Differences in risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a risk group for SARS-CoV-2 infection, but which healthcare work that conveys risk and to what extent such risk can be prevented is not clear. Starting on April 24th, 2020, all employees at work (n=15,300) at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden were invited and 92% consented to participate in a SARS-CoV-2 cohort study. Complete SARS-CoV-2 serology was available for n=12,928 employees and seroprevalences were analyzed by age, sex, profession, patient contact, and hospital department. Relative risks were estimated to examine the association between type of hospital department as a proxy for different working environment exposure and risk for seropositivity, adjusting for age, sex, sampling week, and profession. Wards that were primarily responsible for COVID-19 patients were at increased risk (adjusted OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.65-2.32) with the notable exception of the infectious diseases and intensive care units (adjusted OR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66-1.13)), that were not at increased risk despite being highly exposed. Several units with similar types of work varied greatly in seroprevalences. Among the professions examined, nurse assistants had the highest risk (adjusted OR 1.62 (95% CI 1.38-1.90)). Although healthcare workers, in particular nurse assistants, who attend to COVID-19 patients are a risk group for SARS-CoV-2 infection, several units caring for COVID-19 patients had no excess risk. Large variations in seroprevalences among similar units suggest that healthcare work-related risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be preventable.

Persisting Salivary IgG against SARS-CoV-2 at 9 Months After Mild COVID-19: A Complementary Approach to Population Surveys

BackgroundDeclining humoral immunity in COVID-19 patients and possibility of reinfections has raised concern. Mucosal immunity particularly salivary antibodies could be short-lived. However, long-term studies are sparse. MethodsUsing a multiplex bead-based array platform, we investigated antibodies specific to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) proteins in 256 saliva samples from convalescent patients 1-9 months after symptomatic COVID-19 (n=74, Cohort 1), undiagnosed individuals with self-reported questionnaires (n=147, Cohort 2), and individuals sampled pre-pandemic time (n= 35, Cohort 3). ResultsSalivary IgG antibody responses in Cohort 1 (mainly mild COVID-19) were detectable up to 9 month recovery, with high correlations between spike and nucleocapsid specificity. At 9 months, IgG remained in saliva in majority as seen in blood serology. Salivary IgA was rarely detected at this timepoint. In Cohort 2, salivary IgG and IgA responses were significantly associated with recent history of COVID-19 like symptoms. Salivary IgG also tolerated temperature and detergent pre-treatments. ConclusionsUnlike SARS-CoV-2 salivary IgA that appeared short-lived, the specific IgG in saliva appears stable even after mild COVID-19 as noted for blood serology. The non-invasive saliva-based SARS-Cov-2 antibody testing with self-collection at homes may thus serve as a complementary alternative to conventional blood serology.

SARS-CoV-2 induces a durable and antigen specific humoral immunity after asymptomatic to mild COVID-19 infection

Current SARS-CoV-2 serological assays generate discrepant results, and the longitudinal characteristics of antibodies targeting various antigens after asymptomatic to mild COVID-19 are yet to be established. This longitudinal cohort study including 1965 healthcare workers, of which 381 participants exhibited antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike antigen at study inclusion, reveal that these antibodies remain detectable in most participants, 96%, at least four months post infection, despite having had no or mild symptoms. Virus neutralization capacity was confirmed by microneutralization assay in 91% of study participants at least four months post infection. Contrary to antibodies targeting the spike protein, antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein were only detected in 80% of previously anti-nucleocapsid IgG positive healthcare workers. Both anti-spike and anti-nucleocapsid IgG levels were significantly higher in previously hospitalized COVID-19 patients four months post infection than in healthcare workers four months post infection (p=2*10-23 and 2*10-13 respectively). Although the magnitude of humoral response was associated with disease severity, our findings support a durable and functional humoral response after SARS-CoV-2 infection even after no or mild symptoms. We further demonstrate differences in antibody kinetics depending on the antigen, arguing against the use of the nucleocapsid protein as target antigen in population-based SARS-CoV-2 serological surveys.

SARS-CoV-2 infections among personnel providing home care services for the elderly in Stockholm, Sweden

BackgroundIn March 2020, Stockholm, Sweden was hit by a severe outbreak of SARS-CoV-2. Four weeks later, a systematic study of testing for past or present infections among healthcare workers in the region was launched. Only a minority of COVID-19 related deaths occurred at hospitals and the study was therefore extended to employees in companies providing home care services for the elderly. MethodsFive companies offered participation to 438 employees at work and 405 employees (92.5%) were enrolled. Serum samples were analyzed for IgG to SARS-CoV-2 and throat swabs were tested by for the SARS-CoV-2 virus by PCR. ResultsAmong home care employees, 20.1% (81/403) were seropositive, about twice as many as in a simultaneously enrolled reference population (healthcare workers entirely without patient contact, n=3,671; 9.7% seropositivity). Only 13/379 employees (3.4%) had evidence of a current infection (PCR positivity). Among these, 5 were also seropositive (a sign of past infection or lingering infection after symptoms have resolved) and 3 were positive with only low amounts of virus. The combination of high amounts of virus and no antibodies, a characteristic for pre-symptomatic COVID-19, was thus present only in 5 employees (1.3%). ConclusionsPersonnel providing home service for the elderly appear to be a risk group for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Employees likely to be pre-symptomatic for COVID-19 can be readily identified by screening. Increased attention for protection of employees as well as of the elderly they serve is warranted.

Screening for high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 identifies pre-symptomatic subjects among healthy healthcare workers

BackgroundPre-symptomatic subjects are spreaders of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and strategies that could identify these subjects, particularly in hospital settings, are needed. MethodsWe tested a cohort of 9449 employees at work at the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and antibodies, linked the screening results to sick leave records and examined the association between screening results and past or future sick leave using multinomial logistic regression. ResultsWe found that healthcare workers with high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus, as indicated by the Cycle threshold (Ct) value in the PCR, had the highest risk for sick leave in the two weeks after testing (OR 11{middle dot}97 (CI 95% 6{middle dot}29-22{middle dot}80)) whereas subjects with low amounts of virus had the highest risk for sick leave in the past three weeks before testing (OR 6{middle dot}31 (4{middle dot}38-9{middle dot}08)). Only 2{middle dot}5% of employees were SARS-CoV-2 positive while 10{middle dot}5% were positive by serology and 1{middle dot}2% were positive in both tests. Serology-positive subjects were not at excess risk for future sick leave (OR 1{middle dot}06 (95% CI, 0{middle dot}71-1{middle dot}57)), but virus-positive subjects had a 7{middle dot}23 fold (95% CI, 4{middle dot}52-11{middle dot}57)) increased risk for sick leave within two weeks post testing. ConclusionsScreening of asymptomatic healthcare workers for high amounts of SARS-CoV-2 virus using Ct values will identify pre-symptomatic subjects who will develop disease in the next few weeks. Identification of potentially contagious, pre-symptomatic subjects is likely critical for protecting patients and healthcare workers. Main pointHealthy healthcare workers with low amounts of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids will previously have had the disease. Presence of a high amount of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acids predicts future symptomatic disease.

SARS-CoV-2 serological tests can generate false positive results for samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases

ObjectivesPatients with chronic inflammatory diseases are often treated with immunosuppressants and therefore are of particular concern during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Serological tests will improve our understanding of the infection and immunity in this population, unless the tests give false positive results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the specificity of SARS-Cov-2 serological assays with samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases collected before April 2019, thus defined as negative. MethodsSamples from patients with multiple sclerosis (MS, n=10), rheumatoid arthritis (RA, n=47) with or without rheumatoid factor (RF) and/or anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies (anti-CCP2) and RF +/- systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE, n=10), were tested with 17 commercially available lateral flow assays (LFA), two ELISA kits and one in-house developed multiplex bead-based assay. ResultsSix LFA and the in-house IgG assay gave the correct negative results for all samples. However, the majority of assays (n=13), gave false positive signal with samples from patients with RA and SLE. This was most notable in RF positive RA samples. MS samples did not give any false positive in any of the assays. ConclusionThe majority of the verified serological assays were sensitive to interfering antibodies in samples from patients with chronic inflammatory diseases and therefore may have poor specificity in this context. For these patients, the risk of false positivity should be considered when interpreting results of the SARS-CoV-2 serological assays.

Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and risk of future sickness

Background: The extent that antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 may protect against future virus-associated disease is unknown. Method: We analyzed 12928 healthy hospital employees for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and compared results to participant sick leave records (Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04411576). Results: Subjects with viral serum antibodies were not at excess risk for future sick leave (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.85 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) (0.85 (0.43-1.68)). By contrast, subjects with antibodies had an excess risk for sick leave in the past weeks (OR: 3.34 (2.98-3.74)). Conclusion: Presence of viral antibodies marks past disease and protection against excess risk of future disease.

SARS-CoV-2 exposure, symptoms and seroprevalence in health care workers

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 may pose an occupational health risk to health care workers, but the prevalence of infections in this population is unknown. We examined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among health care workers at a large acute care hospital in Stockholm, Sweden. We determined correlations between seroprevalence, self-reported symptoms and occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Methods and findingsAll employees at Danderyd Hospital (n=4375) were invited to participate in a cross-sectional study. 2149 employees from all hospital departments were enrolled in the study between April 14th and May 8th 2020. Study participants completed a questionnaire consisting of symptoms compatible with SARS-CoV-2 infection since January 2020 and occupational exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were analyzed using a multiplex assay evaluated to have 99.4% sensitivity and 99.1% specificity. The over-all seroprevalence among 2149 participants was 19.1% (n=410). There was no difference in age or sex between seropositive and seronegative participants. The symptoms with the strongest correlation to seroprevalence were anosmia and ageusia, with odds ratios of 28.4 (p=2.02*10^-120) and 19.2 (p=1.67*10^-99) respectively. Seroprevalence was strongly associated with patient-related work (OR 2.9, p=4.24*10^-8), covid-19 patient contact (OR 1.43, p=0.003), and occupation as assisting nurse (OR 3.67, p=2.16*10^-9). ConclusionThese results demonstrate that anosmia and ageusia should be included in screening guidance and in the recommendations of self-isolation to reduce further spread of SARS-CoV-2. The results furthermore imply an occupational health risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital workers. Continued measures are warranted to assure healthcare worker safety and reduce transmission from health care settings to the community during the covid-19 outbreak.