Summary Background Health-care workers are thought to be highly exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in health-care workers and the proportion of seroconverted health-care workers with previous symptoms of COVID-19. Methods In this observational cohort study, screening was offered to health-care workers in the Capital Region of Denmark, including medical, nursing, and other students who were associated with hospitals in the region. Screening included point-of-care tests for IgM and IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Test results and participant characteristics were recorded. Results were compared with findings in blood donors in the Capital Region in the study period. Findings Between April 15 and April 23, 2020, we screened 29 295 health-care workers, of whom 28 792 (98·28%) provided their test results. We identified 1163 (4·04% [95% CI 3·82–4·27]) seropositive health-care workers. Seroprevalence was higher in health-care workers than in blood donors (142 [3·04%] of 4672; risk ratio [RR] 1·33 [95% CI 1·12–1·58]; p<0·001). Seroprevalence was higher in male health-care workers (331 [5·45%] of 6077) than in female health-care workers (832 [3·66%] of 22 715; RR 1·49 [1·31–1·68]; p<0·001). Frontline health-care workers working in hospitals had a significantly higher seroprevalence (779 [4·55%] of 16 356) than health-care workers in other settings (384 [3·29%] of 11 657; RR 1·38 [1·22–1·56]; p<0·001). Health-care workers working on dedicated COVID-19 wards (95 [7·19%] of 1321) had a significantly higher seroprevalence than other frontline health-care workers working in hospitals (696 [4·35%] of 15 983; RR 1·65 [1·34–2·03]; p<0·001). 622 [53·5%] of 1163 seropositive participants reported symptoms attributable to SARS-CoV-2. Loss of taste or smell was the symptom that was most strongly associated with seropositivity (377 [32·39%] of 1164 participants with this symptom were seropositive vs 786 [2·84%] of 27 628 without this symptom; RR 11·38 [10·22–12·68]). The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04346186 . Interpretation The prevalence of health-care workers with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 was low but higher than in blood donors. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health-care workers was related to exposure to infected patients. More than half of seropositive health-care workers reported symptoms attributable to COVID-19. Funding Lundbeck Foundation.

The state of RBC metabolism may be a better indicator of cellular quality than traditional hematologic variables.

Background The pandemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has tremendous consequences for our societies. Knowledge of the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 is needed to accurately monitor the spread of the epidemic and to calculate the infection fatality rate (IFR). These measures may help the authorities to make informed decisions and adjust the current societal interventions. The objective was to perform nationwide real-time seroprevalence surveying among blood donors as a tool to estimate previous SARS-CoV-2 infections and the population based IFR. Methods Danish blood donors aged 17–69 years giving blood April 6 to May 3 were tested for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin M and G antibodies using a commercial lateral flow test. Antibody status was compared between geographical areas and an estimate of the IFR was calculated. The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results The first 20,640 blood donors were tested and a combined adjusted seroprevalence of 1.9% (CI: 0.8-2.3) was calculated. The seroprevalence differed across areas. Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 89 per 100,000 (CI: 72-211) infections. Conclusions The IFR was estimated to be slightly lower than previously reported from other countries not using seroprevalence data. The IFR is likely several fold lower than the current estimate. We have initiated real-time nationwide anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveying of blood donations as a tool in monitoring the epidemic.

Serological SARS-CoV-2 assays are needed to support clinical diagnosis and epidemiological investigations. Recently, assays for large-scale detection of total antibodies (total-Ab) and immunoglobulin (Ig) G and M against SARS-CoV-2 antigens have been developed, but there are limited data on the diagnostic accuracy of these assays. This study was a Danish national collaboration and evaluated fifteen commercial and one in-house anti-SARS-CoV-2 assays in sixteen laboratories. Sensitivity was evaluated using 150 samples from individuals with asymptomatic, mild or moderate COVID-19; nonhospitalized or hospitalized, confirmed by nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), collected 13-73 days either from symptom onset or from positive NAAT (patients without symptoms). Specificity and cross reactivity were evaluated in samples collected prior to the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic from >586 blood donors and patients with autoimmune diseases, cytomegalovirus or Epstein-Barr virus infections and acute viral infections. A specificity of ≥99% was achieved by all total-Ab and IgG assays except one, Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (97.2%). Sensitivities in descending order were: Wantai/ELISA total-Ab (96.7%), CUH-NOVO/in-house ELISA total-Ab (96.0%), Ortho/Vitros total-Ab (95.3%), YHLO/iFlash-IgG (94.0%), Ortho/Vitros-IgG (93.3%), Siemens/Atellica total-Ab (93.2%), Roche/Elecsys total-Ab (92.7%), Abbott/Architect-IgG (90.0%), Abbott/Alinity-IgG (median 88.0%), Diasorin/LiaisonXL-IgG (median 84.6%), Siemens/Vista total-Ab (81.0%), Euroimmun/ELISA-IgG (78.0%), and Snibe/Maglumi-IgG (median 78.0%). However, confidence intervals overlapped for several assays. The IgM results were variable, with the Wantai/ELISA-IgM showing the highest sensitivity (82.7%) and specificity (99%). The rate of seropositivity increased with time from symptom onset and symptom severity.