SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence in NHS healthcare workers in a large double-sited UK hospital

Ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 infection, hospitalisation, intensive care admission, and death: a global systematic review and meta-analysis of over 200 million study participants

Background

COVID-19 has exacerbated existing ethnic inequalities in health. Little is known about whether inequalities in severe disease and deaths, observed globally among minoritised ethnic groups, relates to greater infection risk, poorer prognosis, or both. We analysed global data on COVID-19 clinical outcomes examining inequalities between people from minoritised ethnic groups compared to the ethnic majority group.

Methods

Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMCARE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) were searched from 1st December 2019 to 3rd October 2022, for studies reporting original clinical data for COVID-19 outcomes disaggregated by ethnicity: infection, hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and mortality. We assessed inequalities in incidence and prognosis using random-effects meta-analyses, with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) use to assess certainty of findings. Meta-regressions explored the impact of region and time-frame (vaccine roll-out) on heterogeneity. PROSPERO: CRD42021284981.

Findings

77 studies comprising over 200,000,000 participants were included. Compared with White majority populations, we observed an increased risk of testing positive for infection for people from Black (adjusted Risk Ratio [aRR]:1.78, 95% CI:1.59-1.99, I2 = 99.1), South Asian (aRR:3.00, 95% CI:1.59-5.66, I2 = 99.1), Mixed (aRR:1.64, 95% CI:1.02-1.67, I2 = 93.2) and Other ethnic groups (aRR:1.36, 95% CI:1.01-1.82, I2 = 85.6). Black, Hispanic, and South Asian people were more likely to be seropositive. Among population-based studies, Black and Hispanic ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of hospitalisation; Black, Hispanic, South Asian, East Asian and Mixed ethnic groups and Indigenous peoples had an increased risk of ICU admission. Mortality risk was increased for Hispanic, Mixed, and Indigenous groups. Smaller differences were seen for prognosis following infection. Following hospitalisation, South Asian, East Asian, Black and Mixed ethnic groups had an increased risk of ICU admission, and mortality risk was greater in Mixed ethnic groups. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate.

Interpretation

Our study suggests that systematic ethnic inequalities in COVID-19 health outcomes exist, with large differences in exposure risk and some differences in prognosis following hospitalisation. Response and recovery interventions must focus on tackling drivers of ethnic inequalities which increase exposure risk and vulnerabilities to severe disease, including structural racism and racial discrimination.

Funding

ESRC:ES/W000849/1.

Ethnicity and risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among the healthcare workforce: Results of a retrospective cohort study in rural United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

The reason why Black and South Asian healthcare workers are at a higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unclear. We aimed to quantify the risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare staff who belong to the ethnic minority and elucidate pathways of infection.

METHODS

A one-year follow-up retrospective cohort study has been conducted among National Health Service employees who were working at 123 facilities in Lincolnshire, UK.

RESULTS

Overall, 13,366 professionals were included. SARS-CoV-2 incidence per person-year was 5.2% (95% CI: 3.6-7.6%) during the first COVID-19 wave (January-August 2020) and 17.2% (13.5-22.0%) during the second wave (September 2020-February 2021). Compared with White staff, Black and South Asian employees were at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection during both the first wave (hazard ratio, HR 1.58 [0.91-2.75] and 1.69 [1.07-2.66], respectively) and the second wave (HR 2.09 [1.57-2.76] and 1.46 [1.24-1.71]). Higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection persisted even after controlling for age, sex, pay grade, residence environment, type of work, and time exposure at work. Higher adjusted risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection were also found among lower-paid health professionals.

CONCLUSION

Black and South Asian health workers continue to be at higher risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection than their White counterparts. Urgent interventions are required to reduce SARS-CoV-2 infection in these ethnic groups.

Seroprevalence in health care workers during the later phase of the second wave: Results of three hospitals in Serbia, prior to vaccine administration

BACKGROUND

Since the COVID-19 pandemic has started, Serbia has faced problems in implementing proper public health measures in the population, including non-pharmaceutical interventions, as well as protecting health care workers (HCWs) from disease, like all other countries. This study aimed to estimate COVID-19 seroprevalence and evaluate the risk perception of COVID-19 among HCWs in three different hospitals in Belgrade, Serbia: non-COVID hospital, Emergency Center (EC), and dedicated COVID hospital.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted in three hospitals during the second wave of the outbreak in Serbia, from June to early October. All staff in these hospitals were invited to voluntarily participate in blood sampling for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and questionnaire testing. The questionnaire included socio-demographic characteristics, known exposure to COVID-19 positive persons, previous signs and symptoms related to COVID-19 infection since the outbreak had started in our country, and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody among 1580 HCWs was 18.3 % [95 % CI 16.4-20.3 %]. Significantly higher prevalence of HCWs with positive results for the serum IgG antibody test was observed in COVID hospital (28.6 %, 95 %CI: 24.0-33.6 %) vs. prevalence in the EC (12.6 %, 95 %CI: 10.1-15.4 %), and in the non-COVID hospital (18.3 %, 95 %CI: 15.2-26.7 %). The prevalence adjusted for declared test sensitivity and specificity would be 16.8 %; that is 27.4 % in COVID-19 hospital, 10.9 % in EC, and 16.8 % in non-COVID hospital. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors for seropositivity were working in COVID-hospital, the profession of physician, and the presence of the following symptoms: fever, shortness of breath, and anosmia/ageusia.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an overall seropositivity rate of 18.3 % and 16.0 % of the adjusted rate that is higher than seroprevalence obtained in similar studies conducted before vaccinations started. The possibility that patients in non-COVID dedicated hospitals might also be infectious, although PCR tested, imposes the need for the use of personal protective equipment also in non-COVID medical institutions.

A Prospective, Longitudinal Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19 Exposure, Use of Protective Equipment and Social Distancing in a Group of Community Physicians

Introduction: Healthcare workers experience a significant risk of exposure to and infection from SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19. Nonetheless, little research has focused on physicians’ use of personal protective equipment (PPE), their concerns about becoming infected and their social distancing maneuvers. Methods: All staff physicians at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital were invited to participate. Their COVID-19 IgG antibody level was measured and an online questionnaire was completed. The questionnaire assessed the risk of COVID-19 exposure, PPE usage, concern for contracting COVID-19, the performance of high-risk procedures, work in high-risk settings, and social distancing practices. Testing was performed in September (T0), and December 2020 (T1) at the height of the global pandemic. Results: A total of 481 (26.7%) of 1800 AGLH physicians were enrolled at T0 and 458 (95% of the original group) at T1. A total of 21 (4.3%) and 39 (8.5%) participants had antibodies at T0 and T1. A total of 63 (13.8%) worked in high-risk settings and 111 (24.2%) performed high-risk procedures. Participants working in high-risk settings had increased exposure to COVID-19 infected patients (OR = 4.464 (CI = 2.522–8.459, p < 0.001). Participants were highly adherent to the use of PPE and social distancing practices including mask-wearing in public (86%, 82.1%), avoiding crowds (85.1%, 85.6%), six feet distancing (83.8%, 83.4%), and avoiding public transportation (78%, 83.8%). A total of 251 (55.4%) participants expressed moderate to extreme concern about becoming infected with COVID-19. Conclusions and Relevance: Among a group of community physicians, consistent PPE use and social distancing practices were common. These practices were associated with a low level of initial acquisition of COVID-19 infections and a relatively low longitudinal risk of infection.