COVID-19 Viral and Serology Testing in New York City Health Care Workers

COVID-19 infection and seroconversion rates in healthcare workers in Lebanon: An observational study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is a recent pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCW) are at high risk of acquiring the infection and transmitting it to others. Seroprevalence for COVID-19 among HCW varies between countries, hospitals in the same country and even among different departments in the same hospital. In this study, we aim to determine the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 antibodies and the seroconversion among the HCW in our hospital. A total of 203 HCW were included. The rate of conversion to seropositive was 19.7% in total, with a rate of 13.4% in female versus 25% in male. The seropositivity in the House keeping group was 83%, followed by 45% in the COVID Floor while the seropositivity in the Anesthesia was 4% and the Infection Control 0%. The highest seropositivity rate in the COVID floor, and in the intensive care unit was explained by the long time spent with the patients. While in the inhalation team and the anesthesia, the lower rates of seropositivity was due to the N95 mask wearing the whole time. Seropositivity for COVID-19 in HCW is a major public health concern. Policies should be implemented to better protect HCWs.

Incidence and risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection among workers in a public health laboratory in Tunisia

The aim of this study was to measure the extent of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among workers at the Institut Pasteur de Tunis (IPT), a public health laboratory involved in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic in Tunisia, and to identify risk factors for infection in this occupational setting. A cross-sectional survey was conducted on IPT workers not vaccinated against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Participants completed a questionnaire that included a history of reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Immunoglobulin G antibodies against the receptor-binding domain of the spike antigen (anti-S-RBD IgG) and the nucleocapsid protein (anti-N IgG) of the SARS-CoV-2 virus were detected by enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA). A multivariate analysis was used to identify factors significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 428 workers were enrolled in the study. The prevalence of anti-S-RBD and/or anti-N IgG antibodies was 32.9% [28.7-37.4]. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection (positive serology and/or previous positive RT-PCR test) was 40.0% [35.5-44.9], while the proportion with asymptomatic infection was 32.9%. One-third of the participants with RT-PCR-confirmed infection tested seronegative more than 90 days postinfection. Participants aged over 40 and laborers were more susceptible to infection (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.65 [1.08-2.51] and AOR = 2.67 [1.45-4.89], respectively), while tobacco smokers had a lower risk of infection (AOR = 0.54 [0.29-0.97]). The SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among IPT workers was not significantly different from that detected concurrently in the general population. Hence, the professional activities conducted in this public health laboratory did not generate additional risk to that incurred outside the institute in day-to-day activities.

Seroprevalence of COVID-19 and Psychological Distress among Front Liners at the Universiti Malaysia Sabah Campus during the Third Wave of COVID-19

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck the globe and disrupted various aspects of psychological wellbeing, more so in frontline workers. Research on assessing the seroprevalence of COVID-19 has been scarce; in addition, there are limited studies assessing the association between the seroprevalence of COVID-19 and psychological distress. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the seroprevalence of COVID-19 and the prevalence of psychological distress and to determine whether sociodemographic variables, occupational information variables, coping styles, and psychological processes might contribute to the development of psychological distress. A cross-sectional study involving 168 Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) front liners was carried out to assess these issues. The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) was employed to assess psychological distress, together with the COVID-19 Rapid Test Kit Antibody (RTK Ab) and a series of questionnaires, including a sociodemographic and occupational information questionnaire, the Balanced Index of Psychological Mindedness (BIPM) questionnaire, the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS), the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ-II), and the Brief COPE questionnaire. The results demonstrated a seroprevalence of COVID-19 at 8.3% (95% CI = 5.0–14.0). Non-healthcare workers (HCWs) had a higher COVID-19 prevalence. Meanwhile, the prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress among front liners was low (3.0%, 3.6%, and 1.2%, respectively). Younger people (aged 30 years old or less) and HCWs had a higher prevalence of psychological distress; being a HCW was significantly associated with a higher level of anxiety. Dysfunctional coping and psychological inflexibility were consistently found to be predictors for higher levels of the three psychological distress variables. This study suggested some alternatives that could be explored by mental health providers to address mental health issues among front liners at universities.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence around the world: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Covid-19 has been one of the major concerns around the world in the last 2 years. One of the challenges of this disease has been to determine its prevalence. Conflicting results of the serology test in Covid explored the need for an updated meta-analysis on this issue. Thus, this systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of global SARS-CoV-2 serology in different populations and geographical areas.

METHODS

To identify studies evaluating the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2, a comprehensive literature search was performed from international databases, including Medline (PubMed), Web of Sciences, Scopus, EMBASE, and CINHAL.

RESULTS

In this meta-analysis, the results showed that SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence is between 3 and 15% worldwide. In Eastern Mediterranean, the pooled estimate of seroprevalence SARS-CoV-2 was 15% (CI 95% 5-29%), and in Africa, the pooled estimate was 6% (CI 95% 1-13%). In America, the pooled estimate was 8% (CI 95% 6-11%), and in Europe, the pooled estimate was 5% (CI 95% 4-6%). Also the last region, Western Pacific, the pooled estimate was 3% (CI 95% 2-4%). Besides, we analyzed three of these areas separately. This analysis estimated the prevalence in subgroups such as study population, diagnostic methods, sampling methods, time, perspective, and type of the study.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis showed that the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 has been between 3 and 15% worldwide. Even considering the low estimate of this rate and the increasing vaccination in the world, many people are still susceptible to SARS-CoV-2.

An Effective Mechanism for the Early Detection and Containment of Healthcare Worker Infections in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed healthcare workers (HCWs) to serious infection risks. In this context, the proactive monitoring of HCWs is the first step toward reducing intrahospital transmissions and safeguarding the HCW population, as well as reflecting the preparedness and response of the healthcare system. As such, this study systematically reviewed the literature on evidence-based effective monitoring measures for HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This was followed by a meta-synthesis to compile the key findings, thus, providing a clearer overall understanding of the subject. Effective monitoring measures of syndromic surveillance, testing, contact tracing, and exposure management are distilled and further integrated to create a whole-process monitoring workflow framework. Taken together, a mechanism for the early detection and containment of HCW infections is, thus, constituted, providing a composite set of practical recommendations to healthcare facility leadership and policy makers to reduce nosocomial transmission rates while maintaining adequate staff for medical services. In this regard, our study paves the way for future studies aimed at strengthening surveillance capacities and upgrading public health system resilience, in order to respond more efficiently to future pandemic threats.

Prevalence, Distribution and IgG Antibody Levels Associated with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Among Health-System and Community-Based Employees and Patients

BACKGROUND

Following the high morbidity and mortality due to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in New Orleans, Louisiana, we sought to assess progress toward herd immunity.

METHODS

Ochsner Health employees and patients who volunteered for Abbott SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody test between March 1 and May 1, 2020 were included. We estimated IgG prevalence and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for variables associated with IgG test status.

RESULTS

Of the 13,343 participants with IgG test results, 78.6% were women, 70.6% were non-Hispanic White, 21.1% non-Hispanic Black, 2.9% Hispanic Americans and 5.4% belonged to other races. Overall, 7.99% (95% CI: 7.53-8.45%) of the participants tested IgG positive. In age-, sex- and body mass index (BMI)-adjusted analyses, non-Hispanic Blacks were 2.7-times more likely to test positive than non-Hispanic Whites (OR=2.72; 95% CI: 2.33-3.19). Corresponding ORs (95% CIs) were 1.29 (0.84-1.99) for Hispanic Americans and 1.22 (0.85-1.75) for Other race/ethnicities. Compared to participants in administrative occupations, physician assistants (OR=7.14; 95% CI: 1.72-29.6) and therapists (OR=4.74; 95% CI: 1.49-15.03) were significantly more likely to have IgG antibodies while the association among nurses was not significant (OR=2.35; 95% CI: 0.96-5.77). Relative to 1.40, the test threshold for positivity, our measurements indicate a strong immune response (5.38±1.69), especially among those with a higher BMI.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies were prevalent only in 8% of the participants. IgG prevalence was highest among non-Hispanic Blacks and participants with higher BMI but was lower among older participants.

Risk Groups for SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Healthcare Workers: Community Versus Hospital Transmission

BACKGROUND

We aimed to detect the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs) in 2020 before the vaccination era.

METHODS

We surveyed SARS-CoV-2 infection among the HCWs in a hospital through screening for antibody levels and the detection of viral RNA by RT-PCR between May 2020 and December 2020. Occupational and non-occupational potential predictors of disease were surveyed for the HCWs included in this study.

RESULTS

Among 1925 personnel in the hospital, 1732 were included to the study with a response rate of 90%. The overall infection rate of HCWs was 16.3% at the end of 2020, before vaccinations started. In the multivariate analysis, being janitorial staff (OR: 2.24, CI: 1.21-4.14, p = 0.011), being a medical secretary (OR: 4.17, CI: 2.12-8.18, p < 0.001), having at least one household member with a COVID-19 diagnosis (OR: 8.98, CI: 6.64-12.15, p < 0.001), and number of household members > 3 (OR: 1.67, CI: 1.26-2.22, p < 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical secretaries and janitorial staff were under increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The community-hospital gradient can explain the mode of transmission for infection among HCWs. In the setting of this study, community measures were less strict, whereas hospital infection control was adequate and provided necessary personal protective equipment. Increasing risk in larger households and households with diagnosed COVID-19 patient indicates the community-acquired transmission of the infection.

Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers

IMPORTANCE

It is unclear when, where, and by whom health care workers (HCWs) working in hospitals are infected with SARS-CoV-2.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how often and in what manner nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in HCW groups with varying exposure to patients with COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study comprised 4 weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collection of questionnaires from March 23 to June 25, 2020, combined with phylogenetic and epidemiologic transmission analyses at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Included individuals were HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and HCWs not working in patient care. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020.

EXPOSURES

Varying work-related exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in blood samples, were measured.

RESULTS

Among 801 HCWs, there were 439 HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, 164 HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and 198 HCWs not working in patient care. There were 580 (72.4%) women, and the median (interquartile range) age was 36 (29-50) years. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was increased among HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19 (54 HCWs [13.2%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.4%]) compared with HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19 (11 HCWs [6.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.17-4.30) and HCWs not working in patient care (7 HCWs [3.6%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.1%]; HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.79-8.62). Among HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was increased among HCWs working on COVID-19 wards (32 of 134 HCWs [25.7%; 95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%]) compared with HCWs working on intensive care units (13 of 186 HCWs [7.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-10.7%]; HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.91-6.94), and HCWs working in emergency departments (7 of 102 HCWs [8.0%; 95% CI, 2.5%-13.1%]; HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.52-7.14). Epidemiologic data combined with phylogenetic analyses on COVID-19 wards identified 3 potential HCW-to-HCW transmission clusters. No patient-to-HCW transmission clusters could be identified in transmission analyses.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that HCWs working on COVID-19 wards were at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection with an important role for HCW-to-HCW transmission. These findings suggest that infection among HCWs deserves more consideration in infection prevention practice.

The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among health care workers before the era of vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among health care workers (HCWs) provides information about the spread of COVID-19 within health care facilities, and the risk groups.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to describe the rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and its determinants among HCWs.

DATA SOURCES

We used Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, EBSCOhost and Cochrane Library.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included the reports of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence with a sample size of minimum 1000 HCWs.

METHODS

The study was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, no. CRD42021230456). We used PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The keywords were "COVID-19", "SARS-CoV-2", "Coronavirus", "seroprevalence", "health care workers" and "risk factors".

RESULTS

In total 4329 reports were retrieved, duplications were removed; after filtering according to the title and abstract, 25 studies were selected. Risk of bias was assessed in 25 studies; it was low in 13 studies, medium in four studies, and high in eight studies. In meta-analysis using the random effect model, the weighted average of seroprevalence was calculated as 8% (95% CI 6-10%). The pooled seroprevalence rates of the selected variables that have a rate above the average were male HCWs with 9% (95% CI 7-11%); HCWs from ethnic minorities with 13% (95% CI 9-17%); high exposure 9% (95% CI 6-13%); exposure to the virus outside the health care setting 22% (95% CI 14-32%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis indicates a SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate of 8% among studies that included >1000 HCWs for the year 2020, before vaccinations started. The most common risk factors associated with higher seroprevalence rate were ethnicity, male gender and having a higher number of household contacts. Working as a frontline HCW was inconsistent in its association with higher seroprevalence.

The New York State SARS-CoV-2 Testing Consortium: Regional Communication in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, created an unprecedented need for comprehensive laboratory testing of populations, in order to meet the needs of medical practice and to guide the management and functioning of our society. With the greater New York metropolitan area as an epicenter of this pandemic beginning in March 2020, a consortium of laboratory leaders from the assembled New York academic medical institutions was formed to help identify and solve the challenges of deploying testing. This report brings forward the experience of this consortium, based on the real-world challenges which we encountered in testing patients and in supporting the recovery effort to reestablish the health care workplace. In coordination with the Greater New York Hospital Association and with the public health laboratory of New York State, this consortium communicated with state leadership to help inform public decision-making addressing the crisis. Through the length of the pandemic, the consortium has been a critical mechanism for sharing experience and best practices in dealing with issues including the following: instrument platforms, sample sources, test performance, pre- and post-analytical issues, supply chain, institutional testing capacity, pooled testing, biospecimen science, and research. The consortium also has been a mechanism for staying abreast of state and municipal policies and initiatives, and their impact on institutional and laboratory operations. The experience of this consortium may be of value to current and future laboratory professionals and policy-makers alike, in dealing with major events that impact regional laboratory services.