Is Covid-19 seroprevalence different in health care workers as per their risk of exposure? A study from a tertiary care hospital in National Capital Region of India

2.1. Laboratory Methods

The serum was tested for the quantitative determination of anti-S1 and anti-S2 specific IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the fully automated LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG by Chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) technology. The analyzer automatically calculated SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG antibody concentrations expressed as arbitrary units (AU/mL) and graded the results. The assay detection range is from 3.8 to 400 AU/mL. SARS CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG. < 15 AU/mL were reported negative. Test results >=15.0 AU/mL were graded positive.

2.2. Quality Assurance

The fully automated LIAISON® has been calibrated and validated according to the laboratory SOP, ie 3 samples (high, medium and low value) were run 5 times a day for 5 consecutive days. Their mean, SD and CV% were calculated, which were within normal limits. One positive and one negative kit controls were also processed daily for internal quality control. The instrument was calibrated once daily before processing the samples and also for every new lot kit used. Inter-Lab Comparison (ILC) and Repeat - split testing was conducted as per standard laboratory quality assurance protocol.

2.3. Data Analysis

For data capture each participant was assigned a unique study code, which facilitated linking of participant data with barcode of serum sample. The data were entered into e-HIS (electronic health information system) template which is protected and exported into Excel sheets. Quality assurance (QA) of the data was taken care of by an independent QA coordinator. Initial analysis was done on the characteristics of the study participants according to role in the hospital, nature of exposure, demographics (age and gender), habits (smoking & alcohol), history of Covid-19 disease, supplements in last 2 months and comorbidities. Detailed analysis of IgG level was attempted in terms of median (IQR) and seroprevalence rate with 95% confidence interval. Further seroprevalence was estimated according to participants role in the hospital, nature of exposure, demographic (age and gender) and history of Covid-19 disease with severity of disease and duration. Percentage at risk has been calculated as compliment of seroprevalence. Thereafter relative risk with respect to reference category (highest protection) has been calculated for participants role in the hospital, nature of exposure, demographic (age and gender) and history of Covid-19 disease with duration. The results have been presented with 95% confidence interval and p values. Mann Whitney Test was used to test the IgG level between participants with and without h/o Covid-19 infection. All analysis was done using SPSS software, version 24.0. P-value < 0.05 has been considered statistically significant.

3.1. Results

Out of the total 6962 eligible for vaccination, 3258 (46.8%) agreed to participate in the study (Table 1).

Of the 3258 participants, 1490 (45.7%) were clinical HCW (doctors and nurses) and 1768 (54.3%) were non-clinical HCW. Research personnel, paramedics, pharmacists, technicians, general duty, housekeeping, security, food and beverage, and facility maintenance teams were included as ‘non-clinical HCW’ for the purpose of this study. 56.4% of the participants were male. 98.5% of the participants were ≤ 60 years old. 2658(78.8%) had a low risk exposure and the remaining were in high risk exposure category as per Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) guidelines [12]. 473 (14.5%) reported a previous history of Covid-19 disease, of which 97.2% reported mild disease (requiring care at covid care centre or home based care 8 (1.7%) had moderate disease, managed in dedicated covid health centres Five people (1.1%) had severe disease with severe pneumonia or ARDS [13]. 328(10.1%) participants were taking supplements in the last three months and these included Vitamin C, Vitamin D, and some Ayurvedic formulations. Only 253 participants reported any comorbidities and the most common of these was Hypertension (89, 2.7%) (Table 2).

Of the 3258 participants tested for IgG serology (S1 and S2 proteins), 1504 (46.2%) were positive (i.e. had an antibody titre more than/equal to 15 AU/ml) (Table 3 &Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1: Distribution of the IgG antibody levels in the study (N=3258)

People with a past history of Covid-19 disease were found to have significantly higher antibody levels as compared to those without history of Covid-19 (p = 0.0001) (Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2: IgG levels in participants with recent history of Covid-19 disease (<3 months)

Seroprevalence was significantly lower in clinical HCW (41.4%) as compared to non-clinical HCW workers (50.2%) (p = 0.0001). There was no significant difference observed in seroprevalence in both low (46.7%) and high (44.3%) risk health care workers (p = 0.262) as well as male (47.1%) and female (44.9%) (p = 0.212). Seroprevalence was significantly lower in age > 60 years (30.6%) as compared to age ≤ 60 years (46.4%) (p = 0.023). Participants with history of Covid-19 were found to have significantly higher seroprevalence as compared to those without history of Covid-19 (81.2% vs. 40.2%; p = 0.0001). Seroprevalence was not significantly different in all the three categories of severity of Covid-19 disease. Seroprevalence was significantly lower in participants who had Covid-19 history before 3 months (75.9%) as compared to those who had Covid-19 history with less than 3 months (91.3%) from the date of survey (p = 0.0001). age > 60 years (30.6%) as compared to age ≤ 60 years (46.4%) (p = 0.023) (Table 4).

Clinical HCW are at 21% higher risk as compared to Non Clinical HCW in the hospital. Importantly, history of Covid-19 provides double the protection, in particular those who had it recently. Also those in the age group of 60 years or more have 52% higher risk as compared to those under 60 years of age (Table 5).

3.2. Discussion

The unifying hope for ending the global Covid-19 pandemic is the development of adequate population-level herd immunity to halt the continuing cycles of infection and disease. Although no data exist to define the exact threshold necessary to achieve herd immunity against Covid-19, modelling and extrapolation from similar diseases suggest that more than 60%, and perhaps up to 80%, of the population may need immunity for the viral replication rate to drop below 1, enabling a modest level of disease control [14]. Such immunity may be achieved via recovery of many individuals from widespread infection, or preferably via the availability of safe and effective vaccines. Smallpox remains the only disease in human history to have been eradicated, an achievement of vaccination, not natural immunity [15]. Indeed, there are reasons to be optimistic that prior exposure to the virus does lead to protective immunity. Nearly a year into the Covid-19 pandemic, there have been more than 30 million confirmed infections, but extremely few documented cases of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 throughout the world [16].

Widespread availability of commercial assays that detect anti–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies has enabled researchers to examine naturally acquired immunity to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) at the population level. Several studies have found that the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (the percentage of the population with serum containing antibodies that recognize the virus) has remained below 20% even in the most adversely affected areas globally, such as Spain and Italy [7-9]. Bajema et al contributed new information on the shifting nature of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the US [17]. The decline over time of the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the study by Bajema et al is predictable, as for all infectious diseases, the waning of antibody titres is normal and does not necessarily indicate the loss of protective long-term immunity. Immunoglobulin G titres rise during the weeks following infection as active plasma cells secrete antibody into systemic circulation. Those titres then wane as the plasma cells actively secreting the antibodies senesce, whereas resting memory B and T lymphocytes continue to circulate for years to decades and can mediate long-term immunity to infection even in the face of waning antibody titres [18]. Herd immunity is an age-old concept, which is an indirect protection conferred by immune individuals to the susceptible ones in a given population against a specific pathogenic infestation. Herd immunity protects by limiting the spread of the disease [19]. The basic reproductive number (R₀) determines the minimum percentage (Y) of the population required to be immune to achieve the herd immunity for the entire population.

As described before, R₀ = 2-3 as per recent reports [17]

If R₀ = 2, then Y = [(2 - 1)/2] × 100 = 50%.

Similarly, when R₀ = 3, then Y = [(3 - 1)/3 × 100 = 66.66%

Therefore, for R₀ = 2-3, nearly 50% to 66.66%* (threshold) of the population is required to be immune against Covid-19 for the protection of susceptible individuals in a given population through herd immunity. It is unclear how many people have contracted the causative coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) unknowingly. Signorelli et al report seroprevalence in the most effected province of Northern Italy (Bergamo) and its effect on the second wave [20]. The first wave impacted this region particularly violently (1332.9 per 100,000 population). The serosurveillance of 42% Covid-19 antibody positivity was the highest level recorded so far in European seroprevalence studies. It was noted that the second wave impacted Bergamo lesser (257.6 per 100,000 population) than the neighbouring provinces. This may indicate the evolution of an epidemiological picture of herd immunity [21]. Seroprevalence studies help to evaluate the extension of epidemics. Seroprevalence is also an excellent evaluation of the prevention measures of the health care staff [22].

The prevalence and distribution of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a healthy adult populations of various countries such as the Netherlands (2.7%) [23], Turkey (2.7%) [24], Spain (11.2%) [25], a public hospital in New York (27%) [26]. Studies in health care workers showed an equivalently wide spread 14.5% in the Scottish study [27], 1.2% (Japan) [28] 3.66% in Rome [29]. Indian data from two metropolitan studies (Srinagar and Kolkata) show a variation in the prevalence in health care workers ranging from 0.6% to 11.94% [10-11]. Seroprevalence in our study was high at 46.2% (CI 44.4 – 47.9%), this might be due to the changing profile of the seroprevalence in the community from 24.71 % in October 2020 [30] to more than 50% as per Delhi government fifth serosurvey conducted in January, 2021 or due to higher risk of exposure to Covid-19 patients due to the nature of the hospital (focused Covid care hospital). Seroprevalence was significantly lower in clinical HCW (41.4%) as compared to non-clinical HCW workers (50.2%) (p = 0.0001). This may be due to awareness, vigilance and proper use of PPE, other preventive methods in this group of HCW [31]. Seroprevalence was significantly lower in age > 60 years (30.6%) as compared to age ≤ 60 years (46.4%) (p = 0.023) and this has also been reflected in other studies as with advancing age immune response is hampered [32]. Participants with h/o Covid-19 were found to have significantly higher seroprevalence as compared to those without h/o of Covid-19 (81.2% vs. 40.2%; p = 0.0001). Importantly, history of Covid-19 provides double the protection, in particular those who had it recently. Also those in the age group of 60 years or more have 52% higher risk as compared to those under 60 years of age.