2021
DOI: 10.1128/spectrum.00904-21
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Risk Factors for Being Seronegative following SARS-CoV-2 Infection in a Large Cohort of Health Care Workers in Denmark

Abstract: Most individuals seroconvert after infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), but negative serology is observed in 1 to 9%. We found that asymptomatic or mild infection as well as a BMI above 30 were associated with being seronegative. Since the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 reduces the risk of reinfection, efforts to protect HCW with risk factors for being seronegative may be needed in future COVID-19 surges.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
1

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
5
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In all vaccine groups, there were participants for whom seroconversion did not occur during the 180 days of follow-up. For participants in the Convidecia and CoronaVac groups, seronegativity after the complete vaccination schedule (19 and 10%, respectively) exceeded the range of 1 to 9% reported by other authors ( 27 , 28 ).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 57%
“…In all vaccine groups, there were participants for whom seroconversion did not occur during the 180 days of follow-up. For participants in the Convidecia and CoronaVac groups, seronegativity after the complete vaccination schedule (19 and 10%, respectively) exceeded the range of 1 to 9% reported by other authors ( 27 , 28 ).…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 57%
“…Data on all participants’ PCR tests for SARS-CoV-2 RNA were obtained from national registries. With few exceptions (2.4%), all HW with a positive PCR test developed antibodies [ 43 ]. As with the study from India, the design of the Danish study was different to the design of our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Baseline clinical information was retrieved from patients’ medical files and for healthcare personnel from questionnaires fulfilled by study subjects at study entry. We matched patients and controls by the nearest age at the time of first vaccination in a 1:1 ratio using nearest neighbour matching with the Optmatch package in R. 27 28 Continuous data were reported as medians with IQR, and differences were assessed by Mann-Whitney U test or t-test, as most appropriate. Categorical data were reported as frequency counts and percentages, and differences were evaluated using the χ 2 test or Fisher's exact test, as most appropriate.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%