SARS-CoV-2 antibody dynamics over time and risk factors associated with infection and long COVID-19 symptoms in large working environments.

BACKGROUND: Factors influencing SARS-CoV-2 antibody dynamics, transmission, waning and long COVID-19 symptomatology are still not fully understood. METHODS: In the Danish section of the Novo Nordisk Group, we performed a prospective seroepidemiological study during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. All employees and their household members (>18 years) were invited to participate in a baseline (June-August 2020), 6-month follow-up (December 2020-January 2021), and 12-month follow-up (August 2021) sampling. In total, 18,614 accepted and provided at least one blood sample and completed a questionnaire regarding socioeconomic background, health status, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and persistent symptoms. Total antibody and specific IgM, IgG and IgA levels against recombinant receptor binding domain were tested. RESULTS: At baseline, the SARS-CoV-2-antibody seroprevalence was 3.9%. At 6-month follow-up, the seroprevalence was 9.1%, while at 12-month follow-up, the seroprevalence was 94.4% (after the vaccine roll-out). Male sex and younger age (18-40 years) were significant risk factors for seropositivity. From baseline to the 6-month sampling, we observed a substantial waning of IgM, IgG and IgA levels (p < 0.001), regardless of age, sex and initial antibody level. An increased antibody level was found in individuals infected prior to vaccination compared to vaccinated infection naïves (p < 0.0001). Approximately a third of the seropositive individuals reported one or more persistent COVID-19 symptoms, with anosmia and/or ageusia (17.5%) and fatigue (15.3%) being the most prevalent. CONCLUSION: The study provides a comprehensive insight into SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence following infection and vaccination, waning, persistent COVID-19 symptomatology and risk factors for seropositivity in large working environments.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in social housing areas in Denmark.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is thought to be more prevalent among ethnic minorities and individuals with low socioeconomic status. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies during the COVID-19 pandemic among citizens 15 years or older in Denmark living in social housing (SH) areas. METHODS: We conducted a study between January 8th and January 31st, 2021 with recruitment in 13 selected SH areas. Participants were offered a point-of-care rapid SARS-CoV-2 IgM and IgG antibody test and a questionnaire concerning risk factors associated with COVID-19. As a proxy for the general Danish population we accessed data on seroprevalence from Danish blood donors (total Ig ELISA assay) in same time period. RESULTS: Of the 13,279 included participants, 2296 (17.3%) were seropositive (mean age 46.6 (SD 16.4) years, 54.2% female), which was 3 times higher than in the general Danish population (mean age 41.7 (SD 14.1) years, 48.5% female) in the same period (5.8%, risk ratios (RR) 2.96, 95% CI 2.78-3.16, p > 0.001). Seropositivity was higher among males (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.05-1.22%, p = 0.001) and increased with age, with an OR seropositivity of 1.03 for each 10-year increase in age (95% CI 1.00-1.06, p = 0.031). Close contact with COVID-19-infected individuals was associated with a higher risk of infection, especially among household members (OR 5.0, 95% CI 4.1-6.2 p < 0,001). Living at least four people in a household significantly increased the OR of seropositivity (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p = 0.02) as did living in a multi-generational household (OR 1.3 per generation, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, p = 0.003). Only 1.6% of participants reported not following any of the national COVID-19 recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Danish citizens living in SH areas of low socioeconomic status had a three times higher SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence compared to the general Danish population. The seroprevalence was significantly higher in males and increased slightly with age. Living in multiple generations households or in households of more than four persons was a strong risk factor for being seropositive. Results of this study can be used for future consideration of the need for preventive measures in the populations living in SH areas.

Effect of Influenza Vaccination on Risk of Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Prospective Cohort Study of 46†000 Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess whether influenza vaccination has an impact on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: A cohort of 46 112 healthcare workers were tested for antibodies against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and filled in a survey on COVID-19 symptoms, hospitalization, and influenza vaccination. RESULTS: The risk ratio of hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 for influenza vaccinated compared with unvaccinated participants was 1.00 for the seasonal vaccination in 2019/2020 (confidence interval, .56-1.78, P = 1.00). Likewise, no clinical effect of influenza vaccination on development of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was found. CONCLUSIONS: The present findings indicate that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and reduced risk of reinfection through 6 months: a Danish observational cohort study of 44 000 healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: Antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) are a key factor in protecting against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We examined longitudinal changes in seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCWs) in Copenhagen and the protective effect of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In this prospective study, screening for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (ELISA) was offered to HCWs three times over 6 months. HCW characteristics were obtained by questionnaires. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04346186. RESULTS: From April to October 2020 we screened 44 698 HCWs, of whom 2811 were seropositive at least once. The seroprevalence increased from 4.0% (1501/37 452) to 7.4% (2022/27 457) during the period (p < 0.001) and was significantly higher than in non-HCWs. Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of seropositivity compared to non-frontline HCWs, with risk ratios (RRs) at the three rounds of 1.49 (95%CI 1.34-1.65, p < 0.001), 1.52 (1.39-1.68, p < 0.001) and 1.50 (1.38-1.64, p < 0.001). The seroprevalence was 1.42- to 2.25-fold higher (p < 0.001) in HCWs from dedicated COVID-19 wards than in other frontline HCWs. Seropositive HCWs had an RR of 0.35 (0.15-0.85, p 0.012) of reinfection during the following 6 months, and 2115 out of 2248 (95%) of those who were seropositive during rounds one or two remained seropositive after 4-6 months. The 133 of 2248 participants (5.0%) who seroreverted were slightly older and reported fewer symptoms than other seropositive participants. CONCLUSIONS: HCWs remained at increased risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 during the 6-month period. Seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 persisted for at least 6 months in the vast majority of HCWs and was associated with a significantly lower risk of reinfection.

Testing Denmark: a Danish Nationwide Surveillance Study of COVID-19.

"Testing Denmark" is a national, large-scale, epidemiological surveillance study of SARS-CoV-2 in the Danish population. Between September and October 2020, approximately 1.3 million people (age >15 years) were randomly invited to fill in an electronic questionnaire covering COVID-19 exposures and symptoms. The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was determined by point-of care rapid test (POCT) distributed to participants' home addresses. In total, 318,552 participants (24.5% invitees) completed the study and 2,519 (0.79%) were seropositive. Of the participants with a prior positive PCR test (n = 1,828), 29.1% were seropositive in the POCT. Although seropositivity increased with age, participants 61 years and over reported fewer symptoms and were tested less frequently. Seropositivity was associated with physical contact with SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals (risk ratio [RR] 7.43, 95% CI: 6.57-8.41), particular in household members (RR 17.70, 95% CI: 15.60-20.10). A greater risk of seropositivity was seen in home care workers (RR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.58-2.78) compared to office workers. A high degree of adherence with national preventive recommendations was reported (e.g., >80% use of face masks), but no difference were found between seropositive and seronegative participants. The seroprevalence result was somewhat hampered by a lower-than-expected performance of the POCT. This is likely due to a low sensitivity of the POCT or problems reading the test results, and the main findings therefore relate to risk associations. More emphasis should be placed on age, occupation, and exposure in local communities. IMPORTANCE To date, including 318,522 participants, this is the largest population-based study with broad national participation where tests and questionnaires have been sent to participants' homes. We found that more emphasis from national and local authorities toward the risk of infection should be placed on age of tested individuals, type of occupation, as well as exposure in local communities and households. To meet the challenge that broad nationwide information can be difficult to gather. This study design sets the stage for a novel way of conducting studies. Additionally, this study design can be used as a supplementary model in future general test strategy for ongoing monitoring of COVID-19 immunity in the population, both from past infection and from vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, however, with attention to the complexity of performing and reading the POCT at home.

Risk Factors for Being Seronegative following SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Health Care Workers in Denmark.

Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but being seronegative is observed in 1 to 9%. We aimed to investigate the risk factors associated with being seronegative following PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a prospective cohort study, we screened health care workers (HCW) in the Capital Region of Denmark for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We performed three rounds of screening from April to October 2020 using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) method targeting SARS-CoV-2 total antibodies. Data on all participants' PCR for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were captured from national registries. The Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards models were applied to investigate the probability of being seronegative and the related risk factors, respectively. Of 36,583 HCW, 866 (2.4%) had a positive PCR before or during the study period. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 866 HCW was 42 (31 to 53) years, and 666 (77%) were female. After a median of 132 (range, 35 to 180) days, 21 (2.4%) of 866 were seronegative. In a multivariable model, independent risk factors for being seronegative were self-reported asymptomatic or mild infection hazard ratio (HR) of 6.6 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6 to 17; P < 0.001) and body mass index (BMI) of ≥30, HR 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1 to 8.8; P = 0.039). Only a few (2.4%) HCW were not seropositive. Asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges. IMPORTANCE Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but negative serology is observed in 1 to 9%. We found that asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges.

[Review of Early Warning Score in preventing sudden critical illness and death].

Early Warning Score (EWS) are used extensively to identify patients at risk of deterioration during hospital admission. The validation of EWS has primarily focused on investigating predictive validity, i.e. the association between EWS and severe adverse events. Few studies have tested, whether EWS work in the clinical setting, and if it prevents severe adverse events from occurring. Many of these studies have methodological limitations, and their clinical relevance could be questioned. Currently, there is limited evidence to support, that the implementation of EWS reduces the occurrence of severe adverse events.