ABSTRACT
Importance Current evidence suggests that transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is possible among symptom-free individuals but limited data are available on this topic in healthcare workers (HCW). The quality and acceptability of self-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) is unknown.
Objective To estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection and to assess the acceptability of self-collected NPS among HCW.
Design Cross-sectional convenience sample enrolled between April 20th and June 24th, 2020. We had >95% power to detect at least one positive test if the true underlying prevalence of SARS-CoV2 was ≥1%.
Setting The metropolitan area surrounding Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota.
Participants HCW free of self-reported upper respiratory symptoms were recruited.
Exposures Participants completed questionnaires regarding demographics, household characteristics, personal protective equipment (PPE) utilization and comorbidities.
Outcomes A participant self-collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) was obtained. SARS-CoV-2 infection was assessed via polymerase chain reaction. NPS discomfort was assessed on a scale of 1 (no discomfort) – 10 (extreme discomfort). NPS duration and depth into the nasopharynx, and willingness to perform future self-collections were assessed.
Results Among n=489 participants 80% were female and mean age±SD was 41±11. Participants reported being physicians (14%), nurse practitioners (8%), physician’s assistants (4%), nurses (51%), medics (3%), or other which predominantly included laboratory technicians and administrative roles (22%). Exposure to a known/suspected COVID-19 case in the 14 days prior to enrollment was reported in 40% of participants. SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any participant. The mean±SD discomfort level of the NPS was 4.5±2.0. 95% of participants reported that their self-swab was ≥ the duration of patient swabs they had previously performed, and 89% reported the depth to be ≥ the depth of previous patient swabs. Over 95% of participants reported a willingness to repeat a self-collected NP swab in the future.
Conclusions and Relevance The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely very low in symptom-free Minnesota healthcare workers from April 20th and June 24th, 2020. Self-collected NP swabs are well-tolerated and a viable alternative to provider-collected swabs to preserve PPE.
Questions What is the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among symptom-free healthcare workers (HCW) and what is the acceptability of self-collected nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) for SARS-CoV-2 infection ascertainment?
Findings SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in any of 489 HCWs studied. Self-collected NPS were well tolerated and over 95% of participants reported a willingness to repeat a self-collected NP swab in the future.
Meaning The point prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was likely very low in symptom-free Minnesota healthcare workers from April 20th and June 24th, 2020.
Competing Interest Statement
Dr. Knight reports personal fees from Biota, personal fees from CommenSe, personal fees from CoreBiome, personal fees from DayTwo, personal fees from GenCirq, personal fees from Prometheus, personal fees from Cybele Microbiome, personal fees from BiomeSense, grants from IBM, personal fees from BP Technology, outside the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by funding from the University of Minnesota Office of the Vice President for Research and by the Minnesota Population Center (funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Population Research Infrastructure Program P2C HD041023). Dr. Ulrich was supported by NIH grant T32AI05543315. This study was also made possible by Prof. Jian Xu (Qingdao Institute of Bioenergy and Bioprocess Technology, Chinese Academy of Science), who generously donated nasopharyngeal swabs.
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 University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board.
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
Section on Abstract and Author Approval updated to include new disclosure statement.
Data Availability
De-identified data can be made available upon request to Dr. Demmer.
