Effect of Influenza Vaccination on Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Prospective Cohort Study of 46†000 Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess whether influenza vaccination has an impact on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A cohort of 46 112 healthcare workers were tested for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and filled in a survey on COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization, and influenza vaccination. RESULTS: The risk ratio of hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 for influenza vaccinated compared with unvaccinated participants was 1.00 for the seasonal vaccination in 2019/2020 (confidence interval, .56-1.78, P = 1.00). Likewise, no clinical effect of influenza vaccination on development of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was found. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings indicate that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19.

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.

Risk Factors for Being Seronegative following SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Health Care Workers in Denmark.

Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but being seronegative is observed in 1 to 9%. We aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with being seronegative following PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study, we screened health care workers (HCW) in the Capital Region of Denmark for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We performed three rounds of screening from April to October 2020 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method targeting SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies. Data on all participants' PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were captured from national registries. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate the probability of being seronegative and the related risk factors, respectively. Of 36,583 HCW, 866 (2.4%) had a positive PCR before or during the study period. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 866 HCW was 42 (31 to 53) years, and 666 (77%) were female. After a median of 132 (range, 35 to 180) days, 21 (2.4%) of 866 were seronegative. In a multivariable model, independent risk factors for being seronegative were self-reported asymptomatic or mild infection hazard ratio (HR) of 6.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 17; P < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) of ≥30, HR 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.8; P = 0.039). Only a few (2.4%) HCW were not seropositive. Asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges. IMPORTANCE Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but negative serology is observed in 1 to 9%. We found that asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and reduced risk of reinfection through 6 months: a Danish observational cohort study of 44 000 healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are a key factor in protecting against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined longitudinal changes in seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Copenhagen and the protective effect of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In this prospective study, screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (ELISA) was offered to HCWs three times over 6 months. HCW characteristics were obtained by questionnaires. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. RESULTS: From April to October 2020 we screened 44 698 HCWs, of whom 2811 were seropositive at least once. The seroprevalence increased from 4.0% (1501/37 452) to 7.4% (2022/27 457) during the period (p < 0.001) and was significantly higher than in non-HCWs. Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of seropositivity compared to non-frontline HCWs, with risk ratios (RRs) at the three rounds of 1.49 (95%CI 1.34-1.65, p < 0.001), 1.52 (1.39-1.68, p < 0.001) and 1.50 (1.38-1.64, p < 0.001). The seroprevalence was 1.42- to 2.25-fold higher (p < 0.001) in HCWs from dedicated COVID-19 wards than in other frontline HCWs. Seropositive HCWs had an RR of 0.35 (0.15-0.85, p 0.012) of reinfection during the following 6 months, and 2115 out of 2248 (95%) of those who were seropositive during rounds one or two remained seropositive after 4-6 months. The 133 of 2248 participants (5.0%) who seroreverted were slightly older and reported fewer symptoms than other seropositive participants. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs remained at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-month period. Seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 persisted for at least 6 months in the vast majority of HCWs and was associated with a significantly lower risk of reinfection.

Comparison of 16 Serological SARS-CoV-2 Immunoassays in 16 Clinical Laboratories.

Serological assays for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (Ab), immunoglobulin G (IgG), and IgM against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated 15 commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in 16 laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild, or moderate COVID-19, nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT); samples were collected 13 to 73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross-reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections, and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were Wantai ELISA total Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO in-house ELISA total Ab (96.0%), Ortho Vitros total Ab (95.3%), YHLO iFlash IgG (94.0%), Ortho Vitros IgG (93.3%), Siemens Atellica total Ab (93.2%), Roche Elecsys total Ab (92.7%), Abbott Architect IgG (90.0%), Abbott Alinity IgG (median 88.0%), DiaSorin Liaison XL IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens Vista total Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA IgG (78.0%), and Snibe Maglumi IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai IgM ELISA showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.

Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period. FINDINGS: Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82-4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12-1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31-1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22-1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34-2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22-12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. INTERPRETATION: The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19. FUNDING: Lundbeck Foundation.

Effectiveness of Adding a Mask Recommendation to Other Public Health Measures to Prevent SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Danish Mask Wearers : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational evidence suggests that mask wearing mitigates transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It is uncertain if this observed association arises through protection of uninfected wearers (protective effect), via reduced transmission from infected mask wearers (source control), or both. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether recommending surgical mask use outside the home reduces wearers' risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a setting where masks were uncommon and not among recommended public health measures. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (DANMASK-19 [Danish Study to Assess Face Masks for the Protection Against COVID-19 Infection]). (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04337541). SETTING: Denmark, April and May 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Adults spending more than 3 hours per day outside the home without occupational mask use. INTERVENTION: Encouragement to follow social distancing measures for coronavirus disease 2019, plus either no mask recommendation or a recommendation to wear a mask when outside the home among other persons together with a supply of 50 surgical masks and instructions for proper use. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 infection in the mask wearer at 1 month by antibody testing, polymerase chain reaction (PCR), or hospital diagnosis. The secondary outcome was PCR positivity for other respiratory viruses. RESULTS: A total of 3030 participants were randomly assigned to the recommendation to wear masks, and 2994 were assigned to control; 4862 completed the study. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 occurred in 42 participants recommended masks (1.8%) and 53 control participants (2.1%). The between-group difference was -0.3 percentage point (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.4 percentage point; P = 0.38) (odds ratio, 0.82 [CI, 0.54 to 1.23]; P = 0.33). Multiple imputation accounting for loss to follow-up yielded similar results. Although the difference observed was not statistically significant, the 95% CIs are compatible with a 46% reduction to a 23% increase in infection. LIMITATION: Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others. CONCLUSION: The recommendation to wear surgical masks to supplement other public health measures did not reduce the SARS-CoV-2 infection rate among wearers by more than 50% in a community with modest infection rates, some degree of social distancing, and uncommon general mask use. The data were compatible with lesser degrees of self-protection. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Salling Foundations.