Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland

Mental health trajectories among the general population and higher-risk groups following the COVID-19 pandemic in Switzerland, 2021-2023

BACKGROUND

Mental health deteriorated in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, but improved relatively quickly as restrictions were eased, suggesting overall resilience. However, longer-term follow-up of mental health in the general population is scarce.

METHODS

We examined mental health trajectories in 5624 adults (58 % women; aged 18-97 years) from the Specchio-COVID19 cohort, using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale-2 and the Patient Health Questionnaire-2, administered each month from February to June 2021, and in Spring 2022 and 2023.

RESULTS

Depressive and anxiety symptoms declined during a pandemic wave from February to May 2021 (β = -0.06 [-0.07, -0.06]; -0.06 [-0.07, -0.05]), and remained lower at longer-term follow-up than at the start of the wave. Loneliness also declined over time, with the greatest decline during the pandemic wave (β = -0.25 [-0.26, -0.24]). Many higher-risk groups, including socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, those with a chronic condition, and those living alone had poorer mental health levels throughout the study period. Women and younger individuals had a faster improvement in mental health during the pandemic wave. Loneliness trajectories were associated with mental health trajectories throughout the study period.

LIMITATIONS

We cannot definitively conclude that the observed changes in mental health were due to experiences of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

While there was a need for additional mental health support during stricter policy responses to COVID-19, overall, mental health improved relatively soon after measures were eased. Nevertheless, the persistence of mental health disparities highlights the need for further efforts from the government and healthcare practitioners to support vulnerable groups beyond the pandemic.

Infectious Disease in the Workplace: Quantifying Uncertainty in Transmission

Understanding disease transmission in the workplace is essential for protecting workers. To model disease outbreaks, the small populations in many workplaces require that stochastic effects are considered, which results in higher uncertainty. The aim of this study was to quantify and interpret the uncertainty inherent in such circumstances. We assessed how uncertainty of an outbreak in workplaces depends on i) the infection dynamics in the community, ii) the workforce size, iii) spatial structure in the workplace, iv) heterogeneity in susceptibility of workers, and v) heterogeneity in infectiousness of workers. To address these questions, we developed a multiscale model: A deterministic model to predict community transmission, and a stochastic model to predict workplace transmission. We extended this basic workplace model to allow for spatial structure, and heterogeneity in susceptibility and infectiousness in workers. We found a non-monotonic relationship between the workplace transmission rate and the coefficient of variation (CV), which we use as a measure of uncertainty. Increasing community transmission, workforce size and heterogeneity in susceptibility decreased the CV. Conversely, increasing the level of spatial structure and heterogeneity in infectiousness increased the CV. However, when the model predicts bimodal distributions, for example when community transmission is low and workplace transmission is high, the CV fails to capture this uncertainty. Overall, our work informs modellers and policy makers on how model complexity impacts outbreak uncertainty. In particular: workforce size, community and workplace transmission, spatial structure and individual heterogeneity contribute in a specific and individual manner to the predicted workplace outbreak size distribution.

[Occupational differences of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in Germany. An analysis of health insurance data from 3.17 million insured persons]

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, occupation was assumed to play a central role in the occurrence of infection and disease. For Germany, however, there are only a few studies that analyse occupational differences in risk of COVID-19, COVID-19-associated hospitalisation, and mortality.

METHODS

The study uses longitudinal health insurance data from the research database of the Institute for Applied Health Research (InGef) with information on 3.17 million insured persons aged 18-67 years (1,488,452 women; 1,684,705 men). Outcomes (morbidity, hospitalisation, and mortality) were determined on the basis of submitted COVID-19 diagnoses between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2021. Occupations were classified according to four groupings of the official German classification of occupations. In addition to cumulative incidences, relative risks (RR) were calculated - separately for men and women.

RESULTS

There is an increased risk of disease in personal service occupations, especially in health care, compared to other occupations (RR for women 1.46; for men 1.30). The same applies to social and cultural service occupations (but only for women) and for manufacturing occupations (only for men). In addition, the risks for hospitalisation and mortality are increased for cleaning occupations and transport and logistics occupations (especially for men). For all three outcomes, the risks are higher in non-managerial occupations and differ by skill level (highest for unskilled jobs and lowest for expert positions).

CONCLUSION

The study provides important findings on work- and gender-related differences in COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in Germany, which indicate starting points for structural infection protection measures.

Long term anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody kinetics and correlate of protection against Omicron BA.1/BA.2 infection

Binding antibody levels against SARS-CoV-2 have shown to be correlates of protection against infection with pre-Omicron lineages. This has been challenged by the emergence of immune-evasive variants, notably the Omicron sublineages, in an evolving immune landscape with high levels of cumulative incidence and vaccination coverage. This in turn limits the use of widely available commercial high-throughput methods to quantify binding antibodies as a tool to monitor protection at the population-level. Here we show that anti-Spike RBD antibody levels, as quantified by the immunoassay used in this study, are an indirect correlate of protection against Omicron BA.1/BA.2 for individuals previously infected by SARS-CoV-2. Leveraging repeated serological measurements between April 2020 and December 2021 on 1083 participants of a population-based cohort in Geneva, Switzerland, and using antibody kinetic modeling, we found up to a three-fold reduction in the hazard of having a documented positive SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron BA.1/BA.2 wave for anti-S antibody levels above 800 IU/mL (HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.22-0.41). However, we did not detect a reduction in hazard among uninfected participants. These results provide reassuring insights into the continued interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 binding antibody measurements as an independent marker of protection at both the individual and population levels.

Longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence among Employees in Outpatient Care Services in Hamburg

The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection is particularly high for healthcare workers during the pandemic. Home care workers visit many different households per shift. Encounters with mostly elderly patients and their relatives increase the potential for the undetected spread of SARS-CoV-2. In order to gain insight into the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and possible transmission risks in outpatient care, this follow-up study was conducted with nursing services in Hamburg. The aim was to estimate the dynamics of seroprevalence in this occupational group over a 12-month period, to identify occupation-specific risk factors, and to collect information on the vaccination status of the surveyed nursing staff. Antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG against the S1 domain (EUROIMUN Analyser I^® Lübeck, Germany) was performed on participating healthcare workers with patient contact at a total of four time points within one year from July 2020 to October 2021 (baseline, follow-up after three, six and twelve months). The data were mostly analysed descriptively. Differences in IgG titres were analysed using variance analysis methods, particularly Tukey's range test. The seroprevalence was 1.2% (8/678) at baseline and 1.5% (9/581) at the three-month follow-up (T1). At the second follow-up (T2) after six months, vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 was available from January 2021 onwards. The prevalence rate of positive IgG antibodies relative to the S1 domain of the spike protein test among unvaccinated individuals was 6.5%. At (T3) after twelve months (July to October 2021), 482 participants were enrolled, and 85.7% of the workers were considered fully vaccinated at this time point, while 51 individuals were unvaccinated. The prevalence was 13.7% (7/51). In our study, a low seroprevalence was found among home care workers, which was lower than in our studies conducted in the clinical setting. Therefore, it can be assumed that the occupational risk of infection is rather low for both the nursing staff and the patients/clients cared for in the outpatient setting. The good provision of protective equipment and the high vaccination rate of the staff probably had a positive influence.

COVID-19 Incidence and Vaccine Effectiveness in University Staff, 1 March 2020-2 April 2022

Background: University workers undergo intense social interactions due to frequent contact with students and colleagues and lectures in crowdy conditions. The aim of our study was to assess the incidence of COVID-19 infection and vaccine effectiveness in a cohort of workers of the University of Trieste from 1 March 2020 (start of the pandemic) through 2 April 2022. Methods: The University of Trieste implemented a number of public health policies to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2 on the campus, including prompt contact tracing, enhanced ventilation of all premises, fomites disinfection and mandatory use of face masks indoors. In compliance with the surveillance protocol of the local public health department, university personnel were tested for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab on demand, in the event of symptoms consistent with COVID-19 or for contact tracing, following close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case. The incidence rates of SARS-CoV-2 infections were estimated as number of cases by number of person-days (p-d) at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression model was employed to investigate the risk of primary COVID-19 infection, controlling for a number of potential confounders and expressing the risk as the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among university staff was lower than that of healthcare workers (HCWs) of the same area. Compared to unvaccinated colleagues (6.55 × 10,000 p-d), the raw incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher among university workers immunized with one (7.22 × 10,000 p-d) or two (7.48 × 10,000 p-d) doses of COVID-19 vaccines, decreasing in those receiving the booster (1.98 × 1000 p-d). The risk of infection increased only in postgraduate medical trainees (aHR = 2.16; 95% CI: 1.04; 4.48), though this was limited to the Omicron transmission period. After the implementation of the national vaccination campaign against COVID-19, workers immunized with the booster were less likely than unvaccinated workers to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 both before (aHR = 0.10; 95% CI: 0.06; 0.16) and after (aHR = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.27; 0.52) the Omicron transmission period. Vaccine effectiveness of the booster was 90% (=(1-0.10) × 100) before versus 63% (=(1-0.37) × 100) during the Omicron wave, without a significant difference between homologous (three doses of m-RNA vaccines) and heterologous immunization (first two doses of Vaxzevria followed by a third dose of m-RNA vaccine). Conclusions: The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in university staff was lower than that of HCWs of ASUGI, likely because the testing-on-demand schedule inevitably missed the vast majority of asymptomatic infections. Therefore, the observed significantly protective effect of the booster dose in university personnel referred to symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. The infection prevention and control policies implemented by the University of Trieste managed to equalize the biological risk between administrative and teaching staff.

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Employees of Four Essential Non-Health Care Sectors at Moderate/High Risk of Exposure to Coronavirus Infection: Data From the "First Wave"

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence in Swiss non-health care employees at a moderate to high risk of exposure: bus drivers and supermarket, laundry service, and mail-sorting center employees.

METHODS

Data on 455 essential workers included demographics, SARS-CoV-2 exposure and use of protective measures. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins G and A targeting the spike protein were measured between May and July 2020.

RESULTS

The overall crude seroprevalence estimate (15.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.6% to 19.7%) among essential workers was not significantly higher than that of the general working-age population (11.2%; 95% CI, 7.1% to 15.2%). Seroprevalence ranged from 11.9% (95% CI, 6.3% to 19.8%) among bus drivers to 22.0% (95% CI, 12.6% to 19.7%) among food supermarket employees.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no significant difference in seroprevalence between our sample of essential workers and local working-age population during the first lockdown phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Having a seropositive housemate was the strongest predictor of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.

Clinical and Economic Impact of COVID-19 on Agricultural Workers, Guatemala1

We evaluated clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in banana farm workers in Guatemala. We offered all eligible workers enrollment during June 15-December 30, 2020, and annually, then tracked them for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through self-reporting to study nurses, sentinel surveillance at health posts, and absenteeism. Workers who had ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swab specimens for testing for influenza virus, respiratory syncytial virus, and SARS-CoV-2, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, a total of 1,833 workers reported 169 ILIs (12.0 cases/100 person-years), and 43 (25.4%) were laboratory-confirmed infections with SARS-CoV-2 (3.1 cases/100 person-years). Workers who had SARS-CoV-2‒positive ILIs reported more frequent anosmia, dysgeusia, difficulty concentrating, and irritability and worse clinical and well-being severity scores than workers who had test result‒negative ILIs. Workers who had positive results also had greater absenteeism and lost income. These results support prioritization of farm workers in Guatemala for COVID-19 vaccination.

How things changed during the COVID-19 pandemic's first year: A longitudinal, mixed-methods study of organisational resilience processes among healthcare workers

COVID-19 had a huge impact on healthcare systems globally. Institutions, care teams and individuals made considerable efforts to adapt their practices. The present longitudinal, mixed-methods study examined a large sample of healthcare institution employees in Switzerland. Organisational resilience processes were assessed by identifying problematic real-world situations and evaluating how they were managed during three phases of the pandemic's first year. Results highlighted differences between resilience processes across the different types of problematic situations encountered by healthcare workers. Four configurations of organisational resilience were identified depending on teams' performance and ability to adapt over time: "learning from mistakes", "effective development", "new standards" and "hindered resilience". Resilience trajectories differed depending on professional categories, hierarchical status and the problematic situation's perceived severity. Factors promoting or impairing organisational resilience are discussed. Findings highlighted the importance of individuals', teams' and institutions' meso- and micro-level adaptations and macro-level actors' structural actions.

Aerosol concentrations and size distributions during clinical dental procedures

Background

Suspected aerosol-generating dental instruments may cause risks for operators by transmitting pathogens, such as the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The aim of our study was to measure aerosol generation in various dental procedures in clinical settings.

Methods

The study population comprised of 84 patients who underwent 253 different dental procedures measured with Optical Particle Sizer in a dental office setting. Aerosol particles from 0.3 to 10 μm in diameter were measured. Dental procedures included oral examinations (N = 52), restorative procedures with air turbine handpiece (N = 8), high-speed (N = 6) and low-speed (N = 30) handpieces, ultrasonic scaling (N = 31), periodontal treatment using hand instruments (N = 60), endodontic treatment (N = 12), intraoral radiographs (N = 24), and dental local anesthesia (N = 31).

Results

Air turbine handpieces significantly elevated <1 μm particle median (p = 0.013) and maximum (p = 0.016) aerosol number concentrations as well as aerosol particle mass concentrations (p = 0.046 and p = 0.006) compared to the background aerosol levels preceding the operation. Low-speed dental handpieces elevated >5 μm median (p = 0.023), maximum (p = 0.013) particle number concentrations,> 5 μm particle mass concentrations (p = 0.021) and maximum total particle mass concentrations (p = 0.022). High-speed dental handpieces elevated aerosol concentration levels compared to the levels produced during oral examination.

Conclusions

Air turbine handpieces produced the highest levels of <1 μm aerosols and total particle number concentrations when compared to the other commonly used instruments. In addition, high- and low-speed dental handpieces and ultrasonic scalers elevated the aerosol concentration levels compared to the aerosol levels measured during oral examination. These aerosol-generating procedures, involving air turbine, high- and low-speed handpiece, and ultrasonic scaler, should be performed with caution.

Clinical significance

Aerosol generating dental instruments, especially air turbine, should be used with adequate precautions (rubber dam, high-volume evacuation, FFP-respirators), because aerosols can cause a potential risk for operators and substitution of air turbine for high-speed dental handpiece in poor epidemic situations should be considered to reduce the risk of aerosol transmission.

The pandemic toll and post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers at a Swiss University Hospital

Healthcare workers have potentially been among the most exposed to SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the deleterious toll of the pandemic. This study has the objective to differentiate the pandemic toll from post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers compared to the general population.

The study was conducted between April and July 2021 at the Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland. Eligible participants were all tested staff, and outpatient individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 at the same hospital. The primary outcome was the prevalence of symptoms in healthcare workers compared to the general population, with measures of COVID-related symptoms and functional impairment, using prevalence estimates and multivariable logistic regression models.

Healthcare workers (n = 3083) suffered mostly from fatigue (25.5 %), headache (10.0 %), difficulty concentrating (7.9 %), exhaustion/burnout (7.1 %), insomnia (6.2 %), myalgia (6.7 %) and arthralgia (6.3 %). Regardless of SARS-CoV-2 infection, all symptoms were significantly higher in healthcare workers than the general population (n = 3556). SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers was associated with loss or change in smell, loss or change in taste, palpitations, dyspnea, difficulty concentrating, fatigue, and headache. Functional impairment was more significant in healthcare workers compared to the general population (aOR 2.28; 1.76–2.96), with a positive association with SARS-CoV-2 infection (aOR 3.81; 2.59–5.60).

Symptoms and functional impairment in healthcare workers were increased compared to the general population, and potentially related to the pandemic toll as well as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These findings are of concern, considering the essential role of healthcare workers in caring for all patients including and beyond COVID-19.

Socio-economic determinants of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Results from a population-based cross-sectional serosurvey in Geneva, Switzerland

Background

SARS-CoV-2 infection and its health consequences have disproportionally affected disadvantaged socio-economic groups globally. This study aimed to analyze the association between socio-economic conditions and having developed antibodies for-SARS-CoV-2 in a population-based sample in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland.

Methods

Data was obtained from a population-based serosurvey of adults in Geneva and their household members, between November and December, 2020, toward the end of the second pandemic wave in the canton. Participants were tested for antibodies for-SARS-CoV-2. Socio-economic conditions representing different dimensions were self-reported. Mixed effects logistic regressions were conducted for each predictor to test its association with seropositive status as the main outcome.

Results

Two thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine adults completed the study questionnaire and were included in the final analysis. Retired participants and those living in suburban areas had lower odds of a seropositive result when compared to employed participants (OR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.87) and those living in urban areas (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.46-0.97), respectively. People facing financial hardship for less than a year had higher odds of a seropositive result compared to those who had never faced them (OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.01-4.95). Educational level, occupational position, and household income were not associated with being seropositive, nor were ethnicity or country of birth.

Discussion

While conventional measures of socio-economic position did not seem to be related to the risk of being infected in this sample, this study sheds lights on the importance of examining the broader social determinants of health when evaluating the differential impact of the pandemic within the population.

SARS-CoV-2 infection among employees working from home and on site: An occupational study in Switzerland

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies implemented working from home to mitigate the spread of the disease among their employees. Using data from Corona Immunitas Nestlé, a seroepidemiological study conducted among employees from two Nestlé sites in Switzerland, we aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates between employees working most of the time from home and employees mobilized in a workplace equipped with a specialized occupational safety unit and strict sanitary measures. We also investigated whether this association was modified by household size, living with children, vulnerability, worries about an infection, and worries about adverse health consequences if infected. Data were collected between 8 December 2020, and 11 February 2021. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infections were ascertained by the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in the blood. Of the 425 employees included (53% women; mean age 42 years ranging between 21 and 64 years), 37% worked most of the time from home in 2020 and 16% had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Participants who worked most of the time from home in 2020 had slightly higher odds of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to participants who never or only sometimes worked from home (adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73-2.27). The association was stronger in participants living alone or with one other person (adjusted OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.13-6.25). Among participants living with two or more other persons (adjusted OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30-1.39) and among vulnerable participants (adjusted OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13-1.93), working from home tended to be associated with lower odds of infection. In conclusion, in a context of strict sanitary measures implemented in the workplace, employees working from home did not seem to be at lower risk of infection compared to those working on site, especially if living alone or with one other person.

Authors' response: Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias

We thank van Tongeren et al for responding to our study on occupational disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infection risks during the first pandemic wave in Germany (1). The authors address the potential for bias resulting from differential testing between occupational groups and propose an alternative analytical strategy for dealing with selective testing. In the following, we want to discuss two aspects of this issue, namely (i) the extent and reasons of differential testing in our cohort and (ii) the advantages and disadvantages of different analytical approaches to study risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study relied on nationwide prospective cohort data including more than 100 000 workers in order to compare the incidence of infections between different occupations and occupational status positions. We found elevated infection risks in personal services and business administration, in essential occupations (including health care) and among people in higher occupational status positions (ie, managers and highly skilled workers) during the first pandemic wave in Germany (2). Van Tongeren's et al main concern is that the correlations found could be affected by a systematic bias because people in healthcare professions get tested more often than employees in other professions. A second argument is that better-off people could be more likely to use testing as they are less affected by direct costs (prices for testing) and the economic hardship associated with a positive test result (eg, loss of earnings in the event of sick leave). We share the authors' view that differential testing must be considered when analysing and interpreting the data. Thus, in our study, we examined the proportion of tests conducted in each occupational group as part of the sensitivity analyses (see supplementary figure S1, accessible at www.sjweh.fi/article/4037). As expected, testing proportions were exceptionally high in medical occupations (due to employer requirements). However, we did not observe systematic differences among non-medical occupations or when categorising by skill-level or managerial responsibility. This might be explained by several reasons. First, SARS-CoV-2 testing was free of charge during the first pandemic wave in Germany, but reporting a risk contact or having symptoms was a necessary condition for testing ( https://www.bundesgesundheitsministerium.de/coronavirus/chronik-coronavirus.html (accessed 5 September 2022). The newspaper article cited by van Tongeren et al is misleading as it refers to a calendar date after our study period. Second, different motivation for testing due to economic hardship in case of a positive test result is an unlikely explanation, because Germany has a universal healthcare system, including paid sick leave and sickness benefits for all workers (3). Self-employed people carry greater financial risks in case of sickness. We therefore included self-employment in the multivariable analyses to address this potential source of bias. While the observed inverse social gradient may be surprising, it actually matches with findings of ecological studies from Germany (4, 5), the United States (6, 7) as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden, The Netherlands, Israel, and Hong Kong (8), all of which observed higher infection rates in wealthier neighbourhoods during the initial outbreak phase of the pandemic. One possible explanation is the higher mobility of managers and better educated workers, who are more likely to participate in meetings and engage in business travel and holiday trips like skiing. Given the increasing number of studies providing evidence for this hypothesis, we conclude that the inverse social gradient in our study likely reflects different exposure probabilities and is not a result of systematic bias. This also holds true for the elevated infection risks in essential workers, which is actually corroborated by a large body of research (9-11). Regarding differential likelihood of testing, van Tongeren et al state that "[i]t is relatively simple to address this problem by using a test-negative design" (1). As van Tongeren et al describe, this is a case-control approach only including individuals who were tested (without considering those who were not tested). However, the proposed analytical strategy can lead to another (more serious) selection bias if testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups (12). This can be easily illustrated when comparing the results based on a time-incidence design with those obtained by a test-negative design as shown in table 1 (see PDF). Both approaches show similar results in terms of vertical occupational differences. Infection was more common if individuals had a high skill level or had a managerial position, but associations were stronger in the time-incidence design and did not reach statistical significance in the test-negative design (as indicated by the confidence intervals overlapping "1"). Unfortunately, the test-negative approach relies on a strongly reduced sample size and thus results in greater statistical uncertainty and loss of statistical power (13). In contrast, the test-negative design yields a different picture when estimating the association between essential occupation and infection risk: In this analysis, essential workers did not differ from non-essential workers in their chance of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 (the test-negative design even exhibits a lower chance for essential workers). This is rather counter-intuitive and is not in accordance with what we know about the occupational hazards of healthcare workers during the pandemic (14). The main problem is that proportions of positive tests are highly unreliable when testing proportions and/or testing criteria differ between groups. As essential workers were tested more often without being symptomatic (due to employer requirements), a lower proportion of positive tests in this group does not necessarily correspond to a lower risk of infection. Consequently, we are not convinced that the test-negative design should be the 'gold standard' for studying risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infections (15). Especially problematic is the loss of statistical power (increasing the probability of a type II error) and the low validity of the test-positivity when test criteria and/or test proportions differ between groups. References 1. van Tongeren M, Rhodes S, Pearce N. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany: potential for bias. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48(7):586-587. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4052. 2. Reuter M, Rigó M, Formazin M, Liebers F, Latza U, Castell S, et al. Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany. Scand J Work Environ Health 2022;48:446-56. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4037. 3. Busse R, Blümel M, Knieps F, Bärnighausen T. Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition. Lancet 2017;390:882-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. 4. Wachtler B, Michalski N, Nowossadeck E, Diercke M, Wahrendorf M, Santos-Hövener C, et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection - First results from an analysis of surveillance data from Germany. J Heal Monit 2020;5:18-29. https://doi.org/10.25646/7057. 5. Plümper T, Neumayer E. The pandemic predominantly hits poor neighbourhoods? SARS-CoV-2 infections and COVID-19 fatalities in German districts. Eur J Public Health 2020;30:1176-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckaa168. 6. Abedi V, Olulana O, Avula V, Chaudhary D, Khan A, Shahjouei S, et al. Racial, Economic, and Health Inequality and COVID-19 Infection in the United States. J Racial Ethn Heal Disparities 2021;8:732-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00833-4. 7. Mukherji N. The Social and Economic Factors Underlying the Incidence of COVID-19 Cases and Deaths in US Counties During the Initial Outbreak Phase. Rev Reg Stud 2022;52. https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.35255. 8. Beese F, Waldhauer J, Wollgast L, Pförtner T, Wahrendorf M, Haller S, et al. Temporal Dynamics of Socioeconomic Inequalities in COVID-19 Outcomes Over the Course of the Pandemic-A Scoping Review. Int J Public Health 2022;67:1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2022.1605128. 9. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, Joshi AD, Guo C-G, Ma W, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Heal 2020;5:e475-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30164-X. 10. Chou R, Dana T, Buckley DI, Selph S, Fu R, Totten AM. Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers. Ann Intern Med 2020;173:120-36. https://doi.org/10.7326/M20-1632. 11. Stringhini S, Zaballa M-E, Pullen N, de Mestral C, Perez-Saez J, Dumont R, et al. Large variation in anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence among essential workers in Geneva, Switzerland. Nat Commun 2021;12:3455. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-23796-4. 12. Accorsi EK, Qiu X, Rumpler E, Kennedy-Shaffer L, Kahn R, Joshi K, et al. How to detect and reduce potential sources of biases in studies of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Eur J Epidemiol 2021;36:179-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00727-7. 13. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Editio. New York: Routledge; 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587. 14. The Lancet. The plight of essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet 2020;395:1587. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31200-9. 15. Vandenbroucke JP, Brickley EB, Pearce N, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE. The Evolving Usefulness of the Test-negative Design in Studying Risk Factors for COVID-19. Epidemiology 2022;33:e7-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001438.

Occupation and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk among 108 960 workers during the first pandemic wave in Germany

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify the occupational risk for a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a nationwide sample of German workers during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 February-31 August 2020).

METHODS

We used the data of 108 960 workers who participated in a COVID follow-up survey of the German National Cohort (NAKO). Occupational characteristics were derived from the German Classification of Occupations 2010 (Klassifikation der Berufe 2010). PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections were assessed from self-reports. Incidence rates (IR) and incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using robust Poisson regression, adjusted for person-time at risk, age, sex, migration background, study center, working hours, and employment relationship.

RESULTS

The IR was 3.7 infections per 1000 workers [95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3-4.1]. IR differed by occupational sector, with the highest rates observed in personal (IR 4.8, 95% CI 4.0-5.6) and business administration (IR 3.4, 95% CI 2.8-3.9) services and the lowest rates in occupations related to the production of goods (IR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6). Infections were more frequent among essential workers compared with workers in non-essential occupations (IRR 1.95, 95% CI 1.59-2.40) and among highly skilled compared with skilled professions (IRR 1.36, 95% CI 1.07-1.72).

CONCLUSIONS

The results emphasize higher infection risks in essential occupations and personal-related services, especially in the healthcare sector. Additionally, we found evidence that infections were more common in higher occupational status positions at the beginning of the pandemic.

Regional disparities in SARS-CoV-2 infections by labour market indicators: a spatial panel analysis using nationwide German data on notified infections

Background

Regional labour markets and their properties are named as potential reasons for regional variations in levels of SARS-CoV-2 infections rates, but empirical evidence is missing.

Methods

Using nationwide data on notified laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, we calculated weekly age-standardised incidence rates (ASIRs) for working-age populations at the regional level of Germany’s 400 districts. Data covered nearly 2 years (March 2020 till December 2021), including four main waves of the pandemic. For each of the pandemic waves, we investigated regional differences in weekly ASIRs according to three regional labour market indicators: (1) employment rate, (2) employment by sector, and (3) capacity to work from home. We use spatial panel regression analysis, which incorporates geospatial information and accounts for regional clustering of infections.

Results

For all four pandemic waves under study, we found that regions with higher proportions of people in employment had higher ASIRs and a steeper increase of infections during the waves. Further, the composition of the workforce mattered: rates were higher in regions with larger secondary sectors or if opportunities of working from home were comparatively low. Associations remained consistent after adjusting for potential confounders, including a proxy measure of regional vaccination progress.

Conclusions

If further validated by studies using individual-level data, our study calls for increased intervention efforts to improve protective measures at the workplace, particularly among workers of the secondary sector with no opportunities to work from home. It also points to the necessity of strengthening work and employment as essential components of pandemic preparedness plans.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-022-07643-5.

Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Workers in Health and Social Services in Germany

Health workers are at increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infections. What follows the acute infection is rarely reported in the occupational context. This study examines the employees’ consequences of COVID-19 infection, the risk factors and the impact on quality of life over time. In this baseline survey, respondents were asked about their COVID-19 infection in 2020 and their current health situation. Out of 2053 participants, almost 73% experienced persistent symptoms for more than three months, with fatigue/exhaustion, concentration/memory problems and shortness of breath being most frequently reported. Risk factors were older age, female gender, previous illness, many and severe symptoms during the acute infection, and outpatient medical care. An impaired health-related quality of life was found in participants suffering from persistent symptoms. Overall, a high need for rehabilitation to improve health and work ability is evident. Further follow-up surveys will observe the changes and the impact of vaccination on the consequences of COVID-19 among health workers.

Neighbourhood socio-economic vulnerability and access to COVID-19 healthcare during the first two waves of the pandemic in Geneva, Switzerland: A gender perspective

BACKGROUND

Neighbourhood socio-economic inequities have been shown to affect COVID-19 incidence and mortality, as well as access to tests. This article aimed to study how associations of inequities and COVID-19 outcomes varied between the first two pandemic waves from a gender perspective.

METHODS

We performed an ecological study based on the COVID-19 database of Geneva between Feb 26, 2020, and June 1, 2021. Outcomes were the number of tests per person, the incidence of COVID-19 cases, the incidence of COVID-19 deaths, the positivity rate, and the delay between symptoms and test. Outcomes were described by neighbourhood socio-economic levels and stratified by gender and epidemic waves (first wave, second wave), adjusting for the proportion of inhabitants older than 65 years.

FINDINGS

Low neighbourhood socio-economic levels were associated with a lower number of tests per person (incidence rate ratio [IRR] of 0.88, 0.85 and 0.83 for low, moderate, and highly vulnerable neighbourhood respectively), a higher incidence of COVID-19 cases and of COVID-19 deaths (IRR 2.3 for slightly vulnerable, 1.9 for highly vulnerable). The association between socio-economic inequities and incidence of COVID-19 deaths was mainly present during the first wave of the pandemic, and was stronger amongst women. The increase in COVID-19 cases amongst vulnerable populations appeared mainly during the second wave, and originated from a lower access to tests for men, and a higher number of COVID-19 cases for women.

INTERPRETATION

The COVID-19 pandemic affected people differently depending on their socio-economic level. Because of their employment and higher prevalence of COVID-19 risk factors, people living in neighbourhoods of lower socio-economic levels, especially women, were more exposed to COVID-19 consequences.

FUNDING

This research was supported by the research project SELFISH, financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grant number 51NF40-160590 (LIVES centre international research project call).

Clinical and Economic Impact of COVID-19 on Plantation Workers: Preliminary Results from the Guatemala Agricultural Workers and Respiratory Illness Impact (AGRI) Study

We evaluated the clinical and socioeconomic burdens of respiratory disease in a cohort of Guatemalan banana plantation workers. All eligible workers were offered enrollment from June 15-December 30, 2020, and annually, then followed for influenza-like illnesses (ILI) through: 1) self-reporting to study nurses, 2) sentinel surveillance at health posts, and 3) absenteeism. Workers with ILI submitted nasopharyngeal swabs for influenza, RSV, and SARS-CoV-2 testing, then completed surveys at days 0, 7, and 28. Through October 10, 2021, 1,833 workers developed 169 ILIs (12.0/100 person-years) and 43 (25.4%) of these ILIs were laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (3.1/100 person-years). Workers with SARS-CoV-2-positive ILI reported more anosmia (p<0.01), dysgeusia (p<0.01), difficulty concentrating (p=0.01), and irritability (p=0.01), and greater clinical and well-being severity scores (Flu-iiQ) than test-negative ILIs; they also had greater absenteeism (p<0.01) and lost income (median US$127.1, p<0.01). These results support the prioritization of Guatemalan farm workers for COVID-19 vaccination.

Specchio-COVID19 cohort study: a longitudinal follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey participants in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected billions of people around the world both directly through the infection itself and indirectly through its economic, social and sanitary impact. Collecting data over time is essential for the understanding of the disease spread, the incidence of COVID-19-like symptoms, the level and dynamics of immunity, as well as the long-term impact of the pandemic. The objective of the study was to set up a longitudinal follow-up of adult participants of serosurveys carried out in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This follow-up aims at monitoring COVID-19 related symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, as well as the overall impact of the pandemic on several dimensions of health and on socioeconomic factors over a period of at least 2 years.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Serosurvey participants were invited to create an account on the dedicated digital platform Specchio-COVID19 (https://www.specchio-covid19.ch/). On registration, an initial questionnaire assessed sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics (including housing conditions, physical activity, diet, alcohol and tobacco consumption), anthropometry, general health and experience related to COVID-19 (symptoms, COVID-19 test results, quarantines, hospitalisations). Weekly, participants were invited to fill in a short questionnaire with updates on self-reported COVID-19-compatible symptoms, SARS-CoV-2 infection testing and vaccination. A more detailed questionnaire about mental health, well-being, risk perception and changes in working conditions was proposed monthly. Supplementary questionnaires were proposed at regular intervals to assess more in depth the impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health, vaccination adherence, healthcare consumption and changes in health behaviours. At baseline, serology testing allowed to assess the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the general population and subgroups of workers. Additionally, seropositive participants and a sample of randomly selected participants were invited for serologic testing at regular intervals in order to monitor both the seropersistance of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the population of the canton of Geneva.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Cantonal Research Ethics Commission of Geneva, Switzerland (CCER Project ID 2020-00881). Results will be disseminated in a variety of ways, via the Specchio-COVID-19 platform, social media posts, press releases and through regular scientific dissemination methods (open-access articles, conferences).

Association between SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in Nursing Home Staff and Resident COVID-19 Cases and Mortality: A Cross-Sectional Study

The burden of COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted the elderly, who are at increased risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the association between SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among nursing home staff, and cumulative incidence rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. Staff seroprevalence was estimated within the SEROCoV-WORK+ study between May and September 2020 across 29 nursing homes in Geneva, Switzerland. Data on nursing home residents were obtained from the canton of Geneva for the period between March and August 2020. Associations were assessed using Spearman’s correlation coefficient and quasi-Poisson regression models. Overall, seroprevalence among staff ranged between 0 and 31.4%, with a median of 8.3%. A positive association was found between staff seroprevalence and resident cumulative incidence of COVID-19 cases (correlation coefficient R = 0.72, 95%CI 0.45–0.87; incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.10, 95%CI 1.07–1.17), hospitalizations (R = 0.59, 95%CI 0.25–0.80; IRR = 1.09, 95%CI 1.05–1.13), and deaths (R = 0.71, 95%CI 0.44–0.86; IRR = 1.12, 95%CI 1.07–1.18). Our results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 transmission between staff and residents may contribute to the spread of the virus within nursing homes. Awareness among nursing home professionals of their likely role in the spread of SARS-CoV-2 has the potential to increase vaccination coverage and prevent unnecessary deaths due to COVID-19.

Occupational risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and reinfection during the second pandemic surge: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

This cohort study including essential workers, assessed the risk and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second surge of COVID-19 according to baseline serostatus and occupational sector.

METHODS

Essential workers were selected from a seroprevalence survey cohort in Geneva, Switzerland and were linked to a state centralised registry compiling SARS-CoV-2 infections. Primary outcome was the incidence of virologically confirmed infections from serological assessment (between May and September 2020) to 25 January 2021, according to baseline antibody status and stratified by three predefined occupational groups (occupations requiring sustained physical proximity, involving brief regular contact or others).

RESULTS

10 457 essential workers were included (occupations requiring sustained physical proximity accounted for 3057 individuals, those involving regular brief contact, 3645 and 3755 workers were classified under 'Other essential occupations'). After a follow-up period of over 27 weeks, 5 (0.6%) seropositive and 830 (8.5%) seronegative individuals had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, with an incidence rate of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and 3.2 (95% CI 2.9 to 3.4) cases per person-week, respectively. Incidences were similar across occupational groups. Seropositive essential workers had a 93% reduction in the hazard (HR of 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) of having a positive test during the follow-up with no significant between-occupational group difference.

CONCLUSIONS

A 10-fold reduction in the hazard of being virologically tested positive was observed among anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositive essential workers regardless of their sector of occupation, confirming the seroprotective effect of a previous SARS-CoV2 exposure at least 6 months after infection.

Persistence of SARS-CoV-2-Specific Antibodies for 13 Months after Infection

BACKGROUND

Dynamics of antibody responses were investigated after a SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in a private company during the first wave of the pandemic.

METHODS

Workers of a sewing company (Lithuania) with known SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR result during the outbreak (April 2020) were invited to participate in the study. Virus-specific IgG and IgM were monitored 2, 6 and 13 months after the outbreak via rapid IgG/IgM serological test and SARS-CoV-2 S protein-specific IgG ELISA.

RESULTS

Six months after the outbreak, 95% (CI 86-99%) of 59 previously infected individuals had virus-specific antibodies irrespective of the severity of infection. One-third of seropositive individuals had virus-specific IgM along with IgG indicating that IgM may persist for 6 months. Serological testing 13 months after the outbreak included 47 recovered individuals that remained non-vaccinated despite a wide accessibility of COVID-19 vaccines. The seropositivity rate was 83% (CI 69-91%) excluding one case of confirmed asymptomatic reinfection in this group. Between months 6 and 13, IgG levels either declined or remained stable in 31 individual and increased in 7 individuals possibly indicating an exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during the second wave of the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Detectable levels of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies persist up to 13 months after infection for the majority of the cases.

Persistence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: immunoassay heterogeneity and implications for serosurveillance

OBJECTIVES

Serological studies have been critical in tracking the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies persistence remain sparse, especially from infected individuals with few to no symptoms. The objective of the study was to quantify the sensitivity for detecting historic SARS-CoV-2 infections as a function of time since infection for three commercially available SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays and to explore the implications of decaying immunoassay sensitivity in estimating seroprevalence.

METHODS

We followed a cohort of mostly mild/asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals (n = 354) at least 8 months after their presumed infection date and tested their serum for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with three commercially available assays: Roche-N, Roche-RBD and EuroImmun-S1. We developed a latent class statistical model to infer the specificity and time-varying sensitivity of each assay and show through simulations how inappropriately accounting for test performance can lead to biased serosurvey estimates.

RESULTS

Antibodies were detected at follow-up in 74-100% of participants, depending on immunoassays. Both Roche assays maintain high sensitivity, with the EuroImmun assay missing 40% of infections after 9 months. Simulations reveal that without appropriate adjustment for time-varying assay sensitivity, seroprevalence surveys may underestimate infection rates.

DISCUSSION

Antibodies persist for at least 8 months after infection in a cohort of mildly infected individuals with detection depending on assay choice. Appropriate assay performance adjustment is important for the interpretation of serological studies in the case of diminishing sensitivity after infection.