Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(1): e052752, 2022 01 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613004

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: It has been suggested that ethnic minorities have been disproportionally affected by the COVID-19. We aimed to determine whether prevalence and correlates of past SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied between six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Participants aged 25-79 years enrolled in the Healthy Life in an Urban Setting population-based prospective cohort (n=16 889) were randomly selected within ethnic groups and invited to participate in a cross-sectional COVID-19 seroprevalence substudy. OUTCOME MEASURES: We tested participants for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collected information on SARS-CoV-2 exposures. We estimated prevalence and correlates of SARS-CoV-2 exposure within ethnic groups using survey-weighted logistic regression adjusting for age, sex and calendar time. RESULTS: Between 24 June and 9 October 2020, we included 2497 participants. Adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence was comparable between ethnic Dutch (24/498; 5.1%, 95% CI 2.8% to 7.4%), South-Asian Surinamese (22/451; 4.9%, 95% CI 2.2% to 7.7%), African Surinamese (22/400; 8.3%, 95% CI 3.1% to 13.6%), Turkish (30/408; 7.9%, 95% CI 4.4% to 11.4%) and Moroccan (32/391; 7.2%, 95% CI 4.2% to 10.1%) participants, but higher among Ghanaians (95/327; 26.3%, 95% CI 18.5% to 34.0%). 57.1% of SARS-CoV-2-positive participants did not suspect or were unsure of being infected, which was lowest in African Surinamese (18.2%) and highest in Ghanaians (90.5%). Correlates of SARS-CoV-2 exposure varied across ethnic groups, while the most common correlate was having a household member suspected of infection. In Ghanaians, seropositivity was associated with older age, larger household sizes, living with small children, leaving home to work and attending religious services. CONCLUSIONS: No remarkable differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were observed between the largest ethnic groups in Amsterdam after the first wave of infections. The higher infection seroprevalence observed among Ghanaians, which passed mostly unnoticed, warrants wider prevention efforts and opportunities for non-symptom-based testing.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Child , Cross-Sectional Studies , Ghana , Humans , Netherlands/epidemiology , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Seroepidemiologic Studies
2.
Lancet Reg Health Eur ; 13: 100284, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1568916

ABSTRACT

Background: Surveillance data in high-income countries have reported more frequent SARS-CoV-2 diagnoses in ethnic minority groups. We examined the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 and its determinants in six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Methods: We analysed participants enrolled in the population-based HELIUS cohort, who were tested for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and answered COVID-19-related questions between June 24-October 9, 2020 (after the first wave) and November 23, 2020-March 31, 2021 (during the second wave). We modelled SARS-CoV-2 incidence from January 1, 2020-March 31, 2021 using Markov models adjusted for age and sex. We compared incidence between ethnic groups over time and identified determinants of incident infection within ethnic groups. Findings: 2,497 participants were tested after the first wave; 2,083 (83·4%) were tested during the second wave. Median age at first visit was 54 years (interquartile range=44-61); 56·6% were female. Compared to Dutch-origin participants (15·9%), cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in participants of South-Asian Surinamese (25·0%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]=1·66; 95%CI=1·16-2·40), African Surinamese (28·9%, aHR=1·97; 95%CI=1·37-2·83), Turkish (37·0%; aHR=2·67; 95%CI=1·89-3·78), Moroccan (41·9%; aHR=3·13; 95%CI=2·22-4·42), and Ghanaian (64·6%; aHR=6·00; 95%CI=4·33-8·30) origin. Compared to those of Dutch origin, differences in incidence became wider during the second versus first wave for all ethnic minority groups (all p-values for interaction<0·05), except Ghanaians. Having household members with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, larger household size, and low health literacy were common determinants of SARS-CoV-2 incidence across groups. Interpretation: SARS-CoV-2 incidence was higher in the largest ethnic minority groups of Amsterdam, particularly during the second wave. Prevention measures, including vaccination, should be encouraged in these groups. Funding: ZonMw, Public Health Service of Amsterdam, Dutch Heart Foundation, European Union, European Fund for the Integration of non-EU immigrants.

3.
Eur Geriatr Med ; 2021 Nov 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525644

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To assess whether one swab can be used to perform both the antigen-detection rapid diagnostic test (Ag-RDT) and reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for COVID-19 detection during an outbreak in the nursing home (NH) setting. METHODS: The single-swab method (SSM), where the Ag-RDT is performed with the transport medium used for RT-PCR, was evaluated in three Dutch NHs and compared to the laboratory setting. We collected Ag-RDT and RT-PCR results, NH resident characteristics and symptomatology. In addition, two focus groups were held with the involved care professionals to gain insight into the feasibility of the SMM in the NH setting. RESULTS: In the NH setting, the SSM had a sensitivity of 51% and a specificity of 89% compared to RT-PCR. These were lower than in the laboratory setting (69% and 100% respectively). Yet, when stratified for cycle threshold values, the sensitivity became comparable between the settings. Symptoms occurred more frequent in the Ag-RDT+ group than Ag-RDT- group. Resident characteristics did not differ between these groups. Based on the focus groups, the SSM was feasible to perform if certain requirements, such as availability of staff, equipment and proper training, were met. However, the rapid availability of the test results were perceived as a dilemma. CONCLUSION: The advantages and disadvantages need to be considered before implementation of the SSM can be recommended in the NH setting. For the vulnerable NH residents, it is important to find the right balance between effective testing policy and the burden this imposes.

4.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(7): e2118554, 2021 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1328587

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/genetics , Personnel, Hospital , Phylogeny , Population Surveillance , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged
5.
J Clin Virol ; 139: 104821, 2021 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1188731

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Detecting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies may help to diagnose COVID-19. Head-to-head validation of different types of immunoassays in well-characterized cohorts of hospitalized patients remains needed. METHODS: We validated three chemiluminescence immunoassays (CLIAs) (Liaison, Elecsys, and Abbott) and one single molecule array assay (SIMOA) (Quanterix) for automated analyzers, one rapid immunoassay RIA (AllTest), and one ELISA (Wantai) in parallel in first samples from 126 PCR confirmed COVID-19 hospitalized patients and 158 pre-COVID-19 patients. Specificity of the AllTest was also tested in 106 patients with confirmed parasitic and dengue virus infections. Specificity of the Wantai assay was not tested due to limitations in sample volumes. RESULTS: Overall sensitivity in first samples was 70.6 % for the Liaison, 71.4 % for the Elecsys, 75.4 % for the Abbott, 70.6 % for the Quanterix, 77.8 % for the AllTest, and 88.9 % for the Wantai assay, respectively. Sensitivity was between 77.4 % (Liaison) and 94.0 % (Wantai) after 10 dpso. No false positive results were observed for the Elecsys and Abbott assays. Specificity was 91.1 % for the Quanterix, 96.2 % for the Liaison, and 98.1 % for the AllTest assay, respectively. CONCLUSION: We conclude that low sensitivity of all immunoassays limits their use early after onset of illness in diagnosing COVID-19 in hospitalized patients. After 10 dpso, the Wantai ELISA has a relatively high sensitivity, followed by the point-of-care AllTest RIA that compares favorably with automated analyzer immunoassays.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/blood , COVID-19/diagnosis , Immunoassay/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL