High SARS-CoV-2 Prevalence among Healthcare Workers in Cochabamba, Bolivia.

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The aim of the study was to estimate the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among HCWs in Cochabamba, Bolivia and to determine the potential risk factors. In January 2021, a cross-sectional SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study was conducted in 783 volunteer clinical and non-clinical HCWs in tertiary care facilities. It was based on IgG detection using ELISA, chemiluminiscence, and seroneutralisation tests from dried blood spots. Analysis revealed a high seroprevalence (43.4%) of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. The combination of anosmia and ageusia (OR: 68.11; 95%-CI 24.83-186.80) was predictive of seropositivity. Belonging to the cleaning staff (OR: 1.94; 95%-CI 1.09-3.45), having more than two children in the same house (OR: 1.74; 95%-CI 1.12-2.71), and having been in contact with a close relative with COVID-19 (OR: 3.53; 95%-CI 2.24-5.58) were identified as risk factors for seropositivity in a multivariate analysis. A total of 47.5% of participants had received medication for COVID-19 treatment or prevention, and only ~50% of symptomatic subjects accessed PCR or antigenic testing. This study confirms a massive SARS-CoV-2 attack rate among HCWs in Cochabamba by the end of January 2021. The main risk factors identified are having a low-skilled job, living with children, and having been in contact with an infected relative in the household.

Limitations introduced by a low participation rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data.

BACKGROUND: There has been a large influx of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies, but comparability between the seroprevalence estimates has been an issue because of heterogeneities in testing platforms and study methodology. One potential source of heterogeneity is the response or participation rate. METHODS: We conducted a review of participation rates (PR) in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies collected by SeroTracker and examined their effect on the validity of study conclusions. PR was calculated as the count of participants for whom the investigators had collected a valid sample, divided by the number of people invited to participate in the study. A multivariable beta generalized linear model with logit link was fitted to determine if the PR of international household and community-based seroprevalence studies was associated with the factors of interest, from 1 December 2019 to 10 March 2021. RESULTS: We identified 90 papers based on screening and were able to calculate the PR for 35 out of 90 papers (39%), with a median PR of 70% and an interquartile range of 40.92; 61% of the studies did not report PR. CONCLUSIONS: Many SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies do not report PR. It is unclear what the median PR rate would be had a larger portion not had limitations in reporting. Low participation rates indicate limited representativeness of results. Non-probabilistic sampling frames were associated with higher participation rates but may be less representative. Standardized definitions of participation rate and data reporting necessary for the PR calculations are essential for understanding the representativeness of seroprevalence estimates in the population of interest.

Development and Evaluation of a duo SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR Assay Combining Two Assays Approved by the World Health Organization Targeting the Envelope and the RNA-Dependant RNA Polymerase (RdRp) Coding Regions.

The recent emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) worldwide has highlighted the importance of reliable and rapid diagnostic testing to prevent and control virus circulation. Dozens of monoplex in-house RT-qPCR assays are already available; however, the development of dual-target assays is suited to avoid false-negative results caused by polymorphisms or point mutations, that can compromise the accuracy of diagnostic and screening tests. In this study, two mono-target assays recommended by WHO (E-Sarbeco (enveloppe gene, Charite University, Berlin, Germany) and RdRp-IP4 (RdRp, Institut Pasteur, Paris, France)) were selected and combined in a unique robust test; the resulting duo SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR assay was compared to the two parental monoplex tests. The duo SARS-CoV-2 assay performed equally, or better, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, linearity and signal intensity. We demonstrated that combining two single systems into a dual-target assay (with or without an MS2-based internal control) did not impair performances, providing a potent tool adapted for routine molecular diagnosis in clinical microbiology laboratories.