Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 1 de 1
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Preprint in English | medRxiv | ID: ppmedrxiv-22273817

ABSTRACT

BackgroundHealthcare workers are perceived to be a high-risk group for acquiring SAR-CoV-2 infection, and more so in countries where COVID-19 vaccination uptake is low. Serosurveillance may best determine the true extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection since most infected HCWs may be asymptomatic or present with only mild symptoms. Over time, determining the true extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection could inform hospital management and staff whether the preventive measures instituted are effective and valuable in developing targeted solutions. MethodsThis was a census survey study conducted at the Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, between November 2020 and February 2021 before the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccination. The SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG test was performed using a chemiluminescent assay. ResultsOne thousand six hundred thirty-one (1631) staff enrolled, totalling 60% of the workforce. The overall crude seroprevalence was 18.4% and the adjusted value (for assay sensitivity of 86%) was 21.4% (95% CI; 19.2-23.7). The HCW groups with higher prevalence included pharmacy (25.6%), outreach (24%), hospital-based nursing (22.2%) and catering staff (22.6%). Independent predictors of a positive IgG result included prior COVID-19 like symptoms, odds ratio (OR) 1.9 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3-2.9, p=0.002], and a prior positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR result OR 11.0 (CI: 7.2-18.0, p<0.001). Age, sex, comorbidities or working in a COVID-19 designated area were not associated with seropositivity. The odds of testing positive for IgG after a positive PCR test were lowest if the antibody test was performed more than 2 months later; OR 0.7 (CI: 0.48-0.95, p= 0.025). ConclusionsThe prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG among HCWs was lower than in the general population. Staff working in clinical areas were not at increased risk when compared to staff working in non-clinical areas.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...