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

Introduction

At the end of 2019 a cluster of patients with a severe respiratory syndrome, whose cause was finally identified as a new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2)[1], emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan. In January 2020, World Health Organization issued a statement for an international emergency outbreak and on March 11, 2020 declared COVID-19 a pandemic[2].

This new virus is mainly spread by secretions and respiratory droplets, thus close contact is the main way of infection, although it could also occur by other means as fomites and contaminated surfaces[3]. Asymptomatic carriers may play an important role and contribute to the disease spread too[4]. The mean incubation period is 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days)[5] and the basic reproductive number was estimated to be between 2.8 and 3.3[6].

Healthcare workers (HCW) are at high risk of infection and a source of transmission for patients and other staff. In China, more than 2000 cases among health personnel were infected as of February, most in Hubei province[7]. In March 2020, Italy reported 2600 infections and more than 40 deaths among HCW population[8]. In Spain, since the beginning of the pandemic up to May 11, 40921 cases were reported to the national epidemiological surveillance network[9], they were mainly women (76.5%) and had an average age of 46 years (36-55). Most of them presented cough (69.6%), fever (65.9%) and sore throat (39.6%). Four thousand one hundred seventy seven (10.5%) required hospitalization and 310 (1.1%) intensive care; up to 53 HCW have died. These events have resulted in lack of health personnel and, therefore, an additional burden in the fight against the pandemic.

Health personnel are critical and have become a weak point of the health system in this pandemic. Seroprevalence studies allow estimating the individual and areas at greatest risk. This information is relevant to implement approaches to promote HCW safety and adequately manage resources in future outbreaks.

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.

Materials and methods

Results

Of the 3013 HCW invited to participate in the cross-sectional study, finally 2439 (80.9%) were recruited, corresponding to 1911 females (78.4%) and 528 males (21.6%), with a mean age of 42.1 years (18-65). Six hundred and seventy four HCW (22.4%) were included in the longitudinal study because they had previously consulted at the OHS for confirmed exposure and/or presenting symptoms suggestive of COVID-19; they were 550 females (81.6%) and 124 males (18.4%), with a mean age of 42.4 years (18-65).

In the cross-sectional study a total of 411 HCW (16.9%) were SARS-CoV-2 IgG positive and in 32 (1.3%) IgM was detected. Only 2 out of the latter were confirmed as active SARS-CoV-2 infection by rRT-PCR, both with detectable IgG. In 11 cases, IgG was not detected and the repetitions of the tests did not confirm the infection, so they were considered IgM false positive results; in 19 cases with detectable IgG, a past infection with residual persistence of IgM antibodies was considered. So henceforth, IgM tests were not considered to determine the impact of the infection in the study population. In this study a total of 19 out of 2439 (0.8%) HCW were rRT-PCR positive, 10 out of them had an IgG antibody detectable simultaneously.

Among the 674 workers who consulted at the OHS, 245 active infections (36.4%) were reported by rRT-PCR. They declared symptoms onset dates mostly from March 1 to mid-April, although there have been cases from the last days of February to the second week of May (Fig 1). Among the 429 HCW with negative rRT-PCR, only 11 (2.6%) showed a positive IgG in the seroprevalence study.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Epidemiologic curve from symptoms onset dates in relation to cases diagnosed in Madrid.

Blue columns are the number of HCW from HUF that declared COVID-19 compatible symptoms by date of symptom onset; red line is rRT-PCR-based diagnosed cases by date of diagnosis in región of Madrid*; green line is rRT-PCR-based diagnosed cases by date in HUF **.

HCW: healthcare workers; HUF: Hospital Universitario de Fuenlabrada.

*Source: based on RENAVE data[12]

**Source: based on own Laboratory Medicine data

In summary, a total of 264 workers out of 2439 (10.8%) with active SARS-CoV-2 infection were detected by rRT-PCR. The combination of both studies has resulted in the global impact of the epidemic among hospital HCW. As summarized in Table 1, in 411 out of 2439 (16.9%) workers a serum IgG was recovered, while in 264 (10.8%) rRT-PCR was detected positive. In 190 (7.8%) HCW IgG and viral RNA were simultaneously detected. Most people with a negative rRT-PCR were asymptomatic, including HCW who presented detectable IgG, while those in who viral RNA was detected were mostly symptomatic. It is noteworthy that there were 221 (9.1%) SARS-CoV-2 IgG-positive patients in whom the virus was not detected by rRT-PCR; up to 151 of them (68.3%) did not report any compatible symptoms nor consult at the OHS for this reason. Up to 74 workers (3%) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection by rRT-PCR had not achieved IgG seroconversion at the time the study finished. In brief, the overall cumulative prevalence considering all studies (IgG positive HCW and rRT-PCR positive detection without seroconversion) has been 485 infected HCW out of 2439 (19.9%).

Significant differences have been detected when the prevalence data have been stratified by sex. As shown in Table 2, men became more infected than women (25% vs 18.5%, p=0.0009). When data were also classified by age, again the COVID19 epidemic has infected more men, particularly in the age group between 35 and 45 years (32.1% vs 17.7%) (Fig 2), although these differences were not significant (p=0.38).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Age and sex cumulative prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 cases (IgG positive and/or RT-PCR positive).

The differences by age group were not significant.

In order to study the influence of work-related exposure to the virus into the possibility of getting infected, HCW were classified according to their medical department. Cumulative prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among the HCW assigned to the Internal Medicine, Emergency (ER) and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) departments was higher (25.2%) than other departments (Fig 3). Personnel assigned to auxiliary and administrative services were those with the lowest risk of infection (13.7%). Difference between groups were statistically significant (p<0.05).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3. Cumulative prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 cases (IgG positive and/or RT-PCR positive) by hospital departments.

Differences were significant (p<0.001).

Finally, we analysed the influence of the staff category and the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in our hospital. A shown in Fig 4, cumulative prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was higher among the medical staff (25.4%) compared with other categories (p<0.01). The odds of being infected by staff category was 2.13 (1.53-2.96, p<0.0001), 1.77 (1.26-2.49, p=0.0009), 1.68 (1.02-2.78, p=0.0435), 1.51 (1.09-2.09, p=0.0129), 1.39 (0.87-2.21, p=0.1685), and 1.27 (0.68-2.39, p=0.4541) for doctors, nurses assistants, watchmen, nurses, technicians, and cleaning staff, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4. Cumulative prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 cases (IgG positive and/or RT-PCR positive) by professional category.

Differences were significant (p<0.05).

Discussion

The main objective of this work was to describe the global impact of the COVID-19 epidemic among the workers of a second level hospital located in an urban population in one of the areas with the highest incidence in Spain[13]. There have been two data sources: a cross-sectional study of seroprevalence by measuring the proportion of IgG and IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in all hospital personnel and a longitudinal study of the incidence of infection among those HCW who had consulted for symptoms compatible with COVID-19 infection and/or unsafe contact or exposure to a confirmed case. As it has been shown in the results, the combination of both data sources has allowed us to have a more complete picture of the pandemic impact in our center, since there have been up to 74 patients (3% of the total HCW) who have had a confirmed infection by a positive rRT-PCR but have not seroconverted; and otherwise there were 151 workers (6.2%) in whom the virus had not been detected nor had compatible symptoms, but an IgG antibody has been detected.

The cumulative prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in our center has been of 19.9 %. This proportion is significantly higher than that of the population in the area in which the center is located (11.4%), as stated in the wide sero-epidemiological study ENE-COVID19(13), despite the fact that symptomatic cases have followed a very similar onset kinetics (Fig 1). It is very likely that there has been a common source of contagion with that of the general population, but also it is clear that there has also been a risk exposure, especially in the first days of the outbreak when the virus situation was not exactly known and HCW were not taking the appropriate protective measures[14].

There have been several recent publications that have reported different data of infection that affects healthcare personnel. Korth et al have published an estimated seroprevalence in a German center of only 1.6%[15]. A hospital-wide survey in Belgium rendered a 6.4% of seroprevalence[16]. In another Spanish reference center in Barcelona, a cumulative prevalence has been calculated in 578 hospital workers through the detection of IgG, IgM and IgA and viral RNA of 11.6%, very similar to the population in which it is found[17]. On the contrary, in other sero-epidemiological study in a nearby hospital center, a seroprevalence of 31.6% has been reported, a much higher level of infection than expected[18]. Although the population assigned to this center has a cumulative incidence higher than that of our center, 1,133.63 vs. 845.12 cases/100,000 inhabitants (a 26% higher incidence rate)[19], it exceeds the prevalence we have found in our survey by 37% (31.6 vs 19.9%). Additional data and studies are required to justify this difference.

Among the data from our study, it is noteworthy the high number of HCW who have been infected and who have not declared any COVID-19 compatible symptoms. There are 163 of 411 in total (38.7%), of which there are even 12 (3%) in which the virus was detected by rRT-PCR. The role of asymptomatic patients has been described both in general population surveys (40-45%)[20] and in other studies among healthcare personnel, but with highly variable prevalence data ranging from 0.74 to 48.5%[18,21–24]. Transmission of the virus from the asymptomatic cases has already been demonstrated[4,25] and the free movement of HCW is a risk for new infections, both to other health personnel, patients and even the community (relatives, friends, etc.). Therefore the need for continued surveillance is critical, at least while community transmission of the virus continues. Seroepidemiological studies are a useful tool in the identification of these asymptomatic patients and in understanding the prevalence of COVID-19[26,27].

Participants in our survey were mainly female (78.4%). But when we stratified data by sex, significant differences have been detected and more men have been in contact with virus. In the 2002 SARS outbreak, it was already described that men were more severely affected than women[28]. This same characteristic is occurring in the COVID-19 pandemic. Men have a higher risk of being seriously ill and there has even been an excess mortality associated with the male sex[29,30]. Among HCW at our centre, men have been infected globally more than women, although we have not registered any sign of severity. This fact has also been described in other centres[18,21], but this is the first report in which the proportion of SARS infections is significantly different depending on sex. The cause could be related to the protection that women have by immunity mechanisms linked to the X-chromosome, different levels of sex hormones and levels of expression of the receptor for the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which is one of the entrance doors of the virus in the cell[31,32].

Our data shows two main populations that have been especially exposed to COVID-19 infectious patients. Firstly, doctors have had a higher percentage of infections (25.4%) than the rest of the professional categories. Secondly, the workers who have carried out their task in the medical, emergency and ICU services have presented a higher prevalence (25.2%) of the infection than the rest of the staff of other services. Other studies in our environment have not described these differences[17,18]. On the contrary, Chen et al[21] have shown that while exposed to COVID-19 patients, doctors might have higher risk of seroconversion, compared with HCW exposed to colleagues, but this difference was also observed between nurses and general services assistants. It is evident that among HCW with higher prevalence there has been a greater exposure to infectious patients[18]. It is probably that personal protection measures could not have been used properly in the first days of the epidemic but personal protection equipment shortages also occurred, which is a direct cause of HCW infection[33].

Our study presents some pitfalls that deserve further comments. First, although the participation rate has been 80.9%, a selection bias could have been introduced. Nevertheless, this participation rate is higher than that reported in other similar studies[16,18,34]. In addition, all professional categories and age ranges have been represented. Secondly, a professional who has fallen ill and may have consulted at other health centre or primary care facility and not at the OHS, would have introduced a new bias. Instead, we could be aware of this information since the sick leave was processed at our hospital Occupational Health department. Finally, some doubts have been raised about the performance of the serological and molecular diagnostic tools employed, since there have been 74 workers who have been infected but have not seroconverted and 11 people who have presented symptoms and have been seroconverted but have not been diagnosed by rRT-PCR. These results could have underestimated the real impact of the pandemic in our study population. However, serum IgG antibody detection have been validated by other researchers with excellent results[35,36]; and on the other hand, the molecular tool used is a standard technique recommended by the main diagnostic protocols and widely applied throughout the world[37].

Conclusions

In conclusion, the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HCW of our centre has been 19.9%. This prevalence has been significantly higher than general population. Similarly, 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 importance of the performance of continuous surveillance methods of the most exposed health personnel and not only based on the appearance of symptoms. These methods should include both antibody and viral detection methods to have a more realistic picture of the virus circulation in a certain population.