Anti-SARS-CoV immunoglobulin G in healthcare workers, Guangzhou, China

Seroepidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Healthcare Workers before Circulation of the Omicron Sublineages BA.4/BA.5 in Vojvodina, Serbia

Healthcare workers (HCWs) are a vulnerable and critical population in the ongoing response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We aimed to estimate the seroprevalence in HCWs considering all of their previous contacts with the SARS-CoV-2 virus and/or the immunity acquired through their immunization against COVID-19 before the advent of the Omicron variants BA.4/BA.5. Serum samples were collected from 28 March to 10 June 2022. We covered 25% out of all the people who worked in some of the government healthcare centers (primary, secondary, and tertiary level) across the entire Autonomous Province of Vojvodina (Northern Serbia). Two serological tests (Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA and LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS) were used to detect anti-spike IgG antibodies. The overall prevalence of the SARS-CoV-2 antibody among the 6936 HCWs was 92.96% [95% CI 92.33−93.55]. Regarding the type of serological test, there was a statistically significant (p = 0.0079) difference of the seropositivity obtained by the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 TrimericS (93.87%, 95% CI 92.97−94.69) and Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA (92.23%, 95% CI 91.34−93.06) tests. Seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 significantly (p < 0.0001) increased with the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections combined with the number of doses of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines received. A vast majority of the HCWs in Vojvodina had detectable levels of antibodies to the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, but despite this high seropositivity, it is unknown whether this herd immunity among HCWs is protective against the new variants of concern. Further research should evaluate the rates of reinfections and the associated severity of COVID-19 caused by the Omicron sublineages and/or new variants of SARS-CoV-2 among HCWs.

SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence in the workforces of three large workplaces in South Wales: a sero-epidemiological study

BACKGROUND

Sero-prevalence studies quantify the proportion of a population that has antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, and can be used to identify the extent of the COVID-19 pandemic at a population level. The aim of the study was to assess the sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the workforce at three workplaces: a food factory, non-food factory and call-centre.

METHODS

Nine hundred ninety-three participants were recruited from three workplaces in South Wales. Participants completed a questionnaire and had a lateral flow point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antibody test administered by a healthcare professional. The data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression, both using complete records only and following multiple imputation.

RESULTS

The sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies ranged from 4% (n = 17/402) in the non-food factory to 10% (n = 28/281) in the food factory (OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.26 to 6.81). After taking account of confounding factors evidence of a difference remained (cOR comparing food factory to call centre (2.93; 95% CI 1.26 to 6.81) and non-food factory (3.99; 95% CI 1.97 to 8.08) respectively). The SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence also varied between roles within workplaces. People working in office based roles had a 2.23 times greater conditional odds (95% CI 1.02 to 4.87) of being positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies than those working on the factory floor.

CONCLUSION

The sero-prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies varied by workplace and work role. Whilst it is not possible to state whether these differences are due to COVID-19 transmission within the workplaces, it highlights the importance of considering COVID-19 transmission in a range of workplaces and work roles.

SARS-CoV-2 IgG Surveillance in Asymptomatic Blood Donors and Health Workers

MATERIALS AND METHODS

2085 blood donors were allowed to donate blood only after fulfilling all the criteria laid down by the FDA of India with additional history of excluding COVID-19 suspects. IgG antibody testing was performed by chemiluminescence, and results were noted along with their reactive status. Their reactive status was analyzed with donor information to get an idea of the risk parameters for COVID-19. Medical healthcare workers in whom the study was carried out were 560, out of which 114 had worked in COVID-19 duties and 446 had worked in non-COVID-19 emergencies areas. COVID-19 area duties were further subdivided into triage, holding area, isolation, and COVID-19-related duties. The samples were run on architect i2000 and evaluated for their plasma immunoglobulin G.

RESULTS

Amongst the asymptomatic blood donors, 1.9% was found to be COVID-19 IgG antibody positive. It was observed that maximum COVID-19 IgG positivity (57.1%) was seen in the age group 18-29 years followed by 26.2% in the age group 30-39 years. Donors in the age group 40-49 years showed antibody positivity of 16.7%, and no antibody-positive donors were found above 50 years of age. COVID-19 IgG positivity was maximum in replacement donors (61.9%) followed by family donors (28.6%) and least involuntary donors (0.6%) Blood donors who showed high IgG positivity were mainly of labor class. Antibody IgG testing on medical healthcare workers showed 2.3% positivity. The healthcare workers who were posted in COVID-19 duties showed 4.8% positivity in the holding area (waiting area with the treatment of patients till their RT PCR report comes) and 5.7% in other COVID-19 areas related to laboratory work. Healthcare workers doing duties in COVID-19 areas showed 2.7% positivity, while those doing duties in non-COVID-19 emergency areas showed a positivity of 2.2%.

CONCLUSION

Our study shows that the prevalence of detectable antibodies was low in the general population in India and many patients were asymptomatic as seen in the blood donors, especially the labor class. Maximum exposure was present in young healthy males of labor class who remained asymptomatic. The healthcare workers were more exposed to COVID-19 as compared to the general population probably due to lack of precaution and awareness. Those doing non-COVID-19 duties were also exposed appreciably and needed to take all the precautions required for COVID-19 duties.

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and asymptomatic viral carriage in healthcare workers: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020.

SETTING

University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK.

PARTICIPANTS

545 asymptomatic healthcare workers were recruited while at work. Participants were invited to participate via the UHBFT social media. Exclusion criteria included current symptoms consistent with COVID-19. No potential participants were excluded.

INTERVENTION

Participants volunteered a nasopharyngeal swab and a venous blood sample that were tested for SARS-CoV-2 RNA and anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies, respectively. Results were interpreted in the context of prior illnesses and the hospital departments in which participants worked.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Proportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.

RESULTS

The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 viral carriage was 2.4% (n=13/545). The overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was 24.4% (n=126/516). Participants who reported prior symptomatic illness had higher seroprevalence (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2=21.1034, p<0.0001) and quantitatively greater antibody responses than those who had remained asymptomatic. Seroprevalence was greatest among those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%), with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%). BAME (Black, Asian and minority ethnic) ethnicity was associated with a significantly increased risk of seropositivity (OR: 1.92, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.23, p=0.01). Working on the intensive care unit was associated with a significantly lower risk of seropositivity compared with working in other areas of the hospital (OR: 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78, p=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We identify differences in the occupational risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 between hospital departments and confirm asymptomatic seroconversion occurs in healthcare workers. Further investigation of these observations is required to inform future infection control and occupational health practices.

Epidemiology of and Risk Factors for Coronavirus Infection in Health Care Workers: A Living Rapid Review

BACKGROUND

Health care workers (HCWs) are at risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

PURPOSE

To examine the burden of SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV-1, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)-CoV on HCWs and risk factors for infection, using rapid and living review methods.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple electronic databases, including the WHO database of publications on coronavirus disease and the medRxiv preprint server (2003 through 27 March 2020, with ongoing surveillance through 24 April 2020), and reference lists.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies published in any language reporting incidence of or outcomes associated with coronavirus infections in HCWs and studies on the association between risk factors (demographic characteristics, role, exposures, environmental and administrative factors, and personal protective equipment [PPE] use) and HCW infections. New evidence will be incorporated on an ongoing basis by using living review methods.

DATA EXTRACTION

One reviewer abstracted data and assessed methodological limitations; verification was done by a second reviewer.

DATA SYNTHESIS

64 studies met inclusion criteria; 43 studies addressed burden of HCW infections (15 on SARS-CoV-2), and 34 studies addressed risk factors (3 on SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers accounted for a significant proportion of coronavirus infections and may experience particularly high infection incidence after unprotected exposures. Illness severity was lower than in non-HCWs. Depression, anxiety, and psychological distress were common in HCWs during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. The strongest evidence on risk factors was on PPE use and decreased infection risk. The association was most consistent for masks but was also observed for gloves, gowns, eye protection, and handwashing; evidence suggested a dose-response relationship. No study evaluated PPE reuse. Certain exposures (such as involvement in intubations, direct patient contact, or contact with bodily secretions) were associated with increased infection risk. Infection control training was associated with decreased risk.

LIMITATION

There were few studies on risk factors for SARS-CoV-2, the studies had methodological limitations, and streamlined rapid review methods were used.

CONCLUSION

Health care workers experience significant burdens from coronavirus infections, including SARS-CoV-2. Use of PPE and infection control training are associated with decreased infection risk, and certain exposures are associated with increased risk.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

World Health Organization.

Discovery of N-(benzo[1,2,3]triazol-1-yl)-N-(benzyl)acetamido)phenyl) carboxamides as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) 3CLpro inhibitors: identification of ML300 and noncovalent nanomolar inhibitors with an induced-fit binding

Herein we report the discovery and SAR of a novel series of SARS-CoV 3CLpro inhibitors identified through the NIH Molecular Libraries Probe Production Centers Network (MLPCN). In addition to ML188, ML300 represents the second probe declared for 3CLpro from this collaborative effort. The X-ray structure of SARS-CoV 3CLpro bound with a ML300 analog highlights a unique induced-fit reorganization of the S2-S4 binding pockets leading to the first sub-micromolar noncovalent 3CLpro inhibitors retaining a single amide bond.

Which preventive measures might protect health care workers from SARS?

Background

Despite the use of a series of preventive measures, a high incidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was observed among health care workers (HCWs) during the SARS epidemic. This study aimed to determine which preventive measures may have been effective in protecting HCWs from infection, and which were not effective.

Methods

A retrospective study was performed among 758 'frontline' health care workers who cared for SARS patients at the Second Affiliated Hospital and the Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University. The HCWs with IgG against SARS and those without IgG against SARS were respectively defined as the "case group" and the "control group", and logistic regression was conducted to explore the risk factors for SARS infection in HCWs.

Results

After adjusting for age, gender, marital status, educational level, professional title, and the department in which an individual worked, the results of a multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that incidence of SARS among HCWs was significantly and positively associated with: performing tracheal intubations for SARS patients, methods used for air ventilation in wards, avoiding face-to-face interaction with SARS patients, the number of pairs of gloves worn by HCWs, and caring for serious SARS cases.

Conclusion

Some measures, particularly good air ventilation in SARS wards, may be effective in minimizing or preventing SARS transmission among HCWs in hospitals.

SARS transmission in Vietnam outside of the health-care setting

To evaluate the risk of transmission of SARS coronavirus outside of the health-care setting, close household and community contacts of laboratory-confirmed SARS cases were identified and followed up for clinical and laboratory evidence of SARS infection. Individual- and household-level risk factors for transmission were investigated. Nine persons with serological evidence of SARS infection were identified amongst 212 close contacts of 45 laboratory-confirmed SARS cases (secondary attack rate 4.2%, 95% CI 1.5-7). In this cohort, the average number of secondary infections caused by a single infectious case was 0.2. Two community contacts with laboratory evidence of SARS coronavirus infection had mild or sub-clinical infection, representing 3% (2/65) of Vietnamese SARS cases. There was no evidence of transmission of infection before symptom onset. Physically caring for a symptomatic laboratory-confirmed SARS case was the only independent risk factor for SARS transmission (OR 5.78, 95% CI 1.23-24.24).

Early diagnosis of SARS: lessons from the Toronto SARS outbreak

The clinical presentation of SARS is nonspecific and diagnostic tests do not provide accurate results early in the disease course. Initial diagnosis remains reliant on clinical assessment. To identify features of the clinical assessment that are useful in SARS diagnosis, the exposure status and the prevalence and timing of symptoms, signs, laboratory and radiographic findings were determined for all adult patients admitted with suspected SARS during the Toronto SARS outbreak. Findings were compared between patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS and those in whom SARS was excluded by laboratory or public health investigation. Of 364 cases, 273 (75%) had confirmed SARS, 30 (8%) were excluded, and 61 (17%) remained indeterminate. Among confirmed cases, exposure occurred in the healthcare environment (80%) or in the households of affected patients (17%); community or travel-related cases were rare (<3%). Fever occurred in 97% of patients by the time of admission. Respiratory findings including cough, dyspnea and pulmonary infiltrates evolved later and were present in only 59, 37 and 68% of patients, respectively, at admission. Direct exposure, fever on the first day of illness, and elevated temperature, pulmonary infiltrates, lymphopenia and thrombocytopenia at admission were associated with confirmed cases. Rhinorrhea, sore throat, and an elevated neutrophil count at admission were associated with excluded cases. In the absence of fever or significant exposure, SARS is unlikely. Other clinical, laboratory and radiographic findings further raise or lower the likelihood of SARS and provide a rational basis for estimating the likelihood of SARS and directing initial management.

A patient with asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and antigenemia from the 2003-2004 community outbreak of SARS in Guangzhou, China

An asymptomatic case of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) occurred early in 2004, during a community outbreak of SARS in Guangzhou, China. This was the first time that a case of asymptomatic SARS was noted in an individual with antigenemia and seroconversion. The asymptomatic case patient and the second index case patient with SARS in the 2003-2004 outbreak both worked in the same restaurant, where they served palm civets, which were found to carry SARS-associated coronaviruses. Epidemiological information and laboratory findings suggested that the findings for the patient with asymptomatic infection, together with the findings from previously reported serological analyses of handlers of wild animals and the 4 index case patients from the 2004 community outbreak, reflected a likely intermediate phase of animal-to-human transmission of infection, rather than a case of human-to-human transmission. This intermediate phase may be a critical stage for virus evolution and disease prevention.