Abstract
Background Healthcare workers (HCW) are believed to be at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is not known to what extent the natural production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is protective against re-infection.
Methods A prospective observational study of HCW's in Scotland (UK) from May to September 2020. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general local population, were studied for comparison. New infections (up to 2/12/2020) post antibody testing were recorded to determine if the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protect against re-infection.
Results A total of 2063 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. At enrolment 300 HCW had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11/231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). HCW therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (Odds ratio 3.4 95% CI 1.85–6.16, p<0.0001). Dentists were most likely to test positive. 97.3% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR had positive antibodies. 18.7% had an asymptomatic infection. There were 38 new infections with SARS-CoV-2 in HCW who were previously antibody negative and one symptomatic RT-PCR positive re-infection. The presence of antibodies was therefore associated with an 85% reduced risk of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.35, p=0.026).
Conclusion HCW were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response which was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2.
Footnotes
This manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Abo-Leyah has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Stephanie Gallant has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Diane Cassidy has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Ms. Giam has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Mr. Killick has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Beth Marshall has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Mr. Hay has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Snowdon has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Snowdon has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Mr. Pembridge has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Ms. Strachan has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Ms. Gallant has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Parcell has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Parcell has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Furrie has nothing to disclose.
Conflict of interest: Dr. Chalmers reports grants and personal fees from astrazeneca, grants and personal fees from boehringer ingelheim, personal fees from chiesi, grants and personal fees from glaxosmithkline, grants from gilead sciences, grants and personal fees from insmed, personal fees from novartis, personal fees from zambon, outside the submitted work.
This is a PDF-only article. Please click on the PDF link above to read it.
- Received January 30, 2021.
- Accepted April 8, 2021.
- Copyright ©The authors 2021
This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0. For commercial reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions{at}ersnet.org