RESUMO
IntroductionHealthcare workers are believed to be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The extent of that increased risk compared to the general population and the groups most at risk have not been extensively studied. MethodsA prospective observational study of health and social care workers in NHS Tayside (Scotland, UK) from May to September 2020. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Patients provided clinical information including demographics and workplace information. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general Tayside population, were studied for comparison. ResultsA total of 2062 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. The participants were predominantly female (81.7%) and 95.2% were white. 299 healthcare workers had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11 out of 231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). Healthcare workers therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (odds ratio 3.4 95% CI 1.85-6.16, p<0.0001). Dentists, healthcare assistants and porters were the job roles most likely to test positive. Those working in front-line roles with COVID-19 patients were more likely to test positive (17.4% vs. 13.4%, p=0.02). 97.1% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR had positive antibodies, compared to 11.8% of individuals with a symptomatic illness who had tested negative. Anosmia was the symptom most associated with the presence of detectable antibodies. ConclusionIn this study, healthcare workers were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The seroprevalence data in different populations identified in this study will be useful to protect healthcare staff during future waves of the pandemic.
RESUMO
ObjectivesTo investigate longitudinal trajectory of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies and the performance of serological assays in diagnosing prior infection and predicting serum neutralisation titres with time DesignRetrospective longitudinal analysis of a COVID19 case cohort. SettingNHS outpatient clinics ParticipantsIndividuals with RT-PCR diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection that did not require hospitalization Main outcome measuresThe sensitivity with which prior infection was detected and quantitative antibody titres were assessed using four SARS-CoV-2 serologic assay platforms. Two platforms employed SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) based antigens and two employed nucleocapsid (N) based antigens. Serum neutralising antibody titres were measured using a validated pseudotyped virus SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay. The ability of the serological assays to predict neutralisation titres at various times after PCR diagnosis was assessed. ResultsThe three of the four serological assays had sensitivities of 95 to100% at 21-40 days post PCR-diagnosis, while a fourth assay had a lower sensitivity of 85%. The relative sensitivities of the assays changed with time and the sensitivity of one assay that had an initial sensitivity of >95% declined to 85% at 61-80 post PCR diagnosis, and to 71% at 81-100 days post diagnosis. Median antibody titres decreased in one serologic assay but were maintained over the observation period in other assays. The trajectories of median antibody titres measured in serologic assays over this time period were not dependent on whether the SARS-CoV-2 N or S proteins were used as antigen source. A broad range of SARS-CoV-2 neutralising titres were evident in individual sera, that decreased over time in the majority of participants; the median neutralisation titre in the cohort decreased by 45% over 4 weeks. Each of the serological assays gave quantitative measurements of antibody titres that correlated with SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation titres, but, the S-based serological assay measurements better predicted serum neutralisation potency. The strength of correlation between serologic assay results and neutralisation titres deteriorated with time and decreases in neutralisation titres in individual participants were not well predicted by changes in antibody titres measured using serologic assays. ConclusionsSARS-CoV-2 serologic assays differed in their comparative diagnostic performance over time. Different assays are more or less well suited for surveillance of populations for prior infection versus prediction of serum neutralisation potency. Continued monitoring of declining neutralisation titres during extended follow up should facilitate the establishment of appropriate serologic correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 reinfection.
