Rapid assessment of regional SARS-CoV-2 community transmission through a convenience sample of healthcare workers, the Netherlands, March 2020

Reusken, Chantal; Buiting, A. G. M.; Bleeker‐Rovers, Chantal P.; Diederen, Bram M. W.; Hooiveld, M.; Friesema, Ingrid; Koopmans, Marion; Kortbeek, Titia; Lutgens, Suzanne P. M.; Meijer, Adam; Murk, Jean-Luc; Overdevest, Ilse; Trienekens, T. A. M.; Timen, Aura; Bijllaardt, Wouter van den; Dissel, Jaap van; Gageldonk-Lafeber, Arianne B van; Vegt, Dewi van der; Wever, Peter C.; Hoek, Wim van der; Kluytmans, Jan

doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2020.25.12.2000334

Cited by 102 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As expected, this prevalence value is significantly lower than that reported in symptomatic HCWs from Wisconsin (7) and in operating in COVID19 structures experience (12). As far as we know, this is the only study considering asymptomatic HCWs from a non-Covid19 cancer Institute in which, however, a recent activated screening program for all hospitalized patients reported 1% of patients positive for SARS-COV2 (promptly transferred to specific COVID19 hospitals).…”

Section: Interassay Comparison All Subjetcs With Non-negativementioning

confidence: 49%

Covid-19 Screening and Monitoring of Asymptomatic Health Workers With a Rapid Serological Test

Paradiso

Summa

Silvestris

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health workers are at high risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and, if asymptomatic, for transmitting the virus on to fragile cancer patients. Materials and methodWe monitored health care workers (HCW) of our Cancer Institute with the rapid serological test Viva-Diag TM analyzing COVID-19 associated-IgG/IgM. Test were performed at time 0 and after 14 days; Rt-PCR and CLIA assays were also perfoRmed in positive Viva-Diag TM cases. 606 and 393 HCW had blood sample taken at time 0 and 14, respectively. ResultsOverall, 9 HCW (1.5%) resulted not-negative at Viva-Diag TM and one of them was confirmed positive for SARS-COV2 infection at RT-PCR oropharingeal swab. At time 0, all 9 cases showed some IgM expression and only one IgG; after 14 days IgM persisted in all cases while IgG became evident in 4 ones. A parallel CLIA test was performed in 23 quaratined subjetcs and in all Viva-Diag not negative cases. CLIA confirmed a positive level of IgM in 5/13 positive Viva-Diag cases; conversely, IgG was confirmed positive at CLIA in 4/5 cases positive at Viva-Diag. These results pose the question of different performances of the two tests.Conclusions Our study suggest that Viva-Diag assay can be of help in individualizing SARS_COV2 infected people fisrt of all in cohorts of subjetcs with high prevalence.Different performances of serological colorimetric and CLIA tools remain to be ascertained.

show abstract

Section: Interassay Comparison All Subjetcs With Non-negativementioning

confidence: 49%

Covid-19 Screening and Monitoring of Asymptomatic Health Workers With a Rapid Serological Test

Paradiso

Summa

Silvestris

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the frontlines of defense against the virus, HCW may experience increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to close contact with highly infectious patients 1 and, commonly, insufficient access to personal protective equipment (PPE) 2 . The plight of HCW during the pandemic has been widely noted [3][4][5][6][7][8] ; as of April 9, 2020, 9,282 known COVID-19 cases among U.S. HCW had been reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 9 . Of HCW with COVID-19, 55% reported that their only known exposure was the in the health care setting.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously undiagnosed health care workers at the onset of the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic

Barrett

Horton

Roy

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Findings:The prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was 7.3% in healthcare workers and 0.4% in nonhealthcare workers, representing 7.0% greater absolute risk in the former (95% confidence interval for risk difference 4.7%, 9.3%). Infections were most common among nursing staff.Meaning: Health care workers, particularly those with high levels of close patient contact, may be particularly vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additional strategies are needed to protect these critical frontline workers. Abstract:Importance: Healthcare workers are presumed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection due to occupational exposure to infected patients. However, no epidemiological study has examined the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of healthcare workers during the early phase of community transmission. Objective:To determine the baseline prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of previously undiagnosed healthcare workers and a comparison group of non-healthcare workers. Design: Prospective cohort studySetting: A large U.S. university and two affiliated university hospitals Participants: 546 health care workers and 283 non-health care workers with no known prior SARS-CoV-2 infection Exposure: Healthcare worker status and role Main outcome(s) and measure(s): SARS-CoV-2 infection status as determined by presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA in oropharyngeal swabs.

show abstract

“…Our results predict that Sweden's healthcare capacity (both for COVID-19 patients and for others) will be rapidly overwhelmed under the current strategy, both through the need to care for COVID-19 patients and because healthcare workers will themselves become ill and unable to work. [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] Intensive care capacity is projected to become a particular bottleneck, as shown in other countries. [50][51][52] For Sweden, this is in particular worrisome considering the relatively low availability of beds prior to the pandemic compared to other European countries 22 24 and recent reports challenging Swedish disaster preparedness.…”

Section: Meaning Of the Study: Possible Explanations And Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intervention strategies against COVID-19 and their estimated impact on Swedish healthcare capacity

Wijngaart

Gardner

Willem

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: During March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly spread globally, and non-pharmaceutical interventions are being used to reduce both the load on the healthcare system as well as overall mortality. Design: Individual-based transmission modelling using Swedish demographic and Geographical Information System data and conservative COVID-19 epidemiological parameters. Setting: Sweden Participants: A model to simulate all 10.09 million Swedish residents. Interventions: 5 different non-pharmaceutical public-health interventions including the mitigation strategy of the Swedish government as of 10 April; isolation of the entire household of confirmed cases; closure of schools and non-essential businesses with or without strict social distancing; and strict social distancing with closure of schools and non-essential businesses. Main outcome measures: Estimated acute care and intensive care hospitalisations, COVID-19 attributable deaths, and infections among healthcare workers from 10 April until 29 June. Findings: Our model for Sweden shows that, under conservative epidemiological parameter estimates, the current Swedish public-health strategy will result in a peak intensive-care load in May that exceeds pre-pandemic capacity by over 40-fold, with a median mortality of 96,000 (95% CI 52,000 to 183,000). The most stringent public-health measures examined are predicted to reduce mortality by approximately three-fold. Intensive-care load at the peak could be reduced by over two-fold with a shorter period at peak pandemic capacity. Conclusions: Our results predict that, under conservative epidemiological parameter estimates, current measures in Sweden will result in at least 40-fold over-subscription of pre-pandemic Swedish intensive care capacity, with 15.8 percent of Swedish healthcare workers unable to work at the pandemic peak. Modifications to ICU admission criteria from international norms would further increase mortality.

show abstract

Rapid assessment of regional SARS-CoV-2 community transmission through a convenience sample of healthcare workers, the Netherlands, March 2020

Cited by 102 publications

References 2 publications

Covid-19 Screening and Monitoring of Asymptomatic Health Workers With a Rapid Serological Test

Covid-19 Screening and Monitoring of Asymptomatic Health Workers With a Rapid Serological Test

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in previously undiagnosed health care workers at the onset of the U.S. COVID-19 epidemic

Intervention strategies against COVID-19 and their estimated impact on Swedish healthcare capacity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About