Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers in a large teaching hospital in the North West of England: a period prevalence survey.

OBJECTIVES: Since its emergence in late 2019, SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemic that has significantly challenged healthcare systems. Healthcare workers have previously been shown to have experienced higher rates of infection than the general population. We aimed to assess the extent of infection in staff working in our healthcare setting. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of antibody results, compared with staff demographic data, and exposure to patients with COVID-19 infection. SETTING: A large teaching hospital in the North West of England. PARTICIPANTS: 4474 staff in diverse clinical and non-patient facing roles who volunteered for SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing by the Roche Elecsys assay between 29 May and 4 July 2020. RESULTS: Seroprevalence was 17.4%. Higher rates were seen in Asian/Asian British (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.04) and Black/Black British (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.25 to 3.45) staff. Staff working in any clinical location were more likely to be seropositive (OR 2.68, 95% 2.27 to 3.15). Staff were at an increased risk of seropositivity as the 'per 100 COVID-19 bed-days change' increased in the clinical area in which they worked (OR 1.12, 95% 1.10 to 1.14). Staff working in critical care were no more likely to have detectable antibodies than staff working in non-clinical areas. Symptoms compatible with COVID-19 were reported in 41.8% and antibodies were detected in 30.7% of these individuals. In staff who reported no symptoms, antibodies were detected in 7.7%. In all staff who had detectable antibodies, 25.2% reported no symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Staff working in clinical areas where patients with COVID-19 were nursed were more likely to have detectable antibodies. The relationship between seropositivity in healthcare workers and the increase in 'per 100 COVID-19 bed-days' of the area in which they worked, although statistically significant, was weak, suggesting other contributing factors to the risk profile. Of staff with detectable antibodies and therefore evidence of prior infection, a quarter self-reported that they had experienced no compatible symptoms. This has implications for potential unrecorded transmission in both staff and patients.

An unusual presentation of Legionella pneumonia in a returning traveller.

A male patient in his mid-60s presented with a severe pneumonia following return to the UK after travel to Crete. He was diagnosed with Legionnaire's disease (caused by an uncommon serogroup of Legionella pneumophila). He was pancytopenic on admission, and during a long stay on critical care he was diagnosed with a disseminated Aspergillus infection. Bone marrow aspiration revealed an underlying hairy cell leukaemia that undoubtedly contributed to his acute presentation and subsequent invasive fungal infection.

A Rapid and Sensitive Diagnostic Screening Assay for Detection of Mycobacteria Including Mycobacterium tuberculosis Directly from Sputum without Extraction.

We report a novel approach utilising a real-time PCR screening assay targeting a 53 bp tandemly repeated element present at various loci within the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) genome. Positive samples were identified within a discriminatory melting curve range of 90-94°C, with results obtained in under one hour directly from decontaminated sputum samples without extraction. A panel of 89 smear-positive sputa were used for analytical validation of the assay with 100% concordance, with sensitivity matching that of culture. Cross reactivity was detected within a narrow range of mycobacteria other than tuberculosis (MOTT) (five sputa, three in silico), with the highest sensitivity within M. avium complex (MAC). A year-long head to head evaluation of the test with the GeneXpert platform was carried out with 104 consecutive samples at the Royal Free Hospital, UK. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis of the data revealed that the two tests are approximately equivalent in sensitivity, with the area under the curve being 0.85 and 0.80 for the GeneXpert and our assay, respectively, indicating that the test would be a cost effective screen prior to GeneXpert testing.