Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in a health care worker population during the early pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While others have reported severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies in health care workers (HCWs), we leverage the use of a highly sensitive coronavirus antigen microarray to identify a group of seropositive health care workers who were missed by daily symptom screening that was instituted prior to any epidemiologically significant local outbreak. Given that most health care facilities rely on daily symptom screening as the primary method to identify SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers, here, we aim to determine how demographic, occupational, and clinical variables influence SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among health care workers. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey of HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity conducted from May 15th to June 30th 2020 at a 418-bed academic hospital in Orange County, California. From an eligible population of 5,349 HCWs, study participants were recruited in two ways: an open cohort, and a targeted cohort. The open cohort was open to anyone, whereas the targeted cohort that recruited HCWs previously screened for COVID-19 or work in high-risk units. A total of 1,557 HCWs completed the survey and provided specimens, including 1,044 in the open cohort and 513 in the targeted cohort. Demographic, occupational, and clinical variables were surveyed electronically. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was assessed using a coronavirus antigen microarray (CoVAM), which measures antibodies against eleven viral antigens to identify prior infection with 98% specificity and 93% sensitivity. RESULTS: Among tested HCWs (n = 1,557), SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 10.8%, and risk factors included male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.06), exposure to COVID-19 outside of work (2.29, 1.14-4.29), working in food or environmental services (4.85, 1.51-14.85), and working in COVID-19 units (ICU: 2.28, 1.29-3.96; ward: 1.59, 1.01-2.48). Amongst 1,103 HCWs not previously screened, seropositivity was 8.0%, and additional risk factors included younger age (1.57, 1.00-2.45) and working in administration (2.69, 1.10-7.10). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is significantly higher than reported case counts even among HCWs who are meticulously screened. Seropositive HCWs missed by screening were more likely to be younger, work outside direct patient care, or have exposure outside of work.

Infection prevention strategies are highly protective in COVID-19 units while main risks to healthcare professionals come from coworkers and the community.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluations of healthcare professional (HCP) COVID-19 risk occurred during insufficient personal protective equipment and disproportionate testing, contributing to perceptions of high patient-care related HCP risk. We evaluated HCP COVID-19 seropositivity after accounting for community factors and coworker outbreaks. METHODS: Prior to universal masking, we conducted a single-center retrospective cohort plus cross-sectional study. All HCP (1) seen by Occupational Health for COVID-like symptoms (regardless of test result) or assigned to (2) dedicated COVID-19 units, (3) units with a COVID-19 HCP outbreak, or (4) control units from 01/01/2020 to 04/15/2020 were offered serologic testing by an FDA-authorized assay plus a research assay against 67 respiratory viruses, including 11 SARS-CoV-2 antigens. Multivariable models assessed the association of demographics, job role, comorbidities, care of a COVID-19 patient, and geocoded socioeconomic status with positive serology. RESULTS: Of 654 participants, 87 (13.3%) were seropositive; among these 60.8% (N = 52) had never cared for a COVID-19 patient. Being male (OR 1.79, CI 1.05-3.04, p = 0.03), working in a unit with a HCP-outbreak unit (OR 2.21, CI 1.28-3.81, p < 0.01), living in a community with low owner-occupied housing (OR = 1.63, CI = 1.00-2.64, p = 0.05), and ethnically Latino (OR 2.10, CI 1.12-3.96, p = 0.02) were positively-associated with COVID-19 seropositivity, while working in dedicated COVID-19 units was negatively-associated (OR 0.53, CI = 0.30-0.94, p = 0.03). The research assay identified 25 additional seropositive individuals (78 [12%] vs. 53 [8%], p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission. Prior to universal masking, HCP COVID-19 risk was dominated by workplace and community exposures while working in a dedicated COVID-19 unit was protective, suggesting that infection prevention protocols prevent patient-to-HCP transmission.