RESUMO
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed the respiratory isolation capacity in hospitals; many wards lacking high-frequency air changes have been repurposed for managing patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 requiring either standard or intensive care. Hospital-acquired COVID-19 is a recognised problem amongst both patients and staff, with growing evidence for the relevance of airborne transmission. This study examined the effect of air filtration and ultra-violet (UV) light sterilisation on detectable airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosols. MethodsWe conducted a crossover study of portable air filtration and sterilisation devices in a repurposed surge COVID ward and surge ICU. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) cyclonic aerosol samplers and PCR assays were used to detect the presence of airborne SARS-CoV-2 and other microbial bioaerosol with and without air/UV filtration. ResultsAirborne SARS-CoV-2 was detected in the ward on all five days before activation of air/UV filtration, but on none of the five days when the air/UV filter was operational; SARS-CoV-2 was again detected on four out of five days when the filter was off. Airborne SARS-CoV-2 was infrequently detected in the ICU. Filtration significantly reduced the burden of other microbial bioaerosols in both the ward (48 pathogens detected before filtration, two after, p=0.05) and the ICU (45 pathogens detected before filtration, five after p=0.05). ConclusionsThese data demonstrate the feasibility of removing SARS-CoV-2 from the air of repurposed surge wards and suggest that air filtration devices may help reduce the risk of hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2. FundingWellcome Trust, MRC, NIHR
RESUMO
BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic continues to grow at an unprecedented rate. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection than the general population but risk factors for HCW infection are not well described. MethodsWe conducted a prospective sero-epidemiological study of HCWs at a UK teaching hospital using a SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay. Risk factors for seropositivity were analysed using multivariate logistic regression. Findings410/5,698 (7{middle dot}2%) staff tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Seroprevalence was higher in those working in designated COVID-19 areas compared with other areas (9{middle dot}47% versus 6{middle dot}16%) Healthcare assistants (aOR 2{middle dot}06 [95%CI 1{middle dot}14-3{middle dot}71]; p=0{middle dot}016) and domestic and portering staff (aOR 3{middle dot}45 [95% CI 1{middle dot}07-11{middle dot}42]; p=0{middle dot}039) had significantly higher seroprevalence than other staff groups after adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity and COVID-19 working location. Staff working in acute medicine and medical sub-specialities were also at higher risk (aOR 2{middle dot}07 [95% CI 1{middle dot}31-3{middle dot}25]; p<0{middle dot}002). Staff from Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds had an aOR of 1{middle dot}65 (95% CI 1{middle dot}32 - 2{middle dot}07; p<0{middle dot}001) compared to white staff; this increased risk was independent of COVID-19 area working. The only symptoms significantly associated with seropositivity in a multivariable model were loss of sense of taste or smell, fever and myalgia; 31% of staff testing positive reported no prior symptoms. InterpretationRisk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is heterogeneous and influenced by COVID-19 working location, role, age and ethnicity. Increased risk amongst BAME staff cannot be accounted for solely by occupational factors. FundingWellcome Trust, Addenbrookes Charitable Trust, National Institute for Health Research, Academy of Medical Sciences, the Health Foundation and the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. Research in context Evidence before this studySpecific risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers (HCWs) are not well defined. Additionally, it is not clear how population level risk factors influence occupational risk in defined demographic groups. Only by identifying these factors can we mitigate and reduce the risk of occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection. We performed a review of the evidence for HCW-specific risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. We searched PubMed with the terms "SARS-CoV-2" OR "COVID-19" AND "Healthcare worker" OR "Healthcare Personnel" AND "Risk factor" to identify any studies published in any language between December 2019 and September 2020. The search identified 266 studies and included a meta-analysis and two observational studies assessing HCW cohort seroprevalence data. Seroprevalence and risk factors for HCW infections varied between studies, with contradictory findings. In the two serological studies, one identified a significant increased risk of seroprevalence in those working with COVID-19 patients (Eyre et al 2020), as well as associations with job role and department. The other study (Dimcheff et al 2020) found no significant association between seropositivity and any identified demographic or occupational factor. A meta-analysis of HCW (Gomez-Ochoa et al 2020) assessed >230,000 participants as a pooled analysis, including diagnoses by both RT-PCR and seropositivity for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and found great heterogeneity in study design and reported contradictory findings. Of note, they report a seropositivity rate of 7% across all studies reporting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCWs. Nurses were the most frequently affected healthcare personnel and staff working in non-emergency inpatient settings were the most frequently affected group. Our search found no prospective studies systematically evaluating HCW specific risk factors based entirely on seroprevalence data. Added value of this studyOur prospective cohort study of almost 6,000 HCWs at a large UK teaching hospital strengthens previous findings from UK-based cohorts in identifying an increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure amongst HCWs. Specifically, factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 exposure include caring for confirmed COVID-19 cases and identifying as being within specific ethnic groups (BAME staff). We further delineated the risk amongst BAME staff and demonstrate that occupational factors alone do not account for all of the increased risk amongst this group. We demonstrate for the first time that healthcare assistants represent a key at-risk occupational group, and challenge previous findings of significantly higher risk amongst nursing staff. Seroprevalence in staff not working in areas with confirmed COVID-19 patients was only marginally higher than that of the general population within the same geographical region. This observation could suggest the increased risk amongst HCWs arises through occupational exposure to confirmed cases and could account for the overall higher seroprevalence in HCWs, rather than purely the presence of staff in healthcare facilities. Over 30% of seropositive staff had not reported symptoms consistent with COVID-19, and in those who did report symptoms, differentiating COVID-19 from other causes based on symptom data alone was unreliable. Implications of all the available evidenceInternational efforts to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs need to be prioritised. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection amongst HCWs is heterogenous but also follows demonstrable patterns. Potential mechanisms to reduce the risk for staff working in areas with confirmed COVID-19 patients include improved training in hand hygiene and personal protective equipment (PPE), better access to high quality PPE, and frequent asymptomatic testing. Wider asymptomatic testing in healthcare facilities has the potential to reduce spread of SARS-CoV-2 within hospitals, thereby reducing patient and staff risk and limiting spread between hospitals and into the wider community. The increased risk of COVID-19 amongst BAME staff cannot be explained by purely occupational factors; however, the increased risk amongst minority ethnic groups identified here was stark and necessitates further evaluation.
