Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously undiagnosed health care workers in New Jersey, at the onset of the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract Background Healthcare workers (HCW) are presumed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to occupational exposure to infected patients. However, there has been little epidemiological research to assess these risks. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of HCW (n = 546) and non-healthcare workers (NHCW; n = 283) with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection who were recruited from a large U.S. university and two affiliated university hospitals. In this cross-sectional analysis of data collected at baseline, we examined SARS-CoV-2 infection status (as determined by presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in oropharyngeal swabs) by healthcare worker status and role. Results At baseline, 41 (5.0%) of the participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 14 (34.2%) reported symptoms. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher among HCW (7.3%) than in NHCW (0.4%), representing a 7.0% greater absolute risk (95% confidence interval for risk difference 4.7, 9.3%). The majority of infected HCW (62.5%) were nurses. Positive tests increased across the two weeks of cohort recruitment in line with rising confirmed cases in the hospitals and surrounding counties. Conclusions Overall, our results demonstrate that HCW had a higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than NHCW. Continued follow-up of this cohort will enable us to monitor infection rates and examine risk factors for transmission.

Download Full-text

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

Thorax ◽

10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215414 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 75 (12) ◽

pp. 1089-1094 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

Adrian Shields ◽

Sian E Faustini ◽

Marisol Perez-Toledo ◽

Sian Jossi ◽

Erin Aldera ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Intensive Care ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Venous Blood ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Nasopharyngeal Swab ◽

Sectional Study ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

General Internal ◽

Increased Risk

ObjectiveTo determine the rates of asymptomatic viral carriage and seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers.DesignA cross-sectional study of asymptomatic healthcare workers undertaken on 24/25 April 2020.SettingUniversity Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (UHBFT), UK.Participants545 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.InterventionParticipants 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 measureProportion of participants demonstrating infection and positive SARS-CoV-2 serology.ResultsThe 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 relevanceWe 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.

Download Full-text

Healthcare Workers Infection Rate in the Era of Coronavirus Disease 2019 - in Tertiary Teaching Hospital

Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences ◽

10.3889/oamjms.2021.6584 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (A) ◽

pp. 651-658

Author(s):

Mona Mohiedden ◽

Aml M. Said ◽

Ahmed M. Ali ◽

Mohammed M. Abdel Razik ◽

Maha Ali Gad

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Workers ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Descriptive Analysis ◽

Control Measures ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Infection Control Measures ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Tertiary Teaching ◽

Potential Risk Factors

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at the frontline defense against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. AIM: The study aimed to describe the characteristics and appraise potential risk factors of COVID-19 transmission among HCWs who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in one of Cairo University Hospitals. METHOD: Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of confirmed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positive versus negative cases for COVID-19. RESULTS: Through March–June 2020, (145/846; 17%) suspected HCWs were tested for COVID-19 by PCR; out of them (70/145; 48.3%) were confirmed as positive, these positive cases represented (70/846; 8.3%) of all HCWs of the hospital. About 33% of confirmed COVID-19 positive HCWs acquired the infection from the healthcare while only (13/70; 19%) from community settings, and no clear exposure data were identified in (34/70; 48%) of cases. Most of symptomatic cases showed a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 versus asymptomatic cases, p < 0.001. There was no statistical significance regarding gender, age, presence of comorbidity, workload or the type of acquisition. CONCLUSION: HCWs are at an increased risk of COVID-19 infection at the workplace. Strict implementation of infection control measures is of crucial role in preventing transmission of COVID-19 infection in health-care settings.

Download Full-text

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among health care workers in a secondary teaching hospital in Spain.

10.1101/2020.07.26.20162529 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Javier Garralda Fernandez ◽

Ignacio Molero Vilches ◽

Alfredo Bermejo Rodriguez ◽

Isabel Cano de Torres ◽

Elda I Colino Romay ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Workers ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Prevalence Studies ◽

Presenting Symptoms ◽

Care Workers ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Secondary Teaching ◽

The Impact ◽

Cumulative Prevalence ◽

Huge Challenge

Background. The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a huge challenge to healthcare systems and their personnel worldwide. The study of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers, through prevalence studies, will let us know viral expansion, individuals at most risk and the most exposed areas. The aim of this study is to gauge the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in our hospital workforce and identify groups and areas at increased risk. Methods and Findings. This is a cross-sectional and longitudinal study carried out on healthcare workers based on molecular and serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 3013 HCW invited to participate, finally 2439 (80.9%) were recruited, including 674 (22.4%) who had previously consulted at the OHS for confirmed exposure and/or presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. A total of 411 (16.9%) and 264 (10.8%) healthcare workers were SARS-CoV-2 IgG and rRT-PCR positive, respectively. The cumulative prevalence considering all studies (IgG positive HCW and/or rRT-PCR positive detection) has been 485 (19.9%). SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive patients in whom the virus was not detected were 221 (9.1%); up to 151 of them (68.3%) did not report any compatible symptoms nor consult at the OHS for this reason. Men became more infected than women (25% vs 18.5%, p=0.0009), including when data were also classified by age. COVID-19 cumulative prevalence among the HCW assigned to medical departments was higher (25.2%) than others, as well as among medical staff (25.4%) compared with other professional categories (p<0.01). Conclusions. Global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCW of our centre has been 19.9%. Doctors and medical services personnel have had the highest prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but many of them have not presented compatible symptoms. This emphasizes the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel and not only based on the appearance of symptoms.

Download Full-text

Awareness and Impact of Hydroxychloroquine / Chloroquine prophylaxis among the Healthcare Workers during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An observational study.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-37545/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Silky Dhamija ◽

Yayati Joshi ◽

Amar Nandhakumar

Keyword(s):

Side Effects ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Web Based ◽

Care Workers ◽

Novel Coronavirus ◽

Adequate Research ◽

Morbid Conditions

Abstract Background Various modalities are under study for prevention and treatment of novel coronavirus. One such modality is use of Hydroxychloroquine/Choloroquine. The objective of survey was to understand the awareness and impact of HCQ/CQ prophylaxis among the health care workers (HCWs) including surgeons and anaesthetists.Methods A web-based, cross-sectional survey was conducted for HCWs globally. Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was maintained by making participants' information anonymous. The questionnaire consisted of 28 items. Data were tabulated in excel, and descriptive statistics were performed. Results Survey was taken by 344 HCWs from all over the world. 98% participants heard about the use of HCQ/CQ prophylaxis against COVID 19 infection. 301 HCWs knew about the side effects of HCQ/CQ. 54 1% participants agree there is not adequate research done. 122 participants took HCQ/CQ prophylaxis. Out of 29 5% participants who received the medicine from hospital under hospital protocol, 66 7% were given medication without baseline investigations and 30 5% HCWs were not even briefed about the drug and its side effects by the hospitals. 36 2% participants developed side effects. 8 7% HCWs were tested for COVID19 out of 344 participants.Conclusion The drug taken by HCWs was without adequate evidence, prior investigations, supervision and follow-up. Most of the participants self prescribed the drug. No separate guidelines were stated for people who had co-morbid conditions. Hospitals neither conducted baseline investigations and nor briefed HCWs about HCQ/CQ. These are some serious concerns we are looking into as who will be answerable in case of adverse events.

Download Full-text

Prevalence of Seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 among Health Care Workers in Tertiary COVID-19 Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat

JOURNAL FOR CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH ◽

10.7860/jcdr/2021/46817.14599 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jemil S Makadia ◽

Mukesh G Gohel ◽

Chandan Chakrabarti ◽

Jayshree D Pethani

Keyword(s):

Occupational Exposure ◽

Health Care Workers ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Care Workers ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Ancillary Staff ◽

General Service

Introduction: Healthcare Workers (HCW) are at increased risk of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to occupational exposure to infected patients and contaminated surfaces. Aim: To determine the prevalence of seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 among HCW in a tertiary COVID-19 designated hospital in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted between 1st July to 31st July, 2020 on 1333 HCWs. HCWs included doctors, nurses, lab personnel, general service assistants and ancillary staff who work in hospital. Anti SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies were measured in serum sample by chemiluminescent technique. Results: Prevalence of seropositivity was found in 27.76% (370 out of 1333). It was highest among general service assistant 34.76% (especially among house keeping staff, 43.44%) and lowest among doctors (19.33%). The percentage of seropositivity among asymptomatic HCWs was 24.84%. Conclusion: The percentage of seropositivity among asymptomatic HCWs indicates that a large amount of infection passes asymptomatically. The discrepancy between various job categories might be due to differential occupational exposure and risk, lack of awareness and seriousness regarding transmission and risk of getting infection, various demographic factors like literacy, residential environment, community prevalence etc.

Download Full-text

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic among health care workers in a secondary teaching hospital in Spain

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0245001 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

pp. e0245001 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Javier Garralda Fernandez ◽

Ignacio Molero Vilches ◽

Alfredo Bermejo Rodríguez ◽

Isabel Cano Torres ◽

Elda Isabel Colino Romay ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Healthcare Workers ◽

Healthcare Organizations ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Prevalence Studies ◽

Presenting Symptoms ◽

Care Workers ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Secondary Teaching ◽

The Impact ◽

Cumulative Prevalence

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has posed a huge challenge to healthcare systems and their personnel worldwide. The study of the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCW), through prevalence studies, will let us know viral expansion, individuals at most risk and the most exposed areas in healthcare organizations. The aim of this study is to gauge the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in our hospital workforce and identify groups and areas at increased risk. Methods and findings This is a cross-sectional and incidence study carried out on healthcare workers based on molecular and serological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Of the 3013 HCW invited to participate, 2439 (80.9%) were recruited, including 674 (22.4%) who had previously consulted at the Occupational Health Service (OHS) for confirmed exposure and/or presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. A total of 411 (16.9%) and 264 (10.8%) healthcare workers were SARS-CoV-2 IgG and rRT-PCR positive, respectively. The cumulative prevalence considering all studies (IgG positive HCW and/or rRT-PCR positive detection) was 485 (19.9%). SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive patients in whom the virus was not detected were 221 (9.1%); up to 151 of them (68.3%) did not report any compatible symptoms nor consult at the OHS for this reason. Men became more infected than women (25% vs 18.5%, p = 0.0009), including when data were also classified by age. COVID-19 cumulative prevalence among the HCW assigned to medical departments was higher (25.2%) than others, as well as among medical staff (25.4%) compared with other professional categories (p<0.01). Conclusions The global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCW of our centre has been 19.9%. Doctors and medical services personnel have had the highest prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but many of them have not presented compatible symptoms. This emphasizes the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel and not only based on the appearance of symptoms.

Download Full-text

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously undiagnosed health care workers at the onset of the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic

10.1101/2020.04.20.20072470 ◽

2020 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Emily S. Barrett ◽

Daniel B. Horton ◽

Jason Roy ◽

Maria Laura Gennaro ◽

Andrew Brooks ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Confidence Interval ◽

Health Care Workers ◽

Prospective Cohort ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Absolute Risk ◽

Risk Difference ◽

Care Workers ◽

Community Transmission ◽

The U.S

AbstractImportanceHealthcare workers are presumed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to occupational exposure to infected patients. However, no epidemiological study has examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of healthcare workers during the early phase of community transmission.ObjectiveTo determine the baseline prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of previously undiagnosed healthcare workers and a comparison group of non-healthcare workers.DesignProspective cohort studySettingA large U.S. university and two affiliated university hospitalsParticipants546 health care workers and 283 non-health care workers with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infectionExposureHealthcare worker status and roleMain outcome(s) and measure(s)SARS-CoV-2 infection status as determined by presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in oropharyngeal swabs.ResultsAt baseline, 41 (5.0%) of participants tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection, of whom 14 (34.2%) reported symptoms. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher among healthcare workers (7.3%) than in non-healthcare workers (0.4%), representing a 7.0% greater absolute risk (95% confidence interval for risk difference 4.7%, 9.3%). The majority of infected healthcare workers (62.5%) worked as nurses. Positive tests increased across the two weeks of cohort recruitment in line with rising confirmed cases in the hospitals and surrounding counties.Conclusions and relevanceIn a prospective cohort conducted in the early phases of community transmission, healthcare workers had a higher prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection than non-healthcare workers, attesting to the occupational hazards of caring for patients in this crisis. Baseline data reported here will enable us to monitor the spread of infection and examine risk factors for transmission among healthcare workers. These results will inform optimal strategies for protecting the healthcare workforce, their families, and their patients.Clinicaltrials.gov registration number:NCT04336215Key pointsQuestionAmong previously undiagnosed individuals, is the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection higher in U.S. healthcare workers compared to non-healthcare workers in the early phase of the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic?FindingsThe prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 7.3% in healthcare workers and 0.4% in non-healthcare workers, representing 7.0% greater absolute risk in the former (95% confidence interval for risk difference 4.7%, 9.3%). Infections were most common among nursing staff.MeaningHealth care workers, particularly those with high levels of close patient contact, may be particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional strategies are needed to protect these critical frontline workers.

Download Full-text

Prevalence and Course of IgA and IgG Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Healthcare Workers during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Germany: Interim Results from an Ongoing Observational Cohort Study

Healthcare ◽

10.3390/healthcare9050498 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. 498

Author(s):

Mark Reinwald ◽

Peter Markus Deckert ◽

Oliver Ritter ◽

Henrike Andresen ◽

Andreas G. Schreyer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cohort Study ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Clinical Signs ◽

Signs And Symptoms ◽

Observational Cohort Study ◽

Igg Antibodies ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Observational Cohort

(1) Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are prone to intensified exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in the ongoing pandemic. We prospectively analyzed the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs at baseline and follow up with regard to clinical signs and symptoms in two university hospitals in Brandenburg, Germany. (2) Methods: Screening for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG antibodies was offered to HCWs at baseline and follow up two months thereafter in two hospitals of Brandenburg Medical School during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany in an ongoing observational cohort study. Medical history and signs and symptoms were recorded by questionnaires and analyzed. (3) Results: Baseline seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA was 11.7% and increased to 15% at follow up, whereas IgG seropositivity was 2.1% at baseline and 2.2% at follow up. The rate of asymptomatic seropositive cases was 39.5%. Symptoms were not associated with general seropositivity for anti-SARS-CoV-2; however, class switch from IgA to IgG was associated with increased symptom burden. (4) Conclusions: The seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low in HCWs but higher compared to population data and increased over time. Screening for antibodies detected a significant proportion of seropositive participants cases without symptoms.

Download Full-text

Are neighborhood restaurants related to frequency of restaurant meals and dietary quality?: Prevalence and changes over time in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

Public Health Nutrition ◽

10.1017/s1368980021002196 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-29

Author(s):

Amy H. Auchincloss ◽

Jingjing Li ◽

Kari A. B. Moore ◽

Manuel Franco ◽

Mahasin S. Mujahid ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Healthy Eating Index ◽

Dietary Quality ◽

Longitudinal Analyses ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Cross Sectional Analysis ◽

Eating Out ◽

Restaurant Meals ◽

Sectional Analysis ◽

Over Time

Abstract Objective: To examine whether the density of neighbourhood restaurants affected the frequency of eating restaurant meals and subsequently affected diet quality. Design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Structural equation models assessed the indirect relationship between restaurant density (≤3 miles (4.8 km) of participant addresses) and dietary quality (Healthy Eating Index 2010 (HEI)) via the frequency of eating restaurant meals, after adjustment for sociodemographics, select health conditions, region, residence duration and area-level income. Setting: Urbanised areas in multiple regions of the USA, years 2000–2002 and 2010–2012. Participants: Participants aged 45–84 years were followed for 10 years (n 3567). Results: Median HEI (out of 100) was 59 at baseline and 62 at follow-up. Cross-sectional analysis found residing in areas with a high density of restaurants (highest ranked quartile) was associated with 52% higher odds of frequently eating restaurant meals (≥3 times/week, odds ratio [OR]:1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.98) and 3% higher odds of having lower dietary quality (HEI lowest quartile<54, OR:1.03,CI:1.01-1.06); associations were not sustained in longitudinal analyses. Cross-sectional analysis found 34% higher odds of having lower dietary quality for those who frequently ate at restaurants (OR:1.34,CI:1.12-1.61); and more restaurant meals (over time increase ≥1 times/week) was associated with higher odds of having worse dietary quality at follow-up (OR:1.21,CI:1.00-1.46). Conclusions: Restaurant density was associated with frequently eating out in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses but was associated with the lower dietary quality only in cross-sectional analyses. Frequent restaurant meals were negatively related to dietary quality. Interventions that encourage less frequent eating out may improve population dietary quality.

Download Full-text

Acceptance and adoption of transoral robotic surgery in Germany

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology ◽

10.1007/s00405-021-06623-w ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Magis Mandapathil ◽

Jens E. Meyer

Keyword(s):

Robotic Surgery ◽

Head And Neck ◽

Neck Surgery ◽

Transoral Robotic Surgery ◽

Head And Neck Surgery ◽

University Hospitals ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Adoption Rate ◽

Decision Making Processes ◽

Sectional Analysis

Abstract Purpose Since its introduction over a decade ago, the use of robotic surgery (RS) in head and neck surgery has widely spread around the globe, with very differential adoption of this novel surgical technique in different parts of the world. In this study, we analyze the acceptance and adoption of robotic surgery in the head and neck in Germany. Materials and methods A cross-sectional analysis using a questionnaire evaluating the acceptance and adoption of RS was performed. Questionnaires were distributed to all chairmen /-women of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery Departments in Germany. Results A total of 107 respondents completed the questionnaire (65.2%). At university hospitals, 71.4% of the respondents indicated that a robotic system was available, and 21.4% responded that robotic surgery was performed at their institution; 22.7% and 0.04%, respectively, at non-university hospitals. The overall adoption rate was 0.8%. The most common cases performed were TORS resection in the oropharynx. Main reasons for not adopting this technique were costs, lack of interest and available co-operations. Conclusion This study provides evidence of the extent of adoption of TORS in Germany; main perceived barriers to adoption are costs with lack of cost-covering reimbursement and insufficient co-operations with other disciplines as well as hospital administration resulting in a very low adoption rate of this technique over the past decade. Results from this study may assist in decision-making processes on adopting this technique in the future.

Download Full-text