A Cross-Sectional Study of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies and Risk Factors for Seropositivity in Staff in Day Care Facilities and Preschools in Denmark.

The aim of this study was to provide information about immunity against COVID-19 along with risk factors and behavior among employees in day care facilities and preschools (DCS) in Denmark. In collaboration with the Danish Union of Pedagogues, during February and March 2021, 47,810 members were offered a point-of-care rapid SARS-CoV-2 antibody test (POCT) at work and were invited to fill in an electronic questionnaire covering COVID-19 exposure. Seroprevalence data from Danish blood donors (total Ig enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) were used as a proxy for the Danish population. A total of 21,018 (45%) DCS employees completed the questionnaire and reported their POCT result {median age, 44.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], [32.7 to 53.6]); females, 84.1%}, of which 20,267 (96.4%) were unvaccinated and included in analysis. A total of 1,857 (9.2%) participants tested seropositive, significantly higher than a seroprevalence at 7.6% (risk ratio [RR], 1.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 1.27) among 40,541 healthy blood donors (median age, 42 years [IQR, 28 to 53]; males, 51.3%). Exposure at work (RR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.3 to 3.6) was less of a risk factor than exposure within the household (RR, 12.7; 95% CI, 10.2 to 15.8). Less than 25% of participants reported wearing face protection at work. Most of the participants expressed some degree of fear of contracting COVID-19 both at work and outside work. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was slightly higher in DCS staff than in blood donors, but possible exposure at home was associated with a higher risk than at work. DCS staff expressed fear of contracting COVID-19, though there was limited use of face protection at work. IMPORTANCE Identifying at-risk groups and evaluating preventive interventions in at-risk groups is imperative for the ongoing pandemic as well as for the control of future epidemics. Although DCS staff have a much higher risk of being infected within their own household than at their workplace, most are fearful of being infected with COVID-19 or bringing COVID-19 to work. This represents an interesting dilemma and an important issue which should be addressed by public health authorities for risk communication and pandemic planning. This study design can be used in a strategy for ongoing surveillance of COVID-19 immunity or other infections in the population. The findings of this study can be used to assess the need for future preventive interventions in DCS, such as the use of personal protective equipment.

Persistent Symptoms and Sequelae After Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Not Requiring Hospitalization: Results From Testing Denmark, a Danish Cross-sectional Survey.

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with persistent symptoms ("long COVID"). We assessed the burden of long COVID among nonhospitalized adults with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: In the fall of 2020, a cross-sectional survey was performed in the adult Danish general population. This included a self-administered point-of-care test for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12), and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated symptom questions. Nonhospitalized respondents with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test ≥12 weeks before the survey (cases) were matched (1:10) to seronegative controls on age, sex, and body mass index. Propensity score-weighted odds ratios (ORs) and ORs for risk factors were estimated for each health outcome. Results: In total, 742 cases and 7420 controls were included. The attributable risk of at least 1 long-COVID symptom was 25.0 per 100 cases (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.2-27.4). Compared to controls, cases reported worse general health (OR, 5.9 [95% CI, 5.0-7.0]) and had higher odds for a broad range of symptoms, particularly loss of taste (OR, 11.8 [95% CI, 9.5-14.6]) and smell (OR, 11.2 [95% CI, 9.1-13.9]). Physical and Mental Component Summary scores were also significantly reduced with differences of -2.5 (95% CI, -3.1 to -1.8) and -2.0 (95% CI, -2.7 to -1.2), respectively. Female sex and severity of initial infection were major risk factors for long COVID. Conclusions: Nonhospitalized SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive individuals had significantly reduced physical and mental health, and 1 in 4 reported persistence of at least 1 long-COVID symptom.

Head-to-Head Comparison of Nasopharyngeal, Oropharyngeal and Nasal Swabs for SARS-CoV-2 Molecular Testing.

Nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) are considered the gold standard for SARS-CoV-2 testing but are technically challenging to perform and associated with discomfort. Alternative specimens for viral testing, such as oropharyngeal swabs (OPS) and nasal swabs, may be preferable, but strong evidence regarding their diagnostic sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 testing is still missing. We conducted a head-to-head prospective study to compare the sensitivity of NPS, OPS and nasal swabs specimens for SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing. Adults with an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 test were invited to participate. All participants had OPS, NPS and nasal swab performed by an otorhinolaryngologist. We included 51 confirmed SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the study. The sensitivity was highest for OPS at 94.1% (95% CI, 87 to 100%) compared to NPS at 92.5% (95% CI, 85 to 99%) (p = 1.00) and lowest for nasal swabs at 82.4% (95% CI, 72 to 93%) (p = 0.07). Combined OPS/NPS was detected in 100% of cases, while the combined OPS/nasal swab increased the sensitivity significantly to 96.1% (95% CI, 90 to 100%) compared to that of the nasal swab alone (p = 0.03). The mean Ct value for NPS was 24.98 compared to 26.63 for OPS (p = 0.084) and 30.60 for nasal swab (p = 0.002). OPS achieved a sensitivity comparable to NPS and should be considered an equivalent alternative for SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Subjective and psychophysical olfactory and gustatory dysfunction among COVID-19 outpatients; short- and long-term results.

BACKGROUND: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are early symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Between 20-80% of infected individuals report subjective altered sense of smell and/or taste during infection. Up to 2/3 of previously infected experience persistent olfactory and/or gustatory dysfunction after 6 months. The aim of this study was to examine subjective and psychophysical olfactory and gustatory function in non-hospitalized individuals with acute COVID-19 up to 6 months after infection. METHODS: Individuals aged 18-80-years with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test no older than 10 days, were eligible. Only individuals able to visit the outpatient examination facilities were included. Gustatory function was tested with the Burgharts Taste Strips and olfactory function was examined with the Brief Smell Identifications test (Danish version). Subjective symptoms were examined through an online questionnaire at inclusion, day 30, 90 and 180 after inclusion. RESULTS: Fifty-eight SARS-CoV-2 positive and 56 negative controls were included. 58.6% (34/58) of SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals vs. 8.9% (5/56) of negative controls reported subjective olfactory dysfunction at inclusion. For gustatory dysfunction, 46.5% (27/58) of positive individuals reported impairment compared to 8.9% (5/56) of negative controls. In psychophysical tests, 75.9% (46/58) had olfactory dysfunction and 43.1% (25/58) had gustatory dysfunction among the SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals at inclusion. Compared to negative controls, SARS-CoV-2 infected had significantly reduced olfaction and gustation. Previously infected individuals continued to report lower subjective sense of smell 30 days after inclusion, whereafter the difference between the groups diminished. However, after 180 days, 20.7% (12/58) positive individuals still reported reduced sense of smell and taste. CONCLUSION: Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions are prevalent symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there is inconsistency between subjective reporting and psychophysical test assessment of especially olfaction. Most individuals regain normal function after 30 days, but approximately 20% report persistent olfactory and gustatory dysfunction 6 months after infection.

Hepatitis of unknown aetiology in children - epidemiological overview of cases reported in Europe, 1 January to 16 June 2022.

Following the report of an excess in paediatric cases of severe acute hepatitis of unknown aetiology by the United Kingdom (UK) on 5 April 2022, 427 cases were reported from 20 countries in the World Health Organization European Region to the European Surveillance System TESSy from 1 January 2022 to 16 June 2022. Here, we analysed demographic, epidemiological, clinical and microbiological data available in TESSy. Of the reported cases, 77.3% were 5 years or younger and 53.5% had a positive test for adenovirus, 10.4% had a positive RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2 and 10.3% were coinfected with both pathogens. Cases with adenovirus infections were significantly more likely to be admitted to intensive care or high-dependency units (OR = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.18-3.74) and transplanted (OR = 3.36; 95% CI: 1.19-9.55) than cases with a negative test result for adenovirus, but this was no longer observed when looking at this association separately between the UK and other countries. Aetiological studies are needed to ascertain if adenovirus plays a role in this possible emergence of hepatitis cases in children and, if confirmed, the mechanisms that could be involved.

A nationwide questionnaire study of post-acute symptoms and health problems after SARS-CoV-2 infection in Denmark.

A considerable number of individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 continue to experience symptoms after the acute phase. Here, we report findings from a nationwide questionnaire study in Denmark including 61,002 RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases and 91,878 test-negative controls aged 15-years or older. Six to twelve months after the test, the risks of 18 out of 21 symptoms were elevated among test-positives. The largest adjusted risk differences (RD) were observed for dysosmia (RD = 10.92%, 95% CI 10.68-11.21%), dysgeusia (RD = 8.68%, 95% CI 8.43-8.93%), fatigue/exhaustion (RD = 8.43%, 95%CI 8.14-8.74%), dyspnea (RD = 4.87%, 95% CI 4.65-5.09%) and reduced strength in arms/legs (RD = 4.68%, 95% CI 4.45-4.89%). During the period from the test and until completion of the questionnaire, new diagnoses of anxiety (RD = 1.15%, 95% CI 0.95-1.34%) or depression (RD = 1.00%, 95% CI 0.81-1.19%) were also more common among test-positives. Even in a population where the majority of test-positives were not hospitalized, a considerable proportion experiences symptoms up to 12 months after infection. Being female or middle-aged increases risks.

A nationwide analytical and clinical evaluation of 44 rapid antigen tests for SARS-CoV-2 compared to RT-qPCR.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in massive testing by Rapid Antigen Tests (RAT) without solid independent data regarding clinical performance being available. Thus, decision on purchase of a specific RAT may rely on manufacturer-provided data and limited peer-reviewed data. METHODS: This study consists of two parts. In the retrospective analytical part, 33 RAT from 25 manufacturers were compared to RT-PCR on 100 negative and 204 positive deep oropharyngeal cavity samples divided into four groups based on RT-PCR Cq levels. In the prospective clinical part, nearly 200 individuals positive for SARS-CoV-2 and nearly 200 individuals negative for SARS-CoV-2 by routine RT-PCR testing were retested within 72 h for each of 44 included RAT from 26 manufacturers applying RT-PCR as the reference method. RESULTS: The overall analytical sensitivity differed significantly between the 33 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 42% (95% CI 35-49). All RAT presented analytical specificities of 100%. Likewise, the overall clinical sensitivity varied significantly between the 44 included RAT; from 2.5% (95% CI 0.5-4.8) to 94% (95% CI 91-97). All RAT presented clinical specificities between 98 and 100%. CONCLUSION: The study presents analytical as well as clinical performance data for 44 commercially available RAT compared to the same RT-PCR test. The study enables identification of individual RAT that has significantly higher sensitivity than other included RAT and may aid decision makers in selecting between the included RAT. FUNDING: The study was funded by a participant fee for each test and the Danish Regions.

Disability adjusted life years associated with COVID-19 in Denmark in the first year of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Burden of disease studies measure the public health impact of a disease in a society. The aim of this study was to quantify the direct burden of COVID-19 in the first 12 months of the epidemic in Denmark. METHODS: We collected national surveillance data on positive individuals for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR, hospitalization data, and COVID-19 mortality reported in the period between 26th of February, 2020 to 25th of February, 2021. We calculated disability adjusted life years (DALYs) based on the European Burden of Disease Network consensus COVID-19 model, which considers mild, severe, critical health states, and premature death. We conducted sensitivity analyses for two different death-registration scenarios, within 30 and 60 days after first positive test, respectively. RESULTS: We estimated that of the 211,823 individuals who tested positive to SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR in the one-year period, 124,163 (59%; 95% uncertainty interval (UI) 112,782-133,857) had at least mild symptoms of disease. The total estimated disease burden was 30,180 DALYs (95% UI 30,126; 30,242), corresponding to 520 DALYs/100,000. The disease burden was higher in the age groups above 70 years of age, particularly in men. Years of life lost (YLL) contributed with more than 99% of total DALYs. The results of the scenario analysis showed that defining COVID-19-related fatalities as deaths registered up to 30 days after the first positive test led to a lower YLL estimate than when using a 60-days window. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 led to a substantial public health impact in Denmark in the first full year of the epidemic. Our estimates suggest that it was the the sixth most frequent cause of YLL in Denmark in 2020. This impact will be higher when including the post-acute consequences of COVID-19 and indirect health outcomes.

Outcomes following SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals with and without solid organ transplantation-A Danish nationwide cohort study.

The risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, hospitalization and death, and the effects of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) is still debated. We performed a nationwide, population-based, matched cohort study, including all Danish SOTRs (n = 5184) and a matched cohort from the general population (n = 41 472). Cox regression analyses were used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs). SOTRs had a slightly increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and were vaccinated earlier than the general population. The overall risk of hospital contact with COVID-19, severe COVID-19, need for assisted respiration, and hospitalization followed by death was substantially higher in SOTRs (IRR: 32.8 95%CI [29.0-37.0], 9.2 [6.7-12.7], 12.5 [7.6-20.8], 12.4 [7.9-12.7]). The risk of hospitalization and death after SARS-CoV-2 infection decreased substantially in SOTRs after the emergence of the Omicron variant (IRR: 0.45 [0.37-0.56], 0.17 [0.09-0.30]). Three vaccinations reduced the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection only marginally compared to two vaccinations, but SOTRs with three vaccinations had a lower risk of death (IRR: 022 [0.16-0.35]). We conclude that SOTRs have a risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection comparable to the general population, but substantially increased the risk of hospitalization and death following SARS-CoV-2 infection. A third vaccination only reduces the risk of SARS-CoV2 infection marginally, but SOTRs vaccinated 3 times have reduced mortality.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among homeless people and shelter workers in Denmark: a nationwide cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: People experiencing homelessness (PEH) and associated shelter workers may be at higher risk of infection with "Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among PEH and shelter workers in Denmark. DESIGN AND METHODS: In November 2020, we conducted a nationwide cross-sectional seroprevalence study among PEH and shelter workers at 21 recruitment sites in Denmark. The assessment included a point-of-care test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, followed by a questionnaire. The seroprevalence was compared to that of geographically matched blood donors considered as a proxy for the background population, tested using a total Ig ELISA assay. RESULTS: We included 827 participants in the study, of whom 819 provided their SARS-CoV-2 antibody results. Of those, 628 were PEH (median age 50.8 (IQR 40.9-59.1) years, 35.5% female) and 191 were shelter workers (median age 46.6 (IQR 36.1-55.0) years and 74.5% female). The overall seroprevalence was 6.7% and was similar among PEH and shelter workers (6.8% vs 6.3%, p = 0.87); and 12.2% among all participants who engaged in sex work. The overall participant seroprevalence was significantly higher than that of the background population (2.9%, p < 0.001). When combining all participants who reported sex work or were recruited at designated safe havens, we found a significantly increased risk of seropositivity compared to other participants (OR 2.23, 95%CI 1.06-4.43, p = 0.02). Seropositive and seronegative participants reported a similar presence of at least one SARS-CoV-2 associated symptom (49% and 54%, respectively). INTERPRETATIONS: The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was more than twice as high among PEH and associated shelter workers, compared to the background population. These results could be taken into consideration when deciding in which phase PEH are eligible for a vaccine, as part of the Danish national SARS-CoV-2 vaccination program rollout. FUNDING: TrygFonden and HelseFonden.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in social housing areas in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is thought to be more prevalent among ethnic minorities and individuals with low socioeconomic status. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the COVID-19 pandemic among citizens 15 years or older in Denmark living in social housing (SH) areas. METHODS: We conducted a study between January 8th and January 31st, 2021 with recruitment in 13 selected SH areas. Participants were offered a point-of-care rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody test and a questionnaire concerning risk factors associated with COVID-19. As a proxy for the general Danish population we accessed data on seroprevalence from Danish blood donors (total Ig ELISA assay) in same time period. RESULTS: Of the 13,279 included participants, 2296 (17.3%) were seropositive (mean age 46.6 (SD 16.4) years, 54.2% female), which was 3 times higher than in the general Danish population (mean age 41.7 (SD 14.1) years, 48.5% female) in the same period (5.8%, risk ratios (RR) 2.96, 95% CI 2.78-3.16, p > 0.001). Seropositivity was higher among males (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.05-1.22%, p = 0.001) and increased with age, with an OR seropositivity of 1.03 for each 10-year increase in age (95% CI 1.00-1.06, p = 0.031). Close contact with COVID-19-infected individuals was associated with a higher risk of infection, especially among household members (OR 5.0, 95% CI 4.1-6.2 p < 0,001). Living at least four people in a household significantly increased the OR of seropositivity (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.02) as did living in a multi-generational household (OR 1.3 per generation, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p = 0.003). Only 1.6% of participants reported not following any of the national COVID-19 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Danish citizens living in SH areas of low socioeconomic status had a three times higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence compared to the general Danish population. The seroprevalence was significantly higher in males and increased slightly with age. Living in multiple generations households or in households of more than four persons was a strong risk factor for being seropositive. Results of this study can be used for future consideration of the need for preventive measures in the populations living in SH areas.

Testing Denmark: a Danish Nationwide Surveillance Study of COVID-19.

"Testing Denmark" is a national, large-scale, epidemiological surveillance study of SARS-CoV-2 in the Danish population. Between September and October 2020, approximately 1.3 million people (age >15 years) were randomly invited to fill in an electronic questionnaire covering COVID-19 exposures and symptoms. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was determined by point-of care rapid test (POCT) distributed to participants' home addresses. In total, 318,552 participants (24.5% invitees) completed the study and 2,519 (0.79%) were seropositive. Of the participants with a prior positive PCR test (n = 1,828), 29.1% were seropositive in the POCT. Although seropositivity increased with age, participants 61 years and over reported fewer symptoms and were tested less frequently. Seropositivity was associated with physical contact with SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (risk ratio [RR] 7.43, 95% CI: 6.57-8.41), particular in household members (RR 17.70, 95% CI: 15.60-20.10). A greater risk of seropositivity was seen in home care workers (RR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.58-2.78) compared to office workers. A high degree of adherence with national preventive recommendations was reported (e.g., >80% use of face masks), but no difference were found between seropositive and seronegative participants. The seroprevalence result was somewhat hampered by a lower-than-expected performance of the POCT. This is likely due to a low sensitivity of the POCT or problems reading the test results, and the main findings therefore relate to risk associations. More emphasis should be placed on age, occupation, and exposure in local communities. IMPORTANCE To date, including 318,522 participants, this is the largest population-based study with broad national participation where tests and questionnaires have been sent to participants' homes. We found that more emphasis from national and local authorities toward the risk of infection should be placed on age of tested individuals, type of occupation, as well as exposure in local communities and households. To meet the challenge that broad nationwide information can be difficult to gather. This study design sets the stage for a novel way of conducting studies. Additionally, this study design can be used as a supplementary model in future general test strategy for ongoing monitoring of COVID-19 immunity in the population, both from past infection and from vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, however, with attention to the complexity of performing and reading the POCT at home.

The Hammer vs Mitigation-A comparative retrospective register study of the Swedish and Danish national responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.

In the efforts to dampen the COVID-19 pandemic, governments are compelled to outweigh disease control efforts to the possible negative consequences of closing large parts of society. Although Denmark and Sweden are alike in political organization and health care, national responses to the 2020 COVID-19 epidemic differed noticeably. Denmark initiated a hard lock down followed by an outbreak control strategy (the so-called "hammer and dance" strategy), while Sweden's strategy was based on advising on social distancing, while keeping society open (a so-called mitigative strategy). The objective of this study is to describe national epidemic control strategies in Denmark and Sweden in 2020, and compare the epidemic dynamics in the two countries, with respect to number of COVID-19 cases, admissions to intensive care and mortality. Data on epidemic control efforts and COVID-associated morbidity/mortality were downloaded from official government and epidemic surveillance webpages and comparatively described using basic statistics. Overall, we found "the hammer" resulted in better epidemic control during 2020 with less COVID-19-associated admissions to intensive care and lower mortality.

Post-acute effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection in individuals not requiring hospital admission: a Danish population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Individuals admitted to hospital for COVID-19 might have persisting symptoms (so-called long COVID) and delayed complications after discharge. However, little is known regarding the risk for those not admitted to hospital. We therefore examined prescription drug and health-care use after SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospital admission. METHODS: This was a population-based cohort study using the Danish prescription, patient, and health insurance registries. All individuals with a positive or negative RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark between Feb 27 and May 31, 2020, were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes of interest were delayed acute complications, chronic disease, hospital visits due to persisting symptoms, and prescription drug use. We used data from non-hospitalised SARS-CoV-2-positive and matched SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals from 2 weeks to 6 months after a SARS-CoV-2 test to obtain propensity score-weighted risk differences (RDs) and risk ratios (RRs) for initiation of 14 drug groups and 27 hospital diagnoses indicative of potential post-acute effects. We also calculated prior event rate ratio-adjusted rate ratios of overall health-care use. This study is registered in the EU Electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies (EUPAS37658). FINDINGS: 10 498 eligible individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in Denmark from Feb 27 to May 31, 2020, of whom 8983 (85·6%) were alive and not admitted to hospital 2 weeks after their positive test. The matched SARS-CoV-2-negative reference population not admitted to hospital consisted of 80 894 individuals. Compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals, SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals were not at an increased risk of initiating new drugs (RD <0·1%) except bronchodilating agents, specifically short-acting ß2-agonists (117 [1·7%] of 6935 positive individuals vs 743 [1·3%] of 57 206 negative individuals; RD +0·4% [95% CI 0·1-0·7]; RR 1·32 [1·09-1·60]) and triptans (33 [0·4%] of 8292 vs 198 [0·3%] of 72 828; RD +0·1% [0·0-0·3]; RR 1·55 [1·07-2·25]). There was an increased risk of receiving hospital diagnoses of dyspnoea (103 [1·2%] of 8676 vs 499 [0·7%] of 76 728; RD +0·6% [0·4-0·8]; RR 2·00 [1·62-2·48]) and venous thromboembolism (20 [0·2%] of 8785 vs 110 [0·1%] of 78 872; RD +0·1% [0·0-0·2]; RR 1·77 [1·09-2·86]) for SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals compared with negative individuals, but no increased risk of other diagnoses. Prior event rate ratio-adjusted rate ratios of overall general practitioner visits (1·18 [95% CI 1·15-1·22]) and outpatient hospital visits (1·10 [1·05-1·16]), but not hospital admission, showed increases among SARS-CoV-2-positive individuals compared with SARS-CoV-2-negative individuals. INTERPRETATION: The absolute risk of severe post-acute complications after SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring hospital admission is low. However, increases in visits to general practitioners and outpatient hospital visits could indicate COVID-19 sequelae. FUNDING: None.

Self-Collected versus Healthcare Worker-Collected Swabs in the Diagnosis of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

The aim of this study was to compare the sensitivity of self-collected versus healthcare worker (HCW)-collected swabs for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. Symptomatic individuals referred for SARS-CoV-2 testing were invited to provide mobile-phone video-instructed self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal samples followed by a HCW-collected oropharyngeal sample. All samples were sent for analysis to the same microbiology laboratory, and the number of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants in the two tests was compared. A total of 109 participants were included, and 19 participants had SARS-CoV-2-positive results. The diagnostic sensitivity of the self-collected and HCW-collected swabs was 84.2% and 89.5%, respectively, with an acceptable agreement, Cohens kappa 0.82, p < 0.001. Further, results from a questionnaire answered by the participants found that loss of smell as a self-reported symptom was a strong predictor for a SARS-CoV-2-positive test. In conclusion, we found that self-collected oropharyngeal and nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing can be reliable compared to HCW-collected oropharyngeal samples.