Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers.

Importance: It is unclear when, where, and by whom health care workers (HCWs) working in hospitals are infected with SARS-CoV-2. Objective: To determine how often and in what manner nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection occurs in HCW groups with varying exposure to patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study comprised 4 weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies and collection of questionnaires from March 23 to June 25, 2020, combined with phylogenetic and epidemiologic transmission analyses at 2 university hospitals in the Netherlands. Included individuals were HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and HCWs not working in patient care. Data were analyzed from August through December 2020. Exposures: Varying work-related exposure to patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Main Outcomes and Measures: The cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in blood samples, were measured. Results: Among 801 HCWs, there were 439 HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19, 164 HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19, and 198 HCWs not working in patient care. There were 580 (72.4%) women, and the median (interquartile range) age was 36 (29-50) years. The incidence of SARS-CoV-2 was increased among HCWs working in patient care for those with COVID-19 (54 HCWs [13.2%; 95% CI, 9.9%-16.4%]) compared with HCWs working in patient care for those without COVID-19 (11 HCWs [6.7%; 95% CI, 2.8%-10.5%]; hazard ratio [HR], 2.25; 95% CI, 1.17-4.30) and HCWs not working in patient care (7 HCWs [3.6%; 95% CI, 0.9%-6.1%]; HR, 3.92; 95% CI, 1.79-8.62). Among HCWs caring for patients with COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was increased among HCWs working on COVID-19 wards (32 of 134 HCWs [25.7%; 95% CI, 17.6%-33.1%]) compared with HCWs working on intensive care units (13 of 186 HCWs [7.1%; 95% CI, 3.3%-10.7%]; HR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.91-6.94), and HCWs working in emergency departments (7 of 102 HCWs [8.0%; 95% CI, 2.5%-13.1%]; HR, 3.29; 95% CI, 1.52-7.14). Epidemiologic data combined with phylogenetic analyses on COVID-19 wards identified 3 potential HCW-to-HCW transmission clusters. No patient-to-HCW transmission clusters could be identified in transmission analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that HCWs working on COVID-19 wards were at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection with an important role for HCW-to-HCW transmission. These findings suggest that infection among HCWs deserves more consideration in infection prevention practice.

Antigen-based diagnosis of Schistosoma infection in travellers: a prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Travellers infected with Schistosoma spp. might be pauci- or even asymptomatic on first presentation. Therefore, schistosomiasis may remain undiagnosed in this population. Active infection, as evidenced by the presence of the tissue-dwelling worm, can be demonstrated via the detection of adult worm-derived circulating anodic antigen (CAA) utilising a robust well-described lateral flow-(LF) based test applying background-free up-converting reporter particles (UCP). In this prospective study, we assessed the diagnostic value of serum and urine UCP-LF CAA test in comparison with two Schistosoma-specific serological assays detecting antibodies against adult worm antigen-immuno fluorescence assay (AWA-IFA) and against soluble egg antigen-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (SEA-ELISA) antigens in travellers. METHODS: Samples were collected from 106 Dutch travellers who reported freshwater contact in sub-Saharan Africa and who were recruited up to 2 years after return. Subjects were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire on travel history, water contact, signs and symptoms compatible with schistosomiasis. RESULTS: Two travellers were positive by serum CAA and an additional one by urine CAA. A total of 22/106 (21%) samples were antibody positive by AWA-IFA and 9/106 (9%) by SEA-ELISA. At follow-up 6 weeks and 6 months after praziquantel treatment, all seropositives remained antibody positive whereas CAA was cleared. Seropositivity could not be predicted by the type of fresh water-related activity, country visited or symptoms reported. CONCLUSION: The low number of UCP-LF CAA positives suggests that in travellers, active infections often do not establish or have very low worm burden. Based on our high seroconversion rates, we conclude that the AWA-IFA assay is the most sensitive test to detect schistosome exposure. Given the lack of predictive symptoms or risk factors, we recommend schistosomiasis screening at least by serology in all travellers with reported freshwater contact in high-endemic areas.