Abstract
Introduction Healthcare workers are believed to be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The extent of that increased risk compared to the general population and the groups most at risk have not been extensively studied.
Methods A prospective observational study of health and social care workers in NHS Tayside (Scotland, UK) from May to September 2020. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Patients provided clinical information including demographics and workplace information. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general Tayside population, were studied for comparison.
Results A total of 2062 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. The participants were predominantly female (81.7%) and 95.2% were white. 299 healthcare workers had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11 out of 231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). Healthcare workers therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (odds ratio 3.4 95% CI 1.85-6.16, p<0.0001). Dentists, healthcare assistants and porters were the job roles most likely to test positive. Those working in front-line roles with COVID-19 patients were more likely to test positive (17.4% vs. 13.4%, p=0.02). 97.1% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR had positive antibodies, compared to 11.8% of individuals with a symptomatic illness who had tested negative. Anosmia was the symptom most associated with the presence of detectable antibodies.
Conclusion In this study, healthcare workers were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. The seroprevalence data in different populations identified in this study will be useful to protect healthcare staff during future waves of the pandemic.
Competing Interest Statement
JDC reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Bayer Healthcare, Grifols, Napp, Insmed and Zambon outside the submitted work; All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Clinical Trial
not a clinical trial
Funding Statement
NHS Tayside COVID-19 Research Fund, JDC is supported by the British Lung Foundation Chair of Respiratory Research.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the West of Scotland Research Ethics committee, approval number 20/WS/0078
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: NHS Tayside COVID-19 Research Fund, JDC is supported by the British Lung Foundation Chair of Respiratory Research.
Conflicts of interest summary: JDC reports grants and personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Bayer Healthcare, Grifols, Napp, Insmed and Zambon outside the submitted work; All other authors report no conflicts of interest.
Paper in collection COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Subject Area
Reviews and Context
0
Comment
0
TRIP Peer Reviews
6
Community Reviews
0
Automated Services
2
Blogs/Media
Author Videos