RESUMO
BackgroundWith the COVID-19 pandemic, documenting whether health care workers (HCWs) are at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 contamination and identifying risk factors is of major concern. MethodsIn this multicenter prospective cohort study, HCWs from frontline departments were included in March and April 2020 and followed for 3 months. SARS-CoV-2 serology was performed at month 0 (M0), M1, and M3 and RT-PCR in case of symptoms. The primary outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. Risk factors of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 were identified by multivariate logistic regression. ResultsAmong 1,062 HCWs (median [interquartile range] age, 33 [28-42] years; 758 [71.4%] women; 321 [30.2%] physicians), the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3 was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [12.5; 16.9]). Risk factors were the working department specialty, with increased risk for intensive care units (odds ratio 1.80, 95%CI [0.38; 8.58]), emergency departments (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and infectious diseases departments (4.22 [0.92; 18.28]); active smoking was associated with reduced risk (0.36 [0.21; 0.63]). Age, sex, professional category, number of years of experience in the job or department, and public transportation use were not significantly associated with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection at M3. ConclusionThe rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection in frontline HCWs was 14.6% at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Paris and occurred mainly early. The study argues for an origin of professional in addition to private life contamination and therefore including HCWs in the first-line vaccination target population. It also highlights that smokers were at lower risk. Key messagesO_LIDuring the first epidemic wave, 14.6% of 1,062 first-line Health Care Workers had a positive serology and/or RT-PCR test for SARS-CoV-2. C_LIO_LIMost infections occurred early C_LIO_LIRisk was increased by working in infectious diseases (OR 4.22, 95% confidence interval [0.92; 18.28]), emergency (3.91 [0.83; 18.43]) and intensive care units (1.80, [0.38; 8.58]) C_LIO_LIBeing an active smoker was protective (0.36 [0.21; 0.3]). C_LI
RESUMO
A major dogma in immunology has it that the IgM antibody response precedes secondary memory responses built on the production of IgG, IgA and, occasionaly, IgE. Here, we measured acute humoral responses to SARS-CoV-2, including the frequency of antibody-secreting cells and the presence of specific, neutralizing, antibodies in serum and broncho-alveolar fluid of 145 patients with COVID-19. Surprisingly, early SARS-CoV-2-specific humoral responses were found to be typically dominated by antibodies of the IgA isotype. Peripheral expansion of IgA-plasmablasts with mucosal-homing potential was detected shortly after the onset of symptoms and peaked during the third week of the disease. While the specific antibody response included IgG, IgM and IgA, the latter contributed to a much larger extent to virus neutralization, as compared to IgG. However, specific IgA serum levels notably decrease after one month of evolution. These results represent a challenging observation given the present uncertainty as to which kind of humoral response would optimally protect against re-infection, and whether vaccine regimens should consider boosting a potent, although, at least in blood, fading IgA response. One sentence SummaryWhile early specific antibody response included IgG, IgM and IgA, the latter contributed to a much larger extent to virus neutralization.
