22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study

      research-article
      , Prof, DMS a , b , * , , Prof, DMSc c , , MD a , b , , MD a , b , , MD a , b , , MD c , , MD c , d , , PhD e , , MD a , b , , MD a , b , , Prof, DMSc f , , DMSc g , , MD h , , PhD n , , Prof, DMSc g , , Prof, DMSc i , , PhD j , , MD k , , PhD c , , MD n , , PhD n , , MD n , , PhD n , , Prof, PhD l , , MD o , , Prof, DMSc m , , DMSc d , , Prof, PhD n
      The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
      Elsevier Ltd.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19.

          Methods

          In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period.

          Findings

          Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82–4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12–1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31–1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22–1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34–2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22–12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04356560.

          Interpretation

          The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19.

          Funding

          Lundbeck Foundation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found

          Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens

          This study describes results of PCR and viral RNA testing for SARS-CoV-2 in bronchoalveolar fluid, sputum, feces, blood, and urine specimens from patients with COVID-19 infection in China to identify possible means of non-respiratory transmission.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19

            We report acute antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in 285 patients with COVID-19. Within 19 days after symptom onset, 100% of patients tested positive for antiviral immunoglobulin-G (IgG). Seroconversion for IgG and IgM occurred simultaneously or sequentially. Both IgG and IgM titers plateaued within 6 days after seroconversion. Serological testing may be helpful for the diagnosis of suspected patients with negative RT-PCR results and for the identification of asymptomatic infections.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              COVID-19 and Italy: what next?

              Summary The spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has already taken on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries in a matter of weeks. A global response to prepare health systems worldwide is imperative. Although containment measures in China have reduced new cases by more than 90%, this reduction is not the case elsewhere, and Italy has been particularly affected. There is now grave concern regarding the Italian national health system's capacity to effectively respond to the needs of patients who are infected and require intensive care for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. The percentage of patients in intensive care reported daily in Italy between March 1 and March 11, 2020, has consistently been between 9% and 11% of patients who are actively infected. The number of patients infected since Feb 21 in Italy closely follows an exponential trend. If this trend continues for 1 more week, there will be 30 000 infected patients. Intensive care units will then be at maximum capacity; up to 4000 hospital beds will be needed by mid-April, 2020. Our analysis might help political leaders and health authorities to allocate enough resources, including personnel, beds, and intensive care facilities, to manage the situation in the next few days and weeks. If the Italian outbreak follows a similar trend as in Hubei province, China, the number of newly infected patients could start to decrease within 3–4 days, departing from the exponential trend. However, this cannot currently be predicted because of differences between social distancing measures and the capacity to quickly build dedicated facilities in China.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Infect Dis
                Lancet Infect Dis
                The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
                Elsevier Ltd.
                1473-3099
                1474-4457
                3 August 2020
                3 August 2020
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Cardiology, Herlev og Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
                [b ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Herlev og Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark
                [c ]Department of Cardiology, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [d ]Department of Infectious Disease, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [e ]Department of Neurology, Rigshospitalet Glostrup, University of Copenhagen, Glostrup, Denmark
                [f ]Department of Emergency and Clinical Research Centre, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre, Denmark
                [g ]Department of Clinical Research, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
                [h ]Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Nordsjællands Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark
                [i ]Department of Endocrinology and Copenhagen Center for Translational Research, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [j ]Department of Pulmonary Medicine and Copenhagen Center for Translational Research, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [k ]Mental Health Services–The Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [l ]Emergency Medical Services, Ballerup, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [m ]Department of Infectious Disease, Hvidovre Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hvidovre, Denmark
                [n ]Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [o ]Diagnostisk Enhed, Bornholms Hospital, Rønne, Denmark
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Kasper Iversen, Department of Cardiology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, 2730 Herlev, Denmark kasper.karmark.iversen@ 123456regionh.dk
                Article
                S1473-3099(20)30589-2
                10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30589-2
                7398038
                32758438
                38460e40-9fe3-47f3-8666-0a8849e25b99
                © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content187

                Cited by231

                Most referenced authors792