Search

SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence among health-care workers (HCW) can assess past exposure and possible immunity, which varies across different regions, populations and times. We investigated the seroprevalence among HCW in Massachusetts (a region suffering high COVID-19 mortality) at the end of first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. All HCW at Cambridge Health Alliance were invited to participate in this cross-sectional survey in June 2020. Those who volunteered, consented and provided a blood sample were included. Dried blood specimens from finger-prick sampling collected either at home by each HCW or onsite by the study team were analyzed for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG to the virus' receptor binding domain, using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. IgM and IgG antibody abundance were categorized based on the number of standard deviations above the cross-reacting levels found in existing, pre-pandemic blood samples previously obtained by the Ragon Institute and analyzed by the Broad Institute (Cambridge, MA). Seroprevalence estimates were made based on 'positive' IgM or IgG using 'low' (>6 SD), 'medium' (>4.5 SD), and 'high' prevalence cutoffs (>3 SD).A total of 433 out of 5,204 eligible HCWs consented and provided samples. Participating HCWs had a lower cumulative incidence (from the start of the pandemic up to the bloodspot collections) of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positivity (1.85%) compared to non-participants (3.29%). The low, medium, and high seroprevalence estimates were 8.1%, 11.3%, and 14.5%, respectively. The weighted estimates based on past PCR positivity were 13.9%, 19.4%, and 24.9%, respectively, for the entire healthcare system population after accounting for participation bias.

Diagnosis of acute severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection relies on detection of viral antigens or amplified viral nucleic acids. Serology, although invaluable for epidemiology, is not routinely needed clinically. However, in some settings, serologic data may have direct clinical utility: for example, in evaluation of persistent symptoms in patients without a prior diagnosis of acute infection. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing is sometimes used or requested in situations in which existing data do not support it, such as determination of need for vaccination. In this study, we describe available methods of serologic testing and provide cases supported by clinical vignettes of where such tests can be helpful, as well as examples where they are not. These examples may help clarify clinical decision making in this rapidly evolving area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) is caused by the virus SARS-CoV-2, transmissible both person-to-person and from contaminated surfaces. Early COVID-19 detection among healthcare workers (HCWs) is crucial for protecting patients and the healthcare workforce. Because of limited testing capacity, symptom-based screening may prioritize testing and increase diagnostic accuracy. Methods and findings: We performed a retrospective study of HCWs undergoing both COVID-19 telephonic symptom screening and nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 assays during the period, March 9—April 15, 2020. HCWs with negative assays but progressive symptoms were re-tested for SARS-CoV-2. Among 592 HCWs tested, 83 (14%) had an initial positive SARS-CoV-2 assay. Fifty-nine of 61 HCWs (97%) who were asymptomatic or reported only sore throat/nasal congestion had negative SARS-CoV-2 assays (P = 0.006). HCWs reporting three or more symptoms had an increased multivariate-adjusted odds of having positive assays, 1.95 (95% CI: 1.10–3.64), which increased to 2.61 (95% CI: 1.50–4.45) for six or more symptoms. The multivariate-adjusted odds of a positive assay were also increased for HCWs reporting fever and a measured temperature ≥ 37.5°C (3.49 (95% CI: 1.95–6.21)), and those with myalgias (1.83 (95% CI: 1.04–3.23)). Anosmia/ageusia (i.e. loss of smell/loss of taste) was reported less frequently (16%) than other symptoms by HCWs with positive assays, but was associated with more than a seven-fold multivariate-adjusted odds of a positive test: OR = 7.21 (95% CI: 2.95–17.67). Of 509 HCWs with initial negative SARS-CoV-2 assays, nine had symptom progression and positive re-tests, yielding an estimated negative predictive value of 98.2% (95% CI: 96.8–99.0%) for the exclusion of clinically relevant COVID-19. Conclusions: Symptom and temperature reports are useful screening tools for predicting SARS-CoV-2 assay results in HCWs. Anosmia/ageusia, fever, and myalgia were the strongest independent predictors of positive assays. The absence of symptoms or symptoms limited to nasal congestion/sore throat were associated with negative assays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]