A SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a plastics manufacturing plant.

BACKGROUND: A SARS-CoV-2 outbreak with an attack rate of 14.3% was reported at a plastics manufacturing plant in England. METHODS: Between 23rd March and 13th May 2021, the COVID-OUT team undertook a comprehensive outbreak investigation, including environmental assessment, surface sampling, molecular and serological testing, and detailed questionnaires, to identify potential SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes, and workplace- and worker-related risk factors. RESULTS: While ventilation, indicated using real-time CO2 proxy measures, was generally adequate on-site, the technical office with the highest localized attack rate (21.4%) frequently reached peaks in CO2 of 2100ppm. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was found in low levels (Ct ≥35) in surface samples collected across the site. High noise levels (79dB) were recorded in the main production area, and study participants reported having close work contacts (73.1%) and sharing tools (75.5%). Only 20.0% of participants reported using a surgical mask and/or FFP2/FFP3 respirator at least half the time and 71.0% expressed concerns regarding potential pay decreases and/or unemployment due to self-isolation or workplace closure. CONCLUSIONS: The findings reinforce the importance of enhanced infection control measures in manufacturing sectors, including improved ventilation with possible consideration of CO2 monitoring, utilising air cleaning interventions in enclosed environments, and provision of good-quality face masks (i.e., surgical masks or FFP2/FFP3 respirators) especially when social distancing cannot be maintained. Further research on the impacts of job security-related concerns is warranted.

Occupational differences in risk of COVID-19: findings and methodological issues

IntroductionIt is well-established that certain occupations that have frequent contact with patients (e.g. health care workers) or the public (e.g. bus drivers), may have increased risks of Covid-19. However, estimating these risks involves a number of important methodological problems. Not everyone who has a SARS-CoV-2 infection gets symptoms;not everyone with symptoms gets tested;not all tests yield valid results.MethodsTherefore, a variety of approaches are necessary for obtaoning valid estimates of the (relative) risks of Covid-19 in various occupational groups. These include: (i) linkage with census data to adjust for non-workplace factors;(ii) test-negative design studies of Covid-19 infection;(iii) excess mortality analyses;and (iv) proportional mortality analyses.ResultsSome occupations such as health care and social care workers have consistently increased risks of Covid-19 infection and mortality. Other occupations have markedly different results depending on the method of analysis used.ConclusionsThese methodological issues are not insurmountable, but require careful study design and data analysis. In particular: (i) when not everyone is being tested, then comparisons between and within occupations can be biased, but this bias can be minimised using the test-negative design;and (ii) comparisons between occupations require careful and rigorous adjustment for work-related ‘living conditions'.

An Ecological Study of COVID-19 Infection Rates within the UK Food and Drink Processing Industry.

OBJECTIVES: Food processing facilities represent critical infrastructure that have stayed open during much of the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the burden of COVID-19 in this sector is thus important to help reduce the potential for workplace infection in future outbreaks. METHODS: We undertook a workplace survey in the UK food and drink processing sector and collected information on workplace size, characteristics (e.g. temperature, ventilation), and experience with COVID-19 (e.g. numbers of positive cases). For each site, we calculated COVID-19 case rates per month per 1000 workers. We performed an ecological analysis using negative binomial regression to assess the association between COVID-19 rates and workplace and local risk factors. RESULTS: Respondents from 33 companies including 66 individual sites completed the survey. COVID-19 cases were reported from the start of the pandemic up to June 2021. Respondents represented a range of industry subgroups, including grain milling/storage (n = 16), manufacture of malt (n = 14), manufacture of prepared meals (n = 12), manufacture of beverages (n = 8), distilling (n = 5), manufacture of baked goods (n = 5), and other (n = 6), with a total of 15 563 workers across all sites. Average monthly case rates per 1000 workers ranged from 0.9 in distilling to 6.1 in grain milling/storage. Incidence rate ratios were partially attenuated after adjusting for several local and workplace factors, though risks for one subgroup (grain milling/storage) remained elevated. Certain local and workplace characteristics were related to higher infection rates, such as higher deprivation (5 km only), a lower proportion of remote workers, lower proportion of workers in close proximity, and higher numbers of workers overall. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggests some heterogeneity in the rates of COVID-19 across sectors of the UK food and drink processing industry. Infection rates were associated with deprivation, the proportions of remote workers and workers in close proximity, and the number of workers.

Occupational differences in COVID-19 incidence, severity, and mortality in the United Kingdom: Available data and framework for analyses

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

Transmission and Control of SARS-CoV-2 in the Food Production Sector: A Rapid Narrative Review of the Literature.

This review aimed to provide an overview of the literature assessing the extent of COVID-19 transmission in the food processing sector along with the risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection/mortality rates in this setting, and the preventive measures used to reduce transmission. An electronic search was conducted using scientific databases, including Web of Science, OVID, PubMed and MedRxiv. The search strategy identified 26 papers that met the inclusion criteria. Six of these studies were based in the UK and the country with the most papers was the USA, with a total of nine papers. Findings showed some evidence of a high transmission level of SARS-CoV-2 within some areas of the food production sector. Risk factors associated with the spread included ethnicity, poor ventilation, lack of social distancing and lack of sick pay. The preventative measures included/recommended were social distancing, testing, adequate ventilation, cleaning regimes and access to PPE. Additional research focusing on the food production sector could show the potential variations in transmission and risk between each sub-sector. Future research focusing on the application of various preventative measures and their efficacy by sub-sector would be beneficial, while further qualitative research could help provide in-depth information regarding knowledge gaps.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection outside of healthcare settings

Objectives This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non‐healthcare‐related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

Investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 Outbreak at an Automotive Manufacturing Site in England.

Workplace-related outbreaks of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continue to occur globally. The manufacturing sector presents a particular concern for outbreaks, and a better understanding of transmission risks are needed. Between 9 March and 24 April 2021, the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) Outbreak Investigation to Understand Transmission (COVID-OUT) study undertook a comprehensive investigation of a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak at an automotive manufacturing site in England. The site had a total of 266 workers, and 51 SARS-CoV-2 infections. Overall, ventilation, humidity, and temperature at the site were assessed to be appropriate for the number of workers and the work being conducted. The company had implemented a number of infection control procedures, including provision of face coverings, spacing in the work, and welfare areas to allow for social distancing. However, observations of worker practices identified lapses in social distancing, although all were wearing face coverings. A total of 38 workers, including four confirmed cases, participated in the COVID-OUT study. The majority of participants received COVID-19 prevention training, though 42.9% also reported that their work required close physical contact with co-workers. Additionally, 73.7% and 34.2% had concerns regarding reductions in future income and future unemployment, respectively, due to self-isolation. This investigation adds to the growing body of evidence of SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks from the manufacturing sector. Despite a layered COVID-19 control strategy at this site, cases clustered in areas of high occupancy and close worker proximity.

Workplace interventions to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection outside of healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.   Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Elimination of exposure interventions We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy.  The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention.  The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective.  The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

How to investigate human health effects related to exposure to mixtures of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances: A systematic review of statistical methods.

BACKGROUND: Humans are exposed to several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) daily; however, most previous studies have focused on individual PFAS. Although attention to effects of exposure to mixtures of PFAS has grown in recent years, there is no consensus on the appropriate statistical methods that can be used to assess their combined effect on human health. OBJECTIVES: We aim to perform a comprehensive review of the statistical methods used in the existing studies which evaluate the association between exposure to mixtures of PFAS and any adverse human health effect. METHODS: The online databases PubMed, Embase and Scopus were searched for eligible studies, published during the last ten years (last search performed on April 08, 2021). Covidence software was used by two different reviewers to perform a title/abstract screening, followed by a full text revision of the selected papers. RESULTS: A total of 3640 papers were identified, and after the screening process, 53 papers were included in the current review. Most of the studies were published between 2019 and 2021 and were conducted mainly in North America and Europe; more than half of the studies (28 out of 53) were conducted on mother and child pairs. WQS (Weighted Quantile Sum) Regression and BKMR (Bayesian Kernel Machine Regression) were used in 36 out of 53 papers to model mixtures' effects. Health outcomes included in the studies are immunotoxicity (n = 8), fetal development (n = 7), neurodevelopment (n = 9), reproductive hormones (n = 6), thyroid hormones (n = 7), outcomes related to metabolic pathways (n = 16). CONCLUSION: Studies on human exposure to PFAS as complex mixtures and health consequences have substantially increased in the last few years. Based on our findings, we propose that addressing risk from PFAS mixtures will likely require combinations of approaches and implementation of constantly evolving statistical methods. Specific guidelines and tools for quality assessment and publication of mixture observational studies are warranted.

Occupational differences in COVID-19 incidence, severity, and mortality in the United Kingdom: Available data and framework for analyses.

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

Exposure to Perfluoroalkyl Substances and Mortality for COVID-19: A Spatial Ecological Analysis in the Veneto Region (Italy).

BACKGROUND: In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is interest in assessing if per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) exposures are associated with any increased risk of COVID-19 or its severity, given the evidence of immunosuppression by some PFAS. The objective of this paper is to evaluate at the ecological level if a large area (Red Zone) of the Veneto Region, where residents were exposed for decades to drinking water contaminated by PFAS, showed higher mortality for COVID-19 than the rest of the region. METHODS: We fitted a Bayesian ecological regression model with spatially and not spatially structured random components on COVID-19 mortality at the municipality level (period between 21 February and 15 April 2020). The model included education score, background all-cause mortality (for the years 2015-2019), and an indicator for the Red Zone. The two random components are intended to adjust for potential hidden confounders. RESULTS: The COVID-19 crude mortality rate ratio for the Red Zone was 1.55 (90% Confidence Interval 1.25; 1.92). From the Bayesian ecological regression model adjusted for education level and baseline all-cause mortality, the rate ratio for the Red Zone was 1.60 (90% Credibility Interval 0.94; 2.51). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we observed a higher mortality risk for COVID-19 in a population heavily exposed to PFAS, which was possibly explained by PFAS immunosuppression, bioaccumulation in lung tissue, or pre-existing disease being related to PFAS.