Prospective observational study and serosurvey of SARS-CoV-2 infection in asymptomatic healthcare workers at a Canadian tertiary care center

The role of routine SARS-CoV-2 screening of healthcare-workers in acute care hospitals in 2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2. Vulnerable patient populations in particular must be protected, and clinics should not become transmission hotspots to avoid delaying medical treatments independent of COVID. Because asymptomatic transmission has been described, routine screening of asymptomatic HCW would potentially be able to interrupt chains of infection through early detection.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and WHO COVID‐19 Global literature on coronavirus with regard to non-incident related testing of healthcare workers using polymerase chain reaction on May 4th 2021. Studies since January 2020 were included. An assessment of risk of bias and representativeness was performed.

Results

The search identified 39 studies with heterogeneous designs. Data collection of the included studies took place from January to August 2020. The studies were conducted worldwide and the sample size of the included HCW ranged from 70 to 9449 participants. In total, 1000 of 51,700 (1.9%) asymptomatic HCW were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 using PCR testing. The proportion of positive test results ranged between 0 and 14.3%. No study reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days.

Discussion and conclusions

The heterogeneous proportions might be explained by different regional incidences, lock-downs, and pre-analytical pitfalls that reduce the sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal swab. The very high prevalence in some studies indicates that screening HCW for SARS-CoV-2 may be important particularly in geographical regions and pandemic periods with a high-incidence. With low numbers and an increasing rate of vaccinated HCW, a strict cost–benefit consideration must be made, especially in times of low incidences. Since we found no studies that reported on HCW-screening related reductions in infected person-days, re-evaluation should be done when these are available.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07554-5.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among healthcare personnel at a large health system in Atlanta

Background

Estimates of the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and factors associated with infection among healthcare personnel (HCP) vary widely. We conducted a serosurvey of HCP at a large public healthcare system in the Atlanta area.

Materials and methods

All employees of Grady Health System were invited to participate in mid-2020; a volunteer sample of those completing testing was included. Asymptomatic HCP were offered testing for IgG antibody and for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Symptomatic HCP were offered PCR testing. Antibody index values for IgG and cycle threshold values for PCR were evaluated for those with a positive result. An online survey was distributed at the time of testing.

Results

624 of 1677 distributed surveys (37.2%) were completed by 608 unique HCP. The majority were female (76.4%) and provided clinical care (70.9%). The most common occupations were clinician (24.8%) and nurse (23.5%). 37 of 608 (6.1%) HCP had detectable IgG. Exposure to a confirmed case of COVID-19 outside of the hospital was associated with detectable IgG (12.8% vs 4.4%, p = 0.02), but exposure to a patient with COVID-19 was not.

Conclusions

Among HCP in a large healthcare system, 6.1% had detectable SARS-CoV-2 IgG. Seropositivity was associated with exposures outside of the healthcare setting.

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence Among Health Care Workers in Major Private and Public Hospitals With COVID-19 Patient's Referral in Tehran, Iran

Estimating the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody seropositivity among health care workers (HCWs) is crucial. In this study, the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs of five hospitals of Tehran, Iran with high COVID-19 patient's referrals from April to June, 2020, was assessed. In this cross-sectional study, HCWs from three public and two private hospitals, selected randomly as a pilot, were included. Participants were asked questions on their demographic characteristics, medical history, hospital role, and usage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Iran FDA-approved SARS-CoV-2 ELISA kits were used to detect IgG and IgM antibodies in blood samples. The seroprevalence was estimated on the basis of ELISA test results and adjusted for test performance. Among the 2,065 participants, 1,825 (88.4%) and 240 (11.6%) HCWs were recruited from public and private hospitals, respectively. A total of 340 HCWs were tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG or IgM antibodies, and 17.9% of seropositive individuals were asymptomatic. The overall test performance-adjusted seroprevalence estimate among HCWs was 22.6 (95% CI: 20.2–25.1), and PPE usage was significantly higher among HCWs of public vs. private hospitals (66.5 vs. 20.0%). This study found that seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs was higher in private hospitals (37.0%; 95% CI: 28.6–46.2) than public hospitals (20.7%; 95% CI: 18.2–23.3), and also highest among assistant nurses and nurses, and lowest among janitor or superintendent categories. The PPE usage was especially suboptimal among HCWs in private hospitals. Continued effort in access to adequate PPE and regular screening of hospital staff for detecting asymptomatic personnel, especially during the upcoming wave of infection, are warranted.

Transmission of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) from pre and asymptomatic infected individuals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of SARS-Cov-2-infected persons who develop symptoms after testing (presymptomatics) or not at all (asymptomatics) in the pandemic spread is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine infectiousness and probable contribution of asymptomatic persons (at the time of testing) to pandemic SARS-CoV-2 spread.

DATA SOURCES

LitCovid, medRxiv, Google Scholar, and WHO Covid-19 databases (to 31 March 2021) and references in included studies.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies with a proven or hypothesized transmission chain based either on serial PCR cycle threshold readings and/or viral culture and/or gene sequencing, with adequate follow-up.

PARTICIPANTS

People exposed to SARS-CoV-2 within 2-14 days to index asymptomatic (at time of observation) infected individuals.

INTERVENTIONS

Reliability of symptom and signs was assessed within contemporary knowledge; transmission likelihood was assessed using adapted causality criteria.

METHODS

Systematic review. We contacted all included studies' corresponding authors requesting further details.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies from a diverse setting with substantial methodological variation (this field lacks standardized methodology). At initial testing, prevalence of asymptomatic cases was 12.5-100%. Of these, 6-100% were later determined to be presymptomatic, this proportion varying according to setting, methods of case ascertainment and population. Nursing/care home facilities reported high rates of presymptomatic: 50-100% (n = 3 studies). Fourteen studies were classified as high risk of, and four studies as at moderate risk of symptom ascertainment bias. High-risk studies may be less likely to distinguish between presymptomatic and asymptomatic cases. Six asymptomatic studies and four presymptomatic studies reported culturing infectious virus; data were too sparse to determine infectiousness duration. Three studies provided evidence of possible and three of probable/likely asymptomatic transmission; five studies provided possible and two probable/likely presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

CONCLUSION

High-quality studies provide probable evidence of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, with highly variable estimated transmission rates.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among 7950 healthcare workers in the Region of Southern Denmark

OBJECTIVE

Healthcare workers (HCWs) carry a pronounced risk of acquiring severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The aim of this study was to determine the seroprevalence and potential risk factors of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs in the Region of Southern Denmark after the first pandemic wave in the spring of 2020.

METHODS

This was an observational study conducted between May and June 2020. SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgM antibodies were measured in plasma. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire consisting of demographic information, risk factors, and COVID-19-related symptoms.

RESULTS

A total of 7950 HCWs participated. The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 2.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-2.4%). Seropositive participants were significantly older (mean age 48.9 years vs 46.7 years in seronegative participants, P = 0.022) and a higher percentage had experienced at least one symptom of COVID-19 (P < 0.001). The seroprevalence was significantly higher among HCWs working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (3.5%; OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.44-2.84). Seroprevalence was significantly related to 11-50 close physical contacts per day outside work (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.22).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was low in HCWs. However, the occupational risk of contracting the infection was found to be higher for those working on dedicated COVID-19 wards. Further, the results imply that attention should be paid to occupational risk factors in planning pandemic preparedness.

The front-line during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: healthcare personnel

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An estimated four to 11% of reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases occurs in healthcare personnel (HCP). HCP are at high risk of acquiring and transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their close contact with individuals with recognized and unrecognized COVID-19. We summarize the literature to date describing the epidemiology, identifying risk factors associated with COVID-19, and analyzing clinical characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCP.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCP ranges from 0.7 to 45%. Although there is heterogeneity in the seroprevalence rate reported in the literature, HCP may be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from exposure to patients with COVID-19. The literature supports that this can be minimized with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, proper hand hygiene, appropriate PPE use, and other infection prevention measures. In addition, infections in HCP are commonly acquired in the community as well as in nonclinical care settings including break rooms or work rooms.

SUMMARY

While much focus has been on minimizing patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2, additional efforts are needed to prevent exposures in nonclinical care settings and in the community.

Prospective Observational COVID-19 Screening and Monitoring of Asymptomatic Cancer Center Health-Care Workers with a Rapid Serological Test

Health-care workers (HCW) are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, if asymptomatic, for transmitting the virus to fragile cancer patients. We monitored all asymptomatic HCWs of a cancer institute (94% of all employees agreed to enter the study) with the rapid serological test, VivaDiag^TM, identifying SARS-CoV-2 associated-IgM/IgG. The tests were performed at time 0 (n = 606) and after 14 days (n = 393). Overall, the VivaDiag^TM results of nine HCWs (1.5%) were positive, with one confirmed to be SARS-CoV-2-positive after oropharyngeal swab testing by RT-PCR. At time 0, all nine cases showed IgM expression while IgG was detected in only one. After 14 days, IgM persisted in all the cases, while IgG became evident in four. A chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) confirmed IgM positivity in 5/13 VivaDiag^TM positive cases and IgG positivity in 4/5 VivaDiag^TM positive cases. Our study suggests that the VivaDiag^TM test can be of help in identifying SARS-CoV-2 infected people in cohorts of subjects with a high prevalence.