for deaths (sourced from excess deaths reports) range from 4.4-11.9 with cumulative excess deaths ranging from 1.79-4.9 million (as of June 2021). Nationwide pooled IFR1 and IFR2 estimates for India are 0.097% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.067 - 0.140) and 0.365% (95% CI: 0.264 - 0.504) to 0.485% (95% CI: 0.344 - 0.685), respectively, again noting that IFR2 changes as excess deaths estimates vary. Among the included studies in this meta-analysis, the IFR1 generally appear to decrease over time from the earliest study end date to the latest study end date (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR1 changed from 0.199 to 0.055%), whereas a similar trend is not as readily evident for IFR2 due to the wide variation in excess death estimates (from 4 June 2020 to 6 July 2021, IFR2 ranged from (0.290-1.316) to (0.241-0.651) %). Nationwide SEIR model-based combined estimates for IFR1 and IFR2 are 0.101% (95% CI: 0.097 - 0.116) and 0.367% (95% CI: 0.358 - 0.383), respectively, which largely reconcile with the empirical findings and concur with the lower end of the excess death estimates. An advantage of such epidemiological models is the ability to produce daily estimates with updated data with the disadvantages being that these estimates are subject to numerous assumptions, arduousness of validation and not directly using the available excess death data. Whether one uses empirical data or model-based estimation, it is evident that IFR2 is at least 3.6 times more than IFR1. Conclusion When incorporating case and death underreporting, the meta-analyzed cumulative infection fatality rate in India varies from 0.36%-0.48%, with a case underreporting factor ranging from 25-30 and a death underreporting factor ranging from 4-12. This implies, by June 30, 2021, India may have seen nearly 900 million infections and 1.7-4.9 million deaths when the reported numbers stood at 30.4 million cases and 412 thousand deaths (covid19india.org) with an observed case fatality rate (CFR) of 1.35%. We reiterate the need for timely and disaggregated infection and fatality data to examine the burden of the virus by age and other demographics. Large degrees of nationwide and state-specific death undercounting reinforce the call to improve death reporting within India.

show abstract

“…Studies from Denmark, Germany and the USA report SARS‐CoV‐2 seroprevalence in HCWs in the range of 2–9%, 7,14–17 which is higher compared to the general community and in HCWs working in dedicated COVID‐19 areas 14 . The few paediatric health‐care setting serosurveys reported from high prevalence settings (India, Spain and Italy) have found a prevalence of 4–16.8% in paediatric HCWs 18–20 …”

Section: Characteristic Level N %mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in health‐care workers at a tertiary paediatric hospital

Tuckerman

Lee

Wurzel

et al. 2021

J Paediatrics Child Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seroprevalence to SARS-CoV-2 Among Healthcare Workers in an Exclusive Pediatric Hospital

Cited by 7 publications

References 5 publications

SARS-CoV-2 Serology Testing in an Asymptomatic, At-Risk Population: Methods, Results, Pitfalls

SARS-CoV-2 Serology Testing in an Asymptomatic, At-Risk Population: Methods, Results, Pitfalls

SARS-CoV-2 infection fatality rates in India: systematic review, meta-analysis and model-based estimation

Seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies in health‐care workers at a tertiary paediatric hospital

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About