SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in healthcare workers of a Swiss tertiary care centre at the end of the first wave: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the SARS-CoV-2 transmission in healthcare workers (HCWs) using seroprevalence as a surrogate marker of infection in our tertiary care centre according to exposure. DESIGN: Seroprevalence cross-sectional study. SETTING: Single centre at the end of the first COVID-19 wave in Lausanne, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: 1874 of 4074 responders randomly selected (46% response rate), stratified by work category among the 13 474 (13.9%) HCWs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serostatus paired with a questionnaire of SARS-CoV-2 acquisition risk factors internal and external to the workplace. RESULTS: The overall SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rate among HCWs was 10.0% (95% CI 8.7% to 11.5%). HCWs with daily patient contact did not experience increased rates of seropositivity relative to those without (10.3% vs 9.6%, respectively, p=0.64). HCWs with direct contact with patients with COVID-19 or working in COVID-19 units did not experience increased seropositivity rates relative to their counterparts (10.4% vs 9.8%, p=0.69 and 10.6% vs 9.9%, p=0.69, respectively). However, specific locations of contact with patients irrespective of COVID-19 status-in patient rooms or reception areas-did correlate with increased rates of seropositivity (11.9% vs 7.5%, p=0.019 and 14.3% vs 9.2%, p=0.025, respectively). In contrast, HCWs with a suspected or proven SARS-CoV-2-infected household contact had significantly higher seropositivity rates than those without such contacts (19.0% vs 8.7%, p<0.001 and 42.1% vs 9.4%, p<0.001, respectively). Finally, consistent use of a mask on public transportation correlated with decreased seroprevalence (5.3% for mask users vs 11.2% for intermittent or no mask use, p=0.030). CONCLUSIONS: The overall seroprevalence was 10% without significant differences in seroprevalence between HCWs exposed to patients with COVID-19 and HCWs not exposed. This suggests that, once fully in place, protective measures limited SARS-CoV-2 occupational acquisition within the hospital environment. SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion among HCWs was associated primarily with community risk factors, particularly household transmission.

Changes in SARS-CoV-2 Spike versus Nucleoprotein Antibody Responses Impact the Estimates of Infections in Population-Based Seroprevalence Studies.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific antibody responses to the spike (S) protein monomer, S protein native trimeric form, or the nucleocapsid (N) proteins were evaluated in cohorts of individuals with acute infection (n = 93) and in individuals enrolled in a postinfection seroprevalence population study (n = 578) in Switzerland. Commercial assays specific for the S1 monomer, for the N protein, or within a newly developed Luminex assay using the S protein trimer were found to be equally sensitive in antibody detection in the acute-infection-phase samples. Interestingly, compared to anti-S antibody responses, those against the N protein appear to wane in the postinfection cohort. Seroprevalence in a "positive patient contacts" group (n = 177) was underestimated by N protein assays by 10.9 to 32.2%, while the "randomly selected" general population group (n = 311) was reduced by up to 45% relative to the S protein assays. The overall reduction in seroprevalence targeting only anti-N antibodies for the total cohort ranged from 9.4 to 31%. Of note, the use of the S protein in its native trimer form was significantly more sensitive compared to monomeric S proteins. These results indicate that the assessment of anti-S IgG antibody responses against the native trimeric S protein should be implemented to estimate SARS-CoV-2 infections in population-based seroprevalence studies.IMPORTANCE In the present study, we have determined SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody responses in sera of acute and postinfection phase subjects. Our results indicate that antibody responses against viral S and N proteins were equally sensitive in the acute phase of infection, but that responses against N appear to wane in the postinfection phase where those against the S protein persist over time. The most sensitive serological assay in both acute and postinfection phases used the native S protein trimer as the binding antigen, which has significantly greater conformational epitopes for antibody binding compared to the S1 monomer protein used in other assays. We believe these results are extremely important in order to generate correct estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infections in the general population. Furthermore, the assessment of antibody responses against the trimeric S protein will be critical to evaluate the durability of the antibody response and for the characterization of a vaccine-induced antibody response.

An analysis of the benefit of using HEV genotype 3 antigens in detecting anti-HEV IgG in a European population.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of using serological assays based on HEV genotype 3 in industrialised settings is unclear. We compared the performance of serological kits based on antigens from different HEV genotypes. METHODS: Taking 20 serum samples from patients in southwest France with acute HEV infection (positive PCR for HEV genotype 3) and 550 anonymised samples from blood donors in southwest Switzerland, we tested for anti-HEV IgG using three enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) (MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro and Fortress) based on genotype 1 and 2 antigens, and one immunodot assay (Mikrogen Diagnostik recomLine HEV IgG/IgM) based on genotype 1 and 3 antigens. RESULTS: All acute HEV samples and 124/550 blood donor samples were positive with ≥1 assay. Of PCR-confirmed patient samples, 45%, 65%, 95% and 55% were positive with MP Diagnostics, Dia.Pro, Fortress and recomLine, respectively. Of blood donor samples positive with ≥1 assay, 120/124 (97%), were positive with Fortress, 19/124 (15%) were positive with all EIAs and 51/124 (41%) were positive with recomLine. Of 11/20 patient samples positive with recomLine, stronger reactivity for HEV genotype 3 was observed in 1/11(9%), and equal reactivity for both genotypes in 5/11 (45.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Although recomLine contains HEV genotype 3, it has lower sensitivity than Fortress in acute HEV infection and fails to identify infection as being due to this genotype in approximately 45% of patients. In our single blood donor population, we observe wide variations in measured seroprevalence, from 4.2% to 21.8%, depending on the assay used.

Hepatitis E virus seroprevalence among blood donors in southwest Switzerland.

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the seroprevalence of Hepatitis E virus (HEV) among blood donors in southwest Switzerland. BACKGROUND: HEV is recognized as a food-borne disease in industrialized countries, transmitted mainly through pork meat. Cases of transmission through blood transfusion have also been reported. Recent studies have revealed seroprevalence rates of 13.5%, 16.6% and 20.6% among blood donors in England, France and Denmark, respectively. METHODS: We analyzed 550 consecutive blood donor samples collected in the region of Lausanne, canton of Vaud, Switzerland, for the presence of anti-HEV IgG, using the MP Diagnostics HEV ELISA kit. For each donor, we documented age, sex and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) value. RESULTS: The study panel was composed of 332 men (60.4%) and 218 women (39.6%). Overall, anti-HEV IgG was found in 27 of 550 samples (4.9%). The seroprevalence was 5.4% (18/332) in men and 4.1% (9/218) in women. The presence of anti-HEV IgG was not correlated with age, gender or ALT values. However, we observed a peak in seroprevalence of 5.3% in individuals aged 51 to 70 years old. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other European countries, HEV seroprevalence among blood donors in southwest Switzerland is low. The low seroprevalence may be explained by the sensitivity of commercial tests used and/or the strict regulation of animal and meat imports. Data regarding HEV prevalence in Swiss livestock are lacking and merit exploration.