Risk Factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Hospital Workers: Results From a Screening Study in New Jersey, United States in Spring 2020

Age and Hair Cortisol Levels as Predictors of SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Chronic psychosocial stress is known to adversely impact immune function. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, occupational stress among workers in healthcare was at an unprecedented level due to risks of infection and work demands. We performed a nested case-control study to investigate the associations between chronic stress and the risks of contracting SARS-CoV-2. We collected 3 cm of hair from employees at an academic medical center who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (N = 49) and controls who tested negative (N = 49), matched for age, race, and sex. The diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 was based on polymerase chain reaction or antibody tests. As a proxy for chronic stress, we segmented hair into 1 cm sections each representing one month and measured cortisol levels using a cortisol enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. For cases, we used cortisol concentrations measured in hair segments from the month prior to a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and for controls, we used time-matched hair segments. We fitted conditional logistic regression models adjusted for sex, age, race, body mass index, and healthcare worker status, and stratified models by older vs. younger age (cutoff = 41 years). African Americans had higher hair cortisol levels relative to participants of other races and ethnicities. In adjusted models, higher hair cortisol concentrations were associated with an increased odds of infection with SARS-CoV-2 (OR = 1.84; CI: 1.10-3.07) among older, but not younger, participants. The results suggest that psychosocial stress may be a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection; stress management may be an important part of a comprehensive approach to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Long-term recovery of taste and smell following acute COVID-19 infection in a New Jersey cohort

Loss of taste and smell is one of the most troubling symptoms of long COVID and may be permanent for some. Correlation between subjectively and objectively assessed olfactory and gustatory impairment is low, leading to uncertainty about how many people are affected, how many recover, and to what extent. We prospectively investigated the effects of COVID-19 on long-term chemosensory function in a university and hospital-based cohort in NJ. We followed 856 participants from March 2020 through April 2022, of which 58 were diagnosed with COVID-19 and completed the NHANES 2013-2014 taste and smell protocol, including a chemosensory questionnaire, whole-mouth taste tests, and an 8-item odor identification test at and/or before acute COVID-19 infection. Of these, 29 repeated taste and smell assessments at 6 months (183.0 ± 54.6) follow-up. Total overall smell score significantly improved from baseline to 6-month follow up (6.9 ± 1.4 vs 7.6 ± 0.8; p = .01). Taste intensity also improved across 6 months, but not significantly. Our study is the first to show psychophysically-assessed and self-reported long-term recovery of olfactory and gustatory function in the same population after acute COVID-19.

Comparison of COVID-19 Symptoms in Correctional Health Care Workers During the Initial and Omicron Surges

There is a dearth of medical literature that characterizes the experience of correctional health care workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a retrospective chart review of the results of an ongoing universal SARS-CoV-2 testing program for New Jersey correctional system HCWs and describe their presenting symptoms, perceived exposure, and demographic characteristics during the initial (March 15, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and Omicron (March 1, 2022, to August 31, 2022) COVID-19 surges. Analysis included 123 eligible records. In both surges, nurses had a high proportion of infections and cough was the most commonly reported symptom. Fever was more than twice as commonly reported in the initial surge. During the Omicron surge, nasal symptoms predominated (39.5% [95% CI: 28.4-51.4]) compared with the initial surge (8.5% [95% CI: 2.4-20.4]). Perceived exposure source was predominantly work related during the initial surge and multiple other sources of exposure were identified during the Omicron surge. Ninety-six percent of HCWs received a COVID-19 booster shot by February 2022. The reinfection rate was less than 10% for our initial cohort. Presenting symptoms correlated with the circulating variant. Mass vaccination of staff, the lower virulence of the Omicron variant, and possibly prior infection likely contributed to the milder illness experienced during the Omicron surge.

Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers before and after COVID-19 vaccination in a tertiary paediatric hospital in Warsaw: A retrospective cohort study

A retrospective observational study was conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) in a tertiary paediatric hospital. The study covered the period before and after implementation of the vaccination programme and evaluated the incidence of new SARS-CoV-2 infections in both periods. Risk factors of the new SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness was also assessed in a real-world setting. The overall incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infections among HCWs in the study period was 19.4% with a high proportion of asymptomatic individuals (45.1%). The incidence before vaccination was 16.6% and nurses had a higher risk of infection, while physicians had a reduced risk (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.29-2.52; and OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.30-0.68). Within two months of implementation, the programme achieved a high (88.9%) vaccination coverage in our cohort, although some disparities in vaccination rates were observed. In particular, older individuals, physicians, those working in clinical settings, and those previously uninfected were more likely to be vaccinated. The overall incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection after vaccination deployment was 6.4% (40.0% in unvaccinated individuals and 3.2% in individuals vaccinated with at least one dose). The estimated vaccine efficacy was high (95.0%) in fully vaccinated HCWs and similar to those observed previously in clinical trials and real-world settings.

Socioeconomic and Demographic Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity Among Healthcare Workers in a UK Hospital: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

To protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from the consequences of disease due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), it is necessary to understand the risk factors that drive exposure and infection within hospitals. Insufficient consideration of key socioeconomic variables is a limitation of existing studies that can lead to bias and residual confounding of proposed risk factors for infection.

METHODS

The Co-STARs study prospectively enrolled 3679 HCWs between April 2020 and September 2020. We used multivariate logistic regression to comprehensively characterize the demographic, occupational, socioeconomic, and environmental risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.

RESULTS

After adjusting for key confounders, relative household overcrowding (odds ratio [OR], 1.4 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.1-1.9]; P = .006), Black, Black British, Caribbean, or African ethnicity (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.2-2.3]; P = .003), increasing age (ages 50-60 years: OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.3-2.4]; P < .001), lack of access to sick pay (OR, 1.8 [95% CI, 1.3-2.4]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Socioeconomic and demographic factors outside the hospital were the main drivers of infection and exposure to SARS-CoV-2 during the first wave of the pandemic in an urban pediatric referral hospital. Overcrowding and out-of-hospital SARS-CoV-2 contact are less amenable to intervention. However, lack of access to sick pay among externally contracted staff is more easily rectifiable. Our findings suggest that providing easier access to sick pay would lead to a decrease in SARS-CoV-2 transmission and potentially that of other infectious diseases in hospital settings.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04380896.

Ethno-demographic disparities in humoral responses to the COVID-19 vaccine among healthcare workers

The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on global health, but rapid vaccine administration resulted in a significant decline in morbidity and mortality rates worldwide. In this study, we sought to explore the temporal changes in the humoral immune response against SARS-CoV-2 healthcare workers (HCWs) in Augusta, GA, USA, and investigate any potential associations with ethno-demographic features. Specifically, we aimed to compare the naturally infected individuals with naïve individuals to understand the immune response dynamics after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. A total of 290 HCWs were included and assessed prospectively in this study. COVID status was determined using a saliva-based COVID assay. Neutralizing antibody (NAb) levels were quantified using a chemiluminescent immunoassay system, and IgG levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method. We examined the changes in antibody levels among participants using different statistical tests including logistic regression and multiple correspondence analysis. Our findings revealed a significant decline in NAb and IgG levels at 8-12 months postvaccination. Furthermore, a multivariable analysis indicated that this decline was more pronounced in White HCWs (odds ratio [OR] = 2.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07-4.08, p = 0.02) and IgG (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.04-4.11, p = 0.03) among the whole cohort. Booster doses significantly increased IgG and NAb levels, while a decline in antibody levels was observed in participants without booster doses at 12 months postvaccination. Our results highlight the importance of understanding the dynamics of immune response and the potential influence of demographic factors on waning immunity to SARS-CoV-2. In addition, our findings emphasize the value of booster doses to ensure durable immunity.

Incidence and Predictors of COVID-19 Infection in Prison Healthcare Workers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to assess the predictors of SARS-CoV-2 infection among correctional healthcare workers (HCWs).

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review to describe the demographic and workplace characteristics of New Jersey correctional HCWs between March 15, 2020, and August 31, 2020, using univariate and multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Among 822 HCWs, patient-facing staff had the highest incidence of infection (7.2%). Associated risk factors include being Black and working in a maximum-security prison. There were few statistically significant findings due to small total numbers ( n = 47) that tested positive.

CONCLUSIONS

Correctional HCWs' challenging work environment creates unique risk factors for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Administrative measures taken by the department of corrections may have a significant role in curbing the spread of infection. The findings can help focus preventive measures for reducing the spread of COVID-19 in this unique population.

The Relative Contributions of Occupational and Community Risk Factors for COVID-19 among Hospital Workers: The HOP-COVID Cohort Study

The relative contributions of occupational and community sources of COVID-19 among health-care workers (HCWs) are still subject to debate. In a cohort study at a 2814-bed tertiary medical center (five hospitals) in the Paris area of France, we assessed the proportion of hospital-acquired cases among staff and identified risk factors. Between May 2020 and June 2021, HCWs were invited to complete a questionnaire on their COVID-19 risk factors. RT-PCR and serology test results were retrieved from the virology department. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to account for clustering by hospital. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 15.6% (n = 213/1369 respondents) overall, 29.7% in the geriatric hospitals, and 56.8% of the infections were hospital-acquired. On multivariable analyses adjusted for COVID-19 incidence and contact in the community, a significantly higher risk was identified for staff providing patient care (especially nursing assistants), staff from radiology/functional assessment units and stretcher services, and staff working on wards with COVID-19 clusters among patients or HCWs. The likelihood of infection was greater in geriatric wards than in intensive care units. The presence of significant occupational risk factors after adjustment for community exposure is suggestive of a high in-hospital risk and emphasizes the need for stronger preventive measures-especially in geriatric settings. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04386759.

Connect: Cultivating Academic-Community Partnerships to Address Our Communities' Complex Needs During Public Health Crises

BACKGROUND

Black and Latino communities have been disproportionately impacted by coronavirus disease 2019 and we sought to understand perceptions and attitudes in four heavily impacted New Jersey counties to develop and evaluate engagement strategies to enhance access to testing.

OBJECTIVE

To establish a successful academic/community partnership team during a public health emergency by building upon longstanding relationships and using principles from community engaged research.

METHODS

We present a case study illustrating multiple levels of engagement, showing how we successfully aligned expectations, developed a commitment of cooperation, and implemented a research study, with community-based and health care organizations at the center of community engagement and recruitment.

LESSONS LEARNED

This paper describes successful approaches to relationship building including information sharing and feedback to foster reciprocity, diverse dissemination strategies to enhance engagement, and intergenerational interaction to ensure sustainability.

CONCLUSIONS

This model demonstrates how academic/community partnerships can work together during public health emergencies to develop sustainable relationships.

Who Is at Higher Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection? Results from a Northern Region of Italy

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic continues to spread worldwide, generating a high impact on healthcare systems. The aim of the study was to examine the epidemiological burden of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and to identify potential related risk factors. A retrospective observational study was conducted in Liguria Region, combining data from National Vaccines Registry and Regional Chronic Condition Data Warehouse. In the study period (September 2021 to May 2022), 335,117 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection were recorded in Liguria, of which 15,715 were reinfected once. During the Omicron phase (which predominated from 3 January 2022), the risk of reinfection was 4.89 times higher (p < 0.001) than during the Delta phase. Unvaccinated and vaccinated individuals with at least one dose for more than 120 days were at increased risk of reinfection compared with vaccinated individuals with at least one dose for ≤120 days, respectively (odds ratio (OR) of 1.26, p < 0.001; OR of 1.18, p < 0.001). Healthcare workers were more than twice as likely to be reinfected than non-healthcare workers (OR of 2.38, p < 0.001). Lower ORs were seen among people aged 60 to 79 years. Two doses or more of vaccination were found to be protective against the risk of reinfection rather than a single dose (mRNA vaccines: OR of 0.06, p < 0.0001, and OR of 0.1, p < 0.0001; vector vaccines: OR of 0.05, p < 0.0001). Patients with chronic renal failure, cardiovascular disease, bronchopneumopathy, neuropathy and autoimmune diseases were at increased risk of reinfection (OR of 1.38, p = 0.0003; OR of 1.09, p < 0.0296; OR of 1.14, p = 0.0056; OR of 1.78, p < 0.0001; OR of 1.18, p = 0.0205). Estimating the epidemiological burden of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections and the role played by risk factors in reinfections is relevant for identifying risk-based preventive strategies in a pandemic context characterized by a high circulation of the virus and a high rate of pathogen mutations.

Community- Versus Health Care Organization-Based Approaches to Expanding At-Home COVID-19 Testing in Black and Latino Communities, New Jersey, 2021

At-home COVID-19 testing offers convenience and safety advantages. We evaluated at-home testing in Black and Latino communities through an intervention comparing community-based organization (CBO) and health care organization (HCO) outreach. From May through December 2021, 1100 participants were recruited, 94% through CBOs. The odds of COVID-19 test requests and completions were significantly higher in the HCO arm. The results showed disparities in test requests and completions related to age, race, language, insurance, comorbidities, and pandemic-related challenges. Despite the popularity of at-home testing, barriers exist in underresourced communities. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(S9):S918-S922. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306989).

Clinical and occupational risk factors for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel

Objective

To identify characteristics associated with positive severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests in healthcare personnel.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

A multihospital healthcare system.

Participants

Employees who reported SARS-CoV-2 exposures and/or symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) between March 30, 2020, and September 20, 2020, and were subsequently referred for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.

Methods

Data from exposure and/or symptom reports were linked to the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 PCR test result. Employee demographic characteristics, occupational characteristics, SARS-CoV-2 exposure history, and symptoms were evaluated as potential risk factors for having a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test.

Results

Among 6,289 employees who received SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing, 873 (14%) had a positive test. Independent risk factors for a positive PCR included: working in a patient care area (relative risk [RR], 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37-2.40), having a known SARS-CoV-2 exposure (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.37), reporting a community versus an occupational exposure (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.49-2.34), and having an infected household contact (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.11-2.89). Nearly all HCP (99%) reported symptoms. Symptoms associated with a positive PCR in a multivariable analysis included loss of sense of smell (RR, 2.60; 95% CI, 2.09-3.24) or taste (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.40-2.20), cough (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.40-2.20), fever, and muscle aches.

Conclusions

In this cohort of >6,000 healthcare system and academic medical center employees early in the pandemic, community exposures, and particularly household exposures, were associated with greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than occupational exposures. This work highlights the importance of COVID-19 prevention in the community and in healthcare settings to prevent COVID-19.

Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfections in a Prospective Inception Cohort Study: Impact of COVID-19 Vaccination

The risk of reinfection could be related to the initial SARS-CoV-2 clinical presentation, but there are no data about the risk change after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We evaluated the rate of reinfection in an inception cohort study of 4943 health care workers (HCWs) according to symptoms and serologic results during March−May 2020. Incidence rates (IR) and IR ratios (IRR) before and after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were determined by adjusting Poisson models. Overall, 1005 HCWs (20.3%) referred COVID-19 suggestive symptoms during the first surge of disease, and 33.5% and 55% presented a positive PCR or serology result, respectively. Meanwhile, 13% of asymptomatic HCWs had specific antibodies. During a follow up of 3422.2 person-years before vaccination, the rate of reinfection among seropositive individuals was 81% lower for those who were symptomatic compared with those who were asymptomatic (IRR of 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05−0.67; p = 0.003). During the 3100 person-years period after vaccination, an overall 74% decrease in the rate of infection was observed (IRR of 0.26; 95% CI, 0.21−0.32; p < 0.001), with a significant 83% and 70% decrease in seropositive and seronegative HCWs, respectively. In conclusion, the risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfections is closely related to the clinical and serological presentation of COVID-19. COVID-19 vaccination further decreases the risk of reinfection more markedly among seropositive.

The NJ Alliance for Clinical and Translational Science (NJ ACTS) experience: Responding at “warp speed” to COVID-19

Introduction:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

COVID-19 Health Disparities and Adverse Social Determinants of Health

Racial and ethnic disparities in healthcare and health outcomes are longstanding. The real-time emergence of COVID-19 disparities has heightened the public and scientific discourse about structural inequities contributing to the greater risk of morbidity and mortality among racial and ethnic minority populations and other underserved groups. A key aspect of assuring health equity is addressing social determinants that lead to adverse health outcomes among minoritized groups. This article presents an exploratory social determinants of health (SDOH) conceptual framework for understanding racial and ethnic COVID-19 disparities, including factors related to health and healthcare, socioeconomics, and environmental determinants. The model also illustrates the backdrop of structural racism and discrimination, which directly affect health and COVID-19 exposure risk, and thus transmission, infection, and death. We also describe a special SDOH collection in the PhenX Toolkit (consensus measures for Phenotypes and eXposures), which includes established measures to promote standardization of assessment and the use of common data elements in research contexts. The use of common constructs, measures, and data elements are important for data integration, understanding the causes of health disparities, and evaluating interventions to reduce them. Substandard SDOH are among the primary drivers of health disparities-and scientific approaches to address these key concerns require identification and leveled alignment with the root causes. The overarching goal of this discussion is to broaden the consideration of mechanisms by which populations with health disparities face additional SARS-CoV-2 exposure risks, and to encourage research to develop interventions to reduce SDOH-associated disparities in COVID-19 and other conditions and behaviors.

Occupational Risk Factors for SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Hospital Health Care Workers: A Prospective Nested Case-Control Study

Introduction: Health Care Workers (HCWs) are at a particular high risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to direct and indirect exposure to COVID-19 patients and Aerosol-Generating Procedures (AGPs). The aim of the study was to assess the risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients, to evaluate the adherence and effectiveness of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) measures, to describe the clinical presentation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCWs and to determine serological responses in HCWs. Methods: HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients during the previous 14 days with a confirmed case status were recruited as cases; HCWs exposed to COVID-19 patients during the previous 14 days in the same ward without a suspected/probable/confirmed case status were recruited as controls. Serum samples were collected as soon as possible and after 21–28 days from all participants. Data were collected with a WHO standardized questionnaire as soon as possible and after 21–28 days. Results: All social, occupational and personal variables considered were not associated with an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Conclusions: Our study showed a high knowledge of IPC measures and very high PPE use among HCWs.

COVID-19 infection rates early in the pandemic among full time clinicians in a home health care and hospice organization

BACKGROUND

Patient-facing health care workers (HCW) experience higher rates of COVID-19 infection, particularly at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, rates of COVID-19 among front-line home health and hospice clinicians are relatively unknown.

METHODS

Visit data from a home health care and hospice agency in New Jersey early in the pandemic was analyzed to examine COVID-19 infection rates separately for clinicians exposed to COVID-19-contagious patients, and those without exposure to known COVID-19 contagious patients.

RESULTS

Between March 5 and May 31, 2020, among home health clinicians providing in-person care, clinicians treating at least one COVID-19 contagious patient had a case rate of 0.8% compared to 15.7% for clinicians with no exposure to known COVID-19 contagious patients. Among hospice clinicians providing in-person care, those who treated at least one COVID-19 contagious patient had a case rate of 6.5%, compared to 12.9% for clinicians with no known exposure to COVID-19 contagious patients. Non-White clinicians had a higher COVID-19 case rate than White clinicians (10.9% vs 6.2%).

DISCUSSION

Lower rates of COVID-19 infection among clinicians providing care to COVID-19-contagious patients may result from greater attentiveness to infection control protocols and greater precautions in clinicians' personal lives. Greater exposure to COVID-19-contagious patients prior to patient diagnosis ("unknown exposures") may explain differences in infection rates between home health and hospice clinicians with workplace exposures.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians providing in-person care to COVID-19-contagious patients experience lower rates of COVID-19 infection than clinicians providing face-to-face care with no known exposure to COVID-19 contagious patients. Our findings suggest there was a low incidence of potential workplace infections.

Exploring the Clinical Utility of Gustatory Dysfunction (GD) as a Triage Symptom Prior to Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) in the Diagnosis of COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of COVID-19 is made using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) but its sensitivity varies from 20 to 100%. The presence of gustatory dysfunction (GD) in a patient with upper respiratory tract symptoms might increase the clinical suspicion of COVID-19.

AIMS

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR-) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of using GD as a triage symptom prior to RT-PCR.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were searched up to 20 June 2021. Studies published in English were included if they compared the frequency of GD in COVID-19 adult patients (proven by RT-PCR) to COVID-19 negative controls in case control or cross-sectional studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

21,272 COVID-19 patients and 52,298 COVID-19 negative patients were included across 44 studies from 21 countries. All studies were of moderate to high risk of bias. Patients with GD were more likely to test positive for COVID-19: DOR 6.39 (4.86-8.40), LR+ 3.84 (3.04-4.84), LR- 0.67 (0.64-0.70), pooled sensitivity 0.37 (0.29-0.47) and pooled specificity 0.92 (0.89-0.94). While history/questionnaire-based assessments were predictive of RT-PCR positivity (DOR 6.62 (4.95-8.85)), gustatory testing was not (DOR 3.53 (0.98-12.7)). There was significant heterogeneity among the 44 studies (I2 = 92%, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

GD is useful as a symptom to determine if a patient should undergo further testing, especially in resource-poor regions where COVID-19 testing is scarce. Patients with GD may be advised to quarantine while repeated testing is performed if the initial RT-PCR is negative.

FUNDING

None.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among nurses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aims and Objectives

This systematic review and meta‐analysis reports the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses.

Background

With a growing body of literature reporting the positive serology for SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among healthcare workers, it remains unclear whether staff at the point of direct patient care are more prone to developing and transmitting the virus. Given nurses make up the majority of the global health workforce, outbreaks among these workers could severely undermine a health system’s capability to manage the pandemic. We aimed to summarise and report the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses globally.

Design

Systematic review and meta‐analyses.

Methods

This systematic review was developed, undertaken and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. We searched the electronic medical literature databases: MEDLINE; CINAHL; and EMBASE for studies reporting the seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nursing staff. Studies that reported nursing specific data were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for studies reporting prevalence data. Studies were stratified according to the World Health Organisation region classifications, and results were presented using forest plots and summary prevalence and variance was estimated using a random effects model.

Results

Our electronic search identified 1687 potential studies, of which 1148 were screened for eligibility after duplicates were removed, and 51 of the studies were included in our meta‐analysis. The overall seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses was estimated to be 8.1% (95% CI 6.9%–9.4%) among the 60,571 participants included in the studies. Seropositivity was highest in the African region (48.2%, 95% CI 39.2%–57.3%), followed by the European region (10.3%, 95% CI 8.0%–12.5%), the Region of the Americas (8.4%, 95% CI 6.0%–10.7%), the South‐East Asia region (3.0%, 95% CI 0.00%–6.5%) and the Western Pacific region (0.5%, 95% CI 0.0%–1.0%). Pooled estimates were unable to be calculated in the Eastern Mediterranean region due to insufficient studies.

Conclusion

The seroprevalence of SARS‐CoV‐2 antibodies among nurses is comparable to other healthcare workers, and possibly similar to the general population. Early adoption and adherence to personal protective equipment and social distancing measures could explain these similarities, meaning the majority of staff contracted the virus through community transmission and not in a healthcare setting.

Relevance to clinical practice

Fear and uncertainty have been features of this pandemic, including among nurses. This meta‐analysis should provide some comfort to nurses that risks are similar to community exposure when adequate PPE is available and there is an adherence to infection control measures.

Determinants and dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a diverse population: 6-month evaluation of a prospective cohort study

Background

We studied risk factors, antibodies, and symptoms of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a diverse, ambulatory population.

Methods

A prospective cohort (n = 831) previously undiagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection underwent serial testing (SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction, immunoglobulin G [IgG]) for 6 months.

Results

Ninety-three participants (11.2%) tested SARS-CoV-2-positive: 14 (15.1%) asymptomatic, 24 (25.8%) severely symptomatic. Healthcare workers (n = 548) were more likely to become infected (14.2% vs 5.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 2.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.4–3.3) and severely symptomatic (29.5% vs 6.7%). IgG antibodies were detected after 79% of asymptomatic infections, 89% with mild-moderate symptoms, and 96% with severe symptoms. IgG trajectories after asymptomatic infections (slow increases) differed from symptomatic infections (early peaks within 2 months). Most participants (92%) had persistent IgG responses (median 171 days). In multivariable models, IgG titers were positively associated with symptom severity, certain comorbidities, and hospital work. Dyspnea and neurologic changes (including altered smell/taste) lasted ≥ 120 days in ≥ 10% of affected participants. Prolonged symptoms (frequently more severe) corresponded to higher antibody levels.

Conclusions

In a prospective, ethnically diverse cohort, symptom severity correlated with the magnitude and trajectory of IgG production. Symptoms frequently persisted for many months after infection.

Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04336215.

The front-line during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: healthcare personnel

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

An estimated four to 11% of reported coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases occurs in healthcare personnel (HCP). HCP are at high risk of acquiring and transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) given their close contact with individuals with recognized and unrecognized COVID-19. We summarize the literature to date describing the epidemiology, identifying risk factors associated with COVID-19, and analyzing clinical characteristics and outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCP.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCP ranges from 0.7 to 45%. Although there is heterogeneity in the seroprevalence rate reported in the literature, HCP may be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection from exposure to patients with COVID-19. The literature supports that this can be minimized with adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) supply, proper hand hygiene, appropriate PPE use, and other infection prevention measures. In addition, infections in HCP are commonly acquired in the community as well as in nonclinical care settings including break rooms or work rooms.

SUMMARY

While much focus has been on minimizing patient-to-HCP transmission of SARS-CoV-2, additional efforts are needed to prevent exposures in nonclinical care settings and in the community.

Risk factors for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity among nursing home staff

OBJECTIVES

To estimate prior severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among skilled nursing facility (SNF) staff in the state of Georgia and to identify risk factors for seropositivity as of fall 2020.

DESIGN

Baseline survey and seroprevalence of the ongoing longitudinal Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) Prevention in Nursing Homes study.

SETTING

The study included 14 SNFs in the state of Georgia.

PARTICIPANTS

In total, 792 SNF staff employed or contracted with participating SNFs were included in this study. The analysis included 749 participants with SARS-CoV-2 serostatus results who provided age, sex, and complete survey information.

METHODS

We estimated unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for potential risk factors and SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. We estimated adjusted ORs using a logistic regression model including age, sex, community case rate, SNF resident infection rate, working at other facilities, and job role.

RESULTS

Staff working in high-infection SNFs were twice as likely (unadjusted OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.45-3.00) to be seropositive as those in low-infection SNFs. Certified nursing assistants and nurses were 3 times more likely to be seropositive than administrative, pharmacy, or nonresident care staff: unadjusted OR, 2.93 (95% CI, 1.58-5.78) and unadjusted OR, 3.08 (95% CI, 1.66-6.07). Logistic regression yielded similar adjusted ORs.

CONCLUSIONS

Working at high-infection SNFs was a risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity. Even after accounting for resident infections, certified nursing assistants and nurses had a 3-fold higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity than nonclinical staff. This knowledge can guide prioritized implementation of safer ways for caregivers to provide necessary care to SNF residents.