Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Hospital Workers – a multicentre cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently afflicting healthcare systems around the globe. As of November 1^st 2020, over 1.2 million COVID-19 deaths have been reported worldwide¹. In Switzerland, over 200’000 COVID-19 cases have been reported, almost 9’000 patients have been hospitalized and more than 2’400 have died². Seroprevalence studies among Swiss healthcare workers (HCW) performed in March and April 2020 have shown a low prevalence of 1% in the Eastern part of the country, and a higher prevalence of around 10% in the Western part^3,4. The recent massive re-emergence of cases in many European countries including Switzerland is putting further strain on healthcare systems and hospital workers.

Studies from different countries suggest that HCW are at increased risk to acquire Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) when compared to the general population. A study among 72 symptomatic HCW from Wuhan showed that working on high-risk wards was associated with increased risk⁵. A seroprevalence study among over 2’000 HCW from a Hospital in Sweden depicted 19% to be seropositive, with higher proportions among those with patient contact and among those caring for COVID-19 patients, suggesting a relevant occupational risk⁶. In the UK, HCW and their household contacts accounted for a sixth of all COVID-19 cases admitted to the hospital for those aged 18-65 years. This risk was increased for HCW involved in patient care⁷. In light of these data it is imperative to better understand risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among HCW in order to better protect them from infection⁸.

In this multicentre study from Switzerland, we aimed to assess the prevalence of specific antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among HCW with and without patient contact. In addition, we intended to identify non-occupational and occupational factors associated with seropositivity to inform prevention recommendations for this population.

METHODS

RESULTS

Seropositivity and self-reported PCR results

Overall, seropositivity was 3·0% (139/4’664). Among these 139, 88 (63%) were also tested with the confirmatory ELISA and all 88 samples had either positive IgA or IgG. On the institutional level, seropositivity ranged between 0·5% and 4·2% for inpatient, and 0% and 2·3% for outpatient facilities (Table 1). Seropositivity by district (only districts with at least 10 participants) ranged from 0% to 13%. Seropositivity was lower in regions located in Eastern compared to Northern Switzerland (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity by district in Northern and Eastern Switzerland (in grey: no seroprevalence indicated for districts with less than 10 participants).

A previous PCR result was reported by 864 of 4’664 (18·5%) participants. Of the 72 participants with positive PCR, 66 (92%) were also seropositive. On the other hand, 17/792 (2·2%) participants with negative PCR had a positive serology. Overall, 23/864 (2·7%) self-reported PCR results were discordant to serology results. Seroprevalence among those without previous PCR was 1·5% (56/3’800).

Occupational factors associated with seropositivity

Nurses had a higher (3·9%), physicians a lower (1·0%) seropositivity rate; no differences according to medical speciality were noted. Seroprevalence was higher among those with patient contact (3·1% vs. 1·7%, p=0·037), particularly for those with contact to confirmed COVID-19 patients (4·1% vs. 1·7%, p<0·001). Workers indicating low protection while caring for COVID-19 patients (5·8% vs. 3·5%, p=0·019) and those with poor knowledge of hygiene standards had higher seropositivity (4·1% vs. 2·6%, p=0·018) (Figure 2, panels A and B). The number of unprotected contacts to COVID-19 confirmed or symptomatic co-workers was associated with seropositivity (Figure 2, panel C). Also, workers who never or only occasionally visited the hospital canteen had a lower seroprevalence compared to those with weekly or daily visits (1·9% vs. 3·5%, p=0·004) (Figure 2, panel D). This effect was consistent across institutions and professions (Table S1). HCW visiting bars and restaurants other than the hospital canteen did not have an increased risk for seropositivity (Table 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Figure shows (A) number of protective measures used (among face mask, gown, gloves, goggles) while caring for COVID-19 patients; (B) number of correctly identified elements of standard precautions (among hand hygiene, cough etiquette, mask in case of respiratory symptoms, vaccinations, donning of gowns if potential contact with body fluids); (C) number of contacts with COVID-19 positive co-workers; (D) frequency of meals in the hospital canteen

Multivariable analyses

In multivariable analysis, exposure to a COVID-19 positive household member remained the strongest risk factor for seropositivity with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 54 (95% CI 31-97) (Figure 3, Table S2). Stay in a COVID-19 hotspot was associated with increased risk (aOR 2·2, 95% CI 1·1-3·9), whereas blood group 0 (aOR 0·4, 95% CI 0·3-0·7), active smoking (aOR 0·5, 95% CI 0·3-0·9) and living with children <12 years (aOR 0·3, 95% CI 0·2-0·6) were all associated with decreased risk after correcting for multiple confounder variables. The number of respiratory tract infections per annum was only marginally significant (aOR 1·6, 95% CI 1·0-2·5).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Forest plot showing independent association of baseline, occupational and non-occupational risk factors with seropositivity based on multivariable logistic regression analysis.

Significant occupational factors included close contact with a COVID-19 patient (aOR 2·8, 95% CI 1·5-5·5), exposure to a COVID-19 positive co-worker (aOR 2·0, 95% CI 1·2-3·1), poor knowledge of standard precautions (aOR 2·0, 95% CI 1·3-3·2), as well as having weekly/daily (vs. rarely/never) meals in the hospital canteen (aOR 1·9, 95% CI 1·2-3·1). Low protection while caring for COVID-19 patients was marginally not significant. Both models in the sensitivity analysis did not show any relevant impact of geographic region or institution on the significance level of the variables in the original model (Table S2).

DISCUSSION

In this cross-sectional study including 4’664 HCW from Northern and Eastern Switzerland, 3% of participants had specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Our main findings are that exposure to a COVID-19 positive household member is by far the strongest risk factor for seropositivity, and that living with children under the age of 12 - even after correction for multiple confounders - is clearly associated with decreased risk. Furthermore, we identified several exposures associated with seropositivity which might serve as leverage to further decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition among HCW.

We confirm findings from other studies showing that COVID-19 positive household contacts are probably the main source of SARS-CoV-2 infection for HCW^14,15. Our findings are also in line with a Dutch study analysing viral genomes of HCW and patients from the same hospital. The authors concluded that nosocomial transmissions seemed rather uncommon and that multiple hospital introductions from the community are probably responsible for the large part of COVID-19 cases among patients and HCW, at least in a low prevalence setting¹⁶. Of course, this association might be overestimated given that the directionality of virus transmission cannot be definitely assessed with our study design. It therefore must be assumed that a certain proportion of household contacts was in fact infected by the HCW, and not vice versa.

An important finding of our study is that participants living with children under the age of 12 were clearly less likely to be seropositive. A large study among over 300’000 HCW households from Scotland has recently found a similar association¹⁷. In contrast to the Scottish study, we corrected our result for important confounders, including age of HCW, full-time working, and leisure activities. An intriguing hypothesis for this finding is that certain childhood infections, particularly those with endemic coronaviruses such as HCoV-OC43 or HCoV-HKU1, might confer partial immunity (i.e. cross-immunity) to SARS-CoV-2. In line with this hypothesis, adults aged 15 to 44 years (having presumably an increased probability of living with young children) have been shown to have higher antibody titers against the HCoV-OC43 N protein than older adults¹⁸. Also, supporting the notion of a rather immunological than a purely epidemiological phenomenon, a German study among over 4’000 COVID-19 patients suggested a less complicated disease course for those with frequent contact to children¹⁹. This hypothesis was partially confirmed by a recent study that demonstrated pre-existing humoral immunity (including neutralizing antibodies) to be particularly prevalent in children and adolescents²⁰. This should be confirmed in prospective studies using immunologic assays that demonstrate humoral and cellular immunity against endemic coronaviruses and evaluate their protective role against SARS-CoV-2. If proven to be protective, this could represent a paradigm change for COVID-19 preventive measures in daycare, primary schools and in contact with grandparents.

We specifically asked the participants in our study about staying in geographic regions and places with high COVID-19 activity. Interestingly, stay in an Austrian ski resort where at least one COVID-19 superspreading event had occurred in February/March 2020 was indeed an independent risk factor for seropositivity²¹. Several studies have by now identified an association between the AB0 blood group system and acquisition of COVID-19. Quite consistently, blood group 0 is considered to have a protective effect as shown in our study, whereas people with a non-0 blood group (mostly A) seem to carry an increased risk^22–26. Whether the blood group also determines the course of the disease is less clear^24,27. We also observed a lower seroprevalence among active smokers, confirming findings of other studies, including a living rapid review and meta-analysis^28,29. Possible explanations for this observation include biological effects of tobacco smoke on virus receptors on epithelial cells, or increased physical distancing from people who actively smoke. However, although susceptibility for SARS-CoV-2 might indeed be reduced in this population, the disease course seems to be negatively impacted by smoking²⁸.

An important question is whether HCW caring for COVID-19 patients are in fact at increased risk for acquiring the disease themselves. Digital surveillance data from the UK and the US indicate that frontline HCW are at increased risk for (self-reported) COVID-19 compared to the general population³⁰. Also, frontline HCW in Denmark showed higher seroprevalence than other HCW³¹. Our study confirms these findings, at least for those with close contact to COVID-19 patients. A lower level of protection was not significantly associated with seropositivity in multivariable analysis, probably because of our restrictive definition of low protection. Due to the cross-sectional study design we cannot draw valid conclusions regarding the individual benefit of single protective measures such as gloves, gowns or goggles. However, participants performing AGPs as well as those working in intensive care or emergency rooms did not have an increased risk for COVID-19, suggesting that current safety measures are sufficient for these high-risk HCW. Of note, poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions was associated with detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, supporting efforts to continuously educate HCW regarding basic infection prevention concepts.

Apart from COVID-19 patients, we identified several easily modifiable occupational factors which might place HCW at increased risk for COVID-19. Exposure to ill co-workers is a known risk factor for respiratory illness in HCW, not only for COVID-19 but also for other respiratory viral diseases³². Although this signal was not evident in other HCW cohorts in countries with similar disease burden¹⁴, it is well conceivable that basic hygiene principles, such as physical distancing or hand hygiene are being neglected in contact with co-workers. Across all participating institutions, we identified visits to the hospital canteen as potential risk factor for seropositivity, even after correction for multiple confounder variables. Visiting restaurants other than hospital canteens has previously been shown to be potentially associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition^33,34; however, this was not the case in our data. This discrepancy could be explained by the fact that i) the visitor turnover of hospital canteens is much higher than in other eating places and ii) that the probability of a HCW being infectious is higher than for an average visitor to other restaurants. We therefore suggest that hospitals should revisit and potentially reinforce the safety concepts of their canteens and food courts. This might include limiting the number of people in the area, limiting the duration of stay for each individual, or increasing distances between tables, but also increase adherence to hand washing recommendations before eating.

Our study has several limitations. First, causality cannot be inferred between exposures and seropositivity. Second, sampling bias (both on the institutional and on the individual level) may have arisen given that study participation was non-mandatory. Third, we relied on mostly self-reported data in our questionnaire which is subject to recall and other bias. For this exact reason, we decided not to include self-reported PCR results for the definition of positive and negative participants, thereby accepting a certain number of false negative serology results. Fourth, because of the low disease prevalence we have to assume that a certain proportion of our serology results might also be false positive. However, the reported specificity of >99% for the ECLIA³⁵, the positive confirmatory results in our tested subsample and the overall low proportion of discordant results between PCR and serology supports the validity of our testing approach.

Strengths of the study are its large sample size, the inclusion of different types of healthcare institutions across a large geographic area, and consideration of not only occupational but a broad range of non-occupational risk factors. In particular the latter differentiates our study from most other seroprevalence studies performed among HCW.

To conclude, having a COVID-19 positive household member was by far the strongest predictor for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among our HCW. Furthermore, we identified several modifiable variables associated with seropositivity, including contact to COVID-19 co-workers, poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions, and possibly frequent visits to the hospital canteen. Living with children below 12 years of age in the same household was independently associated with decreased risk, an extraordinary finding suggesting an increased role of cross-immunity.

AUTHORS CONTRIBUTION

All authors contributed to the concept and conduct of the study. CRK, PV, and PK were responsible for funding. CRK, MS, PV and PK conceived and planned the study, CRK and PK directed the study. CRK, OL, TE and PK created the electronic database. TE was responsible for communication between study centers. SG performed the data analysis and prepared the figures. CRK, RP and PK interpreted the results and prepared the manuscript, which was critically revised and approved by all authors.