Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among workers of the public higher education institutions of Porto, Portugal: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

ObjectivesTo assess the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgM and IgG antibodies among workers of the three public higher education institutions of Porto, Portugal, up to July 2020.MethodsA rapid point-of-care test for specific IgM and IgG antibodies of SARS-CoV-2 was offered to all workers (SD Biosensor STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo and STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Combo). Testing was performed and a questionnaire was completed by 4592 workers on a voluntary basis from 21 May to 31 July 2020. We computed the apparent IgM, IgG, and combined IgM or IgG prevalence, along with the true prevalence and 95% credible intervals (95% CrI) using Bayesian inference.ResultsWe found an apparent prevalence of 3.1% for IgM, 1.0% for IgG and 3.9% for either. The estimated true prevalence was 2.0% (95% CrI 0.1% to 4.3%) for IgM, 0.6% (95% CrI 0.0% to 1.3%) for IgG, and 2.5% (95% CrI 0.1% to 5.3%) for IgM or IgG. A SARS-CoV-2 molecular diagnosis was reported by 21 (0.5%) workers; and of these, 90.5% had a reactive IgG result. Seroprevalence was higher among those reporting contacts with confirmed cases, having been quarantined, having a previous molecular negative test or having had symptoms.ConclusionsThe seroprevalence among workers from the three public higher education institutions of Porto after the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 infection was similar to national estimates for the same age working population. However, the estimated true seroprevalence was approximately five times higher than the reported SARS-CoV-2 infection based on a molecular test.

Assessment of Diagnostic Specificity of Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Tests and Their Application for Monitoring of Seroconversion and Stability of Antiviral Antibody Response in Healthcare Workers in Moscow

“…It should be noted that the cohort followed up in this study did not include frontline medics working with COVID-19 patients, but included both doctors of other specialties and of the auxiliary and administrative employees. However, as has been previously shown in a number of epidemiological studies, non-frontline healthcare professionals and education workers may be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection due to the lower level of protection compared to the "red zone" alongside with high likelihood of encountering asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers [39][40][41].…”

Prevalência de infecção por SARS-coV-2 em uma universidade pública do Paraná: um estudo observacional

“…En una muestra de 2.301 participantes, se identificó una prevalencia de anticuerpos del 2,9% (IC del 95%: 2,0%; 4,2%) (13) . Específicamente en el ámbito universitario, una encuesta realizada entre mayo y junio de 2020 con trabajadores de la Universidad de Oporto en Portugal estimó la seroprevalencia en un 2,5% (IC 95%: 0,1; 5,3) (14) .…”

Measuring the clustering effect of the SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a school population: a cross-sectional study in a high incidence region

“…The questionnaire used in this study was adapted from a previous version applied to university students and workers 13 , 14 . To ensure its appropriateness for assessing SAR-CoV-2 symptoms, experts in infectious diseases, such as medical professionals and researchers, evaluated its content validity and face validity.…”