Non-occupational and occupational factors associated with specific SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Hospital Workers – a multicentre cross-sectional study ======================================================================================================================================================= * Christian R. Kahlert * Raphael Persi * Sabine Güsewell * Thomas Egger * Onicio B. Leal-Neto * Johannes Sumer * Domenica Flury * Angela Brucher * Eva Lemmenmeier * Carsten Möller * Philip Rieder * Reto Stocker * Danielle Vuichard-Gysin * Benedikt Wiggli * Werner C. Albrich * Baharak Babouee Flury * Ulrike Besold * Jan Fehr * Stefan P. Kuster * Allison McGeer * Lorenz Risch * Matthias Schlegel * Pietro Vernazza * Andrée Friedl * Philipp Kohler ## ABSTRACT **Background** Protecting healthcare workers (HCW) from Coronavirus Disease-19 (COVID-19) is critical to preserve the functioning of healthcare systems. We therefore assessed seroprevalence and identified risk factors for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) seropositivity in this population. **Methods** Between June 22nd and August 15th 2020, employees from healthcare institutions in Northern/Eastern Switzerland were screened for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We recorded baseline characteristics, non-occupational and occupational risk factors. We used pairwise tests of associations and multivariable logistic regression to identify factors associated with seropositivity. **Findings** Among the 4’664 included HCW from 23 healthcare facilities, 139 (3%) were seropositive. Non-occupational exposures independently associated with seropositivity were contact with a COVID-19 positive household (adjusted OR=54, 95%-CI: 31-97) and stay in a COVID-19 hotspot (aOR=2·2, 95%-CI: 1·1-3·9). Blood group 0 vs. non-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 associated with decreased risk. Occupational risk factors were close contact to COVID-19 patients (aOR=2·8, 95%-CI: 1·5-5·5), exposure to COVID-19 positive co-workers (aOR=2·0, 95%-CI: 1·2-3·1), poor knowledge of standard hygiene precautions (aOR=2·0, 95%-CI: 1·3-3·2), and frequent visits to the hospital canteen (aOR=1·9, 95%-CI: 1·2-3·1). **Interpretation** We identified several modifiable factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among our HCW. Living with COVID-19 positive households showed by far the strongest association. The lower risk among those living with children, even after correction for multiple confounders, is remarkable and merits further study. **Funding** Swiss National Sciences Foundation, Federal Office of Public Health, Health Department Canton of St. Gallen ## INTRODUCTION Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is currently afflicting healthcare systems around the globe. As of November 1st 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 part3,4. 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 ### Study design and participants We initiated a multicentre cross-sectional study between June 22nd and August 15th 2020 in healthcare institutions located in Northern and Eastern Switzerland. Acute care hospitals, rehabilitation clinics, geriatric and psychiatric clinics in the region were asked to participate. Within every participating institution, employees aged 16 years or older were invited to enrol into the study via institutional webpages. Employees registered online and provided electronic consent. The study was approved by the ethics committee of Eastern Switzerland (#2020-00502). ### Questionnaire and definitions We implemented a multi-modular digital baseline questionnaire for institutions and participants. Questions about facility structure were asked in the institutional questionnaire (e.g. type and size of institution, and number of HCW). Participants were asked about place of residence, anthropometric data including body mass index (BMI), and baseline health including presumed risk factors for COVID-19 (i.e. comorbidities, smoking status, number of respiratory tract infections per year, blood group, seasonal influenza and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin [BCG] vaccination) 9,10. Questions related to non-occupational exposure included household structure (i.e. number, gender and age of household contacts), visits to COVID-19 hotspot regions in bordering countries during February or March 2020 (i.e. Northern Italy, Austrian ski resorts, Alsace), leisure activities (i.e. visits to restaurants and bars, participation in music groups or choirs, fitness centres, sport clubs, religious and cultural activities), number of shopping trips per week, adherence to protective measures, and exposure to non-occupational COVID-19 cases or symptomatic household contacts (i.e. people living in the same household or intimate partners). Questions related to work included type of profession, medical department, employment rate, patient contact in general, contact to COVID-19 patients, close contact to COVID-19 patients (i.e. >15 minutes within 2 meters with or without personal protective measures [PPE]), involvement in aerosol-generating procedures (AGP) defined according to national guidelines11, exposure to COVID-19 confirmed or symptomatic co-workers, knowledge of standard precautions, use of PPE while caring for COVID-19 patients (in case of multiple events the participants were asked to describe the event with the lowest protection) and frequency of visits to the hospital canteen or cafeteria. Poor knowledge of standard precautions was assumed for those who correctly identified less than 3 measures in a multiple choice question (among a choice of hand hygiene, surgical mask in case of respiratory symptoms, donning gowns in case of potential contamination with body fluids, cough etiquette, and vaccination). Low protection while caring for COVID-19 patients was assumed for those using less than 3 measures out of face masks, gloves, gowns, and goggles. Also, results of previously performed nasopharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 were asked. ### Sample processing Upon registration, participants provided a venous blood sample at time of inclusion, which was collected at local sites. After obtaining serum by standardized centrifugation, samples were analysed with an electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (ECLIA, Roche Diagnostics, Rotkreuz, Switzerland, detection of total antibodies directed against the nucleocapsid-(N)-protein of SARS-CoV-2) run on a COBAS 6000 instrument, as described elsewhere12. These antibodies have been shown to provide constant antibody levels for a median of 150 days after initial diagnosis of COVID-19 infection [Schaffner A et al. Sustained SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody levels in nonsevere COVID-19: a population-based study. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; In press]. A subgroup of samples with a positive signal in the ECLIA (at a cut-off index, COI, > 1) were also tested with an Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA, Euroimmune, Germany, detection each of IgG and IgA antibodies against S1 domain of the spike-(S)-protein including the immunologically relevant receptor binding domain) 13. Cut-offs for seropositivity were applied as recommended by the manufacturers. Seropositivity was defined as positive result in the ECLIA followed by confirmation in the ELISA (either positive IgA or IgG). ### Statistical analysis Baseline information of institutions and participants was characterized using descriptive statistics. The relative frequency of participants with ELISA confirmed positive and negative serology was compared between levels of baseline characteristics, non-occupational risk factors and occupational risk factors. Fisher’s exact test was used for dichotomous factors or factors with a reference level, comparing each level to the reference. Logistic regression was used for numeric and ordinal variables. Age, sex, BMI, smoking status, comorbidities as well as non-occupational and occupational risk factors expected to influence seropositivity were entered into a multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate the effect of each risk factor after adjusting for all other factors in the model. For sensitivity analysis, we fitted two additional models including place of residence (7 predefined regions) and institution either as fixed effects or as random effects to assess whether spatial proximity or clustering of observations confounded the effects of the risk factors. Analyses were performed with R statistical software, version 4.0.2. ## RESULTS ### Baseline characteristics We included 17 institutions on 23 sites across Northern and Eastern Switzerland, thereof 19 inpatient sites (14 acute care; 1 geriatric clinic; 1 rehabilitation clinic; 3 psychiatric clinics) and 4 outpatient clinics (3 psychiatric facilities; 1 blood donation centre). The total of represented patient beds was 3’523 (thereof 106 ICU beds) (**Table 1**). View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/T1) Table 1. Characteristics of institutions (n=15) including size, number of study participants and seropositivity. Of the 17’060 potentially eligible HCW, 4’664 (27%) participated in the study. Median age was 38 years (range 16-73); 3’654 (78%) were female. The majority were nurses (n=2’126; 46%) followed by physicians (n=776; 17%); 3’676 (79%) reported having patient contact (**Table 2**). View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/T2) Table 2. Baseline, non-occupational and occupational factors by serostatus. ### 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**). ![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/F1) 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). ### Non-occupational factors associated with seropositivity Exposure to COVID-19 confirmed (55·7% vs. 2·1%, p<0·001) or symptomatic, not confirmed household contacts (5·5% vs. 1·9%, p<0·001) was strongly associated with seropositivity. Also, having visited a known COVID-19 hotspot in Austria (but not in Italy or France) was clearly associated with seropositivity (6·8% vs. 2·8%, p=0·002). Seroprevalence was lower among those with blood group 0 vs. non-0 (1·8% vs· 3·5%, p=0·002) and for those living with children aged 12 or younger (1·7% vs. 3·4%, p=0·002). The proportions of seasonal influenza vaccination 2019/2020 and previous BCG vaccination were not different between seropositive and seronegative participants (**Table 2**). ### 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**). ![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/F2) 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). ![Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.10.20229005/F3) 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 HCW14,15. 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 risk22–26. Whether the blood group also determines the course of the disease is less clear24,27. We also observed a lower seroprevalence among active smokers, confirming findings of other studies, including a living rapid review and meta-analysis28,29. 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 acquisition33,34; 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. ## Supporting information Supplemental Table S1 and S2 [[supplements/229005_file03.docx]](pending:yes) ## Data Availability The authors may provide the original data upon reasonal request. ## 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. ## Acknowledgements We would like to warmly thank the large number of employees of the participating health care institutions who either took part in this study themselves or supported it. Furthermore, we thank the laboratory staff for shipment, handling and analysis of the blood samples. In particular, we acknowledge the organizational core team Simone Kessler and Susanne Nigg, who kept all strings between the participating centers and the laboratory and without whom this study would not have been possible. * Received November 10, 2020. * Revision received November 10, 2020. * Accepted November 13, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. COVID-19 Map. In: Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. [https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html). Accessed Nov 3rd 2020. 2. Federal Office of Public Health. Coronavirus: Situation in Switzerland. [https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/situation-schweiz-und-international.html#-1680104524](https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/en/home/krankheiten/ausbrueche-epidemien-pandemien/aktuelle-ausbrueche-epidemien/novel-cov/situation-schweiz-und-international.html#-1680104524). 3. Kohler PP, Kahlert CR, Sumer J, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among Swiss hospital workers: Results of a prospective cohort study. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; : 1–5. 4. Stringhini S, Wisniak A, Piumatti G, et al. Repeated seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in a population-based sample from Geneva, Switzerland. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS), 2020 DOI:10.1101/2020.05.02.20088898. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wNS4wMi4yMDA4ODg5OHYxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMTEvMTMvMjAyMC4xMS4xMC4yMDIyOTAwNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 5. Ran L, Chen X, Wang Y, Wu W, Zhang L, Tan X. Risk Factors of Healthcare Workers with Corona Virus Disease 2019: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a Designated Hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2020; published online March 17. DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa287. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciaa287&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32179890&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.10.20229005.atom) 6. Rudberg A-S, Havervall S, Månberg A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 exposure, symptoms and seroprevalence in healthcare workers in Sweden. Nat Commun 2020; 11: 5064. 7. Shah ASV, Wood R, Gribben C, et al. Risk of hospital admission with coronavirus disease 2019 in healthcare workers and their households: nationwide linkage cohort study. BMJ 2020; : m3582. 8. Chirico F, Nucera G, Magnavita N. COVID-19: Protecting Healthcare Workers is a priority. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020; 41: 1117. 9. Escobar LE, Molina-Cruz A, Barillas-Mury C. BCG vaccine protection from severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2020; 117: 17720–6. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTE3LzMwLzE3NzIwIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMTEvMTMvMjAyMC4xMS4xMC4yMDIyOTAwNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 10. Zanettini C, Omar M, Dinalankara W, et al. Influenza Vaccination and COVID19 Mortality in the USA. MedRxiv Prepr Serv Health Sci 2020; published online June 26. DOI:10.1101/2020.06.24.20129817. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoibWVkcnhpdiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoyMToiMjAyMC4wNi4yNC4yMDEyOTgxN3YxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjAvMTEvMTMvMjAyMC4xMS4xMC4yMDIyOTAwNS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 11. Swissnoso (National Center for Infection Prevention). Isolation precautions for hospitalized patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Version 8.2 (August 2020). [https://www.swissnoso.ch/fileadmin/swissnoso/Dokumente/5\_Forschung\_und\_Entwicklung/6\_Aktuelle\_Erreignisse/200820\_Vorsorgemassnahmen\_COVID-19\_Spital\_V8.2\_DE.pdf](https://www.swissnoso.ch/fileadmin/swissnoso/Dokumente/5\_Forschung\_und\_Entwicklung/6\_Aktuelle\_Erreignisse/200820\_Vorsorgemassnahmen\_COVID-19_Spital_V8.2_DE.pdf). Last accessed Nov 3rd 2020. 12. Baron RC, Risch L, Weber M, et al. Frequency of serological non-responders and false-negative RT-PCR results in SARS-CoV-2 testing: a population-based study. Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; published online Aug 31. DOI:10.1515/cclm-2020-0978. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1515/cclm-2020-0978&link_type=DOI) 13. Kovac M, Risch L, Thiel S, et al. EDTA-Anticoagulated Whole Blood for SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing by Electrochemiluminescence Immunoassay (ECLIA) and Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). Diagn Basel Switz 2020; 10. DOI:10.3390/diagnostics10080593. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3390/diagnostics10080593&link_type=DOI) 14. Steensels D, Oris E, Coninx L, et al. Hospital-Wide SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening in 3056 Staff in a Tertiary Center in Belgium. JAMA 2020; published online June 15. DOI:10.1001/jama.2020.11160. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.11160&link_type=DOI) 15. Koh WC, Naing L, Chaw L, et al. What do we know about SARS-CoV-2 transmission? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the secondary attack rate and associated risk factors. PLOS ONE 2020; 15: e0240205. 16. Sikkema RS, Pas SD, Nieuwenhuijse DF, et al. COVID-19 in health-care workers in three hospitals in the south of the Netherlands: a cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: 1273–80. 17. Wood R, Thomson EC, Galbraith R, et al. Sharing a household with children and risk of COVID-19: a study of over 300,000 adults living in healthcare worker households in Scotland. medRxiv 2020; : 2020.09.21.20196428. 18. Gao X, Zhou H, Wu C, et al. Antibody against nucleocapsid protein predicts susceptibility to human coronavirus infection. J Infect 2015; 71: 599–602. 19. Dugas M, Schrempf I-M, Ochs K, et al. Association of contact to small children with a mild course of COVID-19. Int J Infect Dis 2020; 100: 314–5. 20. Ng KW, Faulkner N, Cornish GH, et al. Preexisting and de novo humoral immunity to SARS- CoV-2 in humans. Science 2020; published online Nov 6. DOI:10.1126/science.abe1107. [Abstract](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiJzY2llbmNlLmFiZTExMDd2MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzExLzEzLzIwMjAuMTEuMTAuMjAyMjkwMDUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 21. Kreidl P, Schmid D, Maritschnik S, et al. Emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr 2020; published online Aug 20. DOI:10.1007/s00508-020-01723-9. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s00508-020-01723-9&link_type=DOI) 22. Zhao J, Yang Y, Huang H, et al. Relationship between the ABO Blood Group and the COVID-19 Susceptibility. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am 2020; published online Aug 4. DOI:10.1093/cid/ciaa1150. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/cid/ciaa1150&link_type=DOI) 23. Gallian P, Pastorino B, Morel P, Chiaroni J, Ninove L, de Lamballerie X. Lower prevalence of antibodies neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 in group O French blood donors. Antiviral Res 2020; 181: 104880. 24. Latz CA, DeCarlo C, Boitano L, et al. Blood type and outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Ann Hematol 2020; 99: 2113–8. 25. Golinelli D, Boetto E, Maietti E, Fantini MP. The association between ABO blood group and SARS-CoV-2 infection: A meta-analysis. PloS One 2020; 15: e0239508. 26. Genomewide Association Study of Severe Covid-19 with Respiratory Failure. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 1522–34. 27. Sardu C, Marfella R, Maggi P, et al. Implications of AB0 blood group in hypertensive patients with covid-19. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2020; 20: 373. 28. Simons D, Shahab L, Brown J, Perski O. The association of smoking status with SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation and mortality from COVID-19: A living rapid evidence review with Bayesian meta-analyses (version 7). Addict Abingdon Engl 2020; published online Oct 2. DOI:10.1111/add.15276. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/add.15276&link_type=DOI) 29. Thiel SL, Weber MC, Risch L, et al. Flattening the curve in 52 days: characterisation of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Principality of Liechtenstein - an observational study. Swiss Med Wkly 2020; 150: w20361. 30. Nguyen LH, Drew DA, Graham MS, et al. Risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers and the general community: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Public Health 2020; 5: e475–83. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.10.20229005.atom) 31. Iversen K, Bundgaard H, Hasselbalch RB, et al. Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; . DOI:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30589-2. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30589-2&link_type=DOI) 32. Buckrell S, Coleman BL, McNeil SA, et al. Sources of viral respiratory infections in Canadian acute care hospital healthcare personnel. J Hosp Infect 2020; 104: 513–21. 33. Lu J, Gu J, Li K, et al. COVID-19 Outbreak Associated with Air Conditioning in Restaurant, Guangzhou, China, 2020. Emerg Infect Dis 2020; 26: 1628–31. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.10.20229005.atom) 34. Fisher KA, Tenforde MW, Feldstein LR, et al. Community and Close Contact Exposures Associated with COVID-19 Among Symptomatic Adults ≥18 Years in 11 Outpatient Health Care Facilities - United States, July 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020; 69: 1258–64. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.15585/mmwr.mm6936a5&link_type=DOI) 35. Mahase E. Covid-19: Two antibody tests are “highly specific” but vary in sensitivity, evaluations find. BMJ 2020; 369. DOI:10.1136/bmj.m2066. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYm1qIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE4OiIzNjkvbWF5MjFfMTkvbTIwNjYiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMC8xMS8xMy8yMDIwLjExLjEwLjIwMjI5MDA1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)