Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:06:11.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among healthcare professionals working in hospital emergencies during the first-wave peak in 2020 in Porto Alegre, Brazil

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2021

Ana Luisa F. Dubiela
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Daiane F. Dalla Lana
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Ana Paula K. Aerts
Affiliation:
Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Cristiani G. de Marques
Affiliation:
Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Renato Cassol
Affiliation:
Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Micheline G. Dalarosa
Affiliation:
Hospital Nossa Senhora da Conceição, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Vanessa Schultz
Affiliation:
Hospital Mae de Deus, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Fabiano Ramos
Affiliation:
Hospital Sao Lucas of Pontifical Catholic University of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Isabelli Guasso
Affiliation:
Hospital Sao Lucas of Pontifical Catholic University of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Fabio F. Dantas Filho
Affiliation:
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Silvana T. Dal Ponte
Affiliation:
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
João Carlos B. Santana
Affiliation:
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Michelle D. Santarem
Affiliation:
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Morgana P. de Camargo
Affiliation:
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Maria Luiza P. Machado
Affiliation:
Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Teresa Cristina T. Sukiennik
Affiliation:
Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Guilherme Watte
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Antonio N. Kalil
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Alessandro C. Pasqualotto*
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal de Ciencias da Saude de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil Santa Casa de Misericordia de Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil
*
Author for correspondence: Alessandro C. Pasqualotto, E-mail: pasqualotto@santacasa.org.br
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Letter to the Editor
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

To the Editor—Brazil ranks third among countries with the highest number of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases in the world, with 11.5 million documented infections as of March 2021. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are possibly the occupational category at the highest risk for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) exposure. We determined the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among HCPs working in hospital emergencies in Southern Brazil during the first-wave peak in 2020.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 in HCPs working in the emergency departments of 5 large tertiary-care hospitals located in Porto Alegre, Southern Brazil (population 1.5 million). HCPs were evaluated on July 20–24, 2020, and again after 3 weeks, in August 10–14, 2020. At each encounter, clinical data were obtained and a blood sample was taken by finger pricking for antibody detection (Standard Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo-Biosensor, South Korea). Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 22.0 software (IBM, Armonk, NY). Categorical variables were expressed as absolute and relative frequencies. Continuous variables were presented as mean values ± standard deviations (SD).

Results

In the first phase of the study, 1,163 HCPs were evaluated (87.1% of study population). Most were woman (66.6%), and the median age was 38 years (SD, ±10 years). Professional roles included nursing assistants (43.5%), physicians (23.0%), nurses (15.0%), administrative workers (12.9%), and cleaners (3.6%). The most frequent chronic health conditions among these individuals were asthma (8.0%), arterial hypertension (7.9%), rhinitis (2.4%), hypothyroidism (2.3%), and diabetes mellitus (1.5%).

Nearly all study participants reported the use of individual protection equipment, including masks (99.8%), face shields (90.3%), and gloves (85.6%). Known exposure to COVID-19 patients was reported by 82.3% of the HCPs, mostly in June 2020 (62.3%). Most HCPs had been asymptomatic during the COVID-19 pandemic (58.2%), while some reported fever (11.7%), shortness of breath (27.8%), and cough (11.6%). A few of these HCPs had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in June (2.8%) and July (2.2%).

In the first phase of the study, 5.5% (n = 64) were found to have antibodies against COVID-19: 26 had IgM type, 19 had IgG type, and 19 had both. Of these 78 HCPs, 27(34.6%) had been previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Marked variation was observed among hospitals, regarding COVID-19 seroprevalence (Fig. 1). After 3 weeks, 911 individuals (78.3% of original sampling) returned for testing (study phase 2), and 5.6% tested positive for an antibody: 17 for IgM, 17 for IgG, and 17 for both. IgM became negative in the second study evaluation in 55.3% of participants who had previously tested positive for these antibodies, and IgG became negative in 50.0% who had previously tested positive.

Fig. 1. Positivity for COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibodies in the first (A) and second (B) phases of the study, in the 5 hospitals studied. Hospitals are not identified in this slide, they are randomly named A–E.

Discussion

This is the first study to evaluate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in HCPs in Brazil. Previous studies conducted elsewhere have addressed the question, mostly using real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests. The occupational health service of Massachusetts performed a study to assess COVID-19 prevalence in HCPs, revealing that 14.0% had a positive PCR test at the initial evaluation. Reference Lan, Lan and Filler1 In Hong Kong, 29% of HCPs were found to be infected using PCR. Reference Wong, Kwong and Wu2 In 2 Dutch hospitals, 6% of HCPs were infected with SARS-CoV-2 in March 2020. 3 However, conducting epidemiological surveys with PCR is not practical because PCR results reflect viral detection at the moment of sampling only. Alternatively, SARS-CoV-2 prevalence can be determined by antibody detection. In Italy, a study showed that 14.4% of HCPs working in the hospital had detectable IgM antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Reference Sotgiu, Barassi and Miozzo4 In the New York city area, a study conducted in June 2020 showed a 13.7% prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in HCPs. Reference Moscola, Sembajwe and Jarrett5 In a hospital in Regensburg, Germany, exposed HCPs did not develop any relevant IgG antibody levels over time. Reference Malfertheiner, Brandstetter and Roth6

In our study, a large proportion of HCPs had been exposed to SARS-CoV-2 (82.3%), had developed COVID-19 (34.6%), and had antibodies (5.6%) against SARS-CoV-2. Even though the manufacturer reported that the STANDARD Q COVID-19 IgM/IgG Duo Test had 94.3% sensitivity and 95.1% specificity (IgM and IgG combined), in our study, the test was able to detect only 34.6% (n = 27) of HCPs previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Therefore, our prevalence rates might have been underestimated.

For most of our patients, antibodies disappeared over time. Studies show that the average time for the reduction of antibody concentrations is very variable. Corroborating our findings, one Chinese study reported that antibodies decreased within 2–3 months after COVID-19 in a high proportion (71.1%) of individuals who recovered from infection. Reference Long, Tang and Shi7 In another analysis, also from China, the decay of antibodies started between 4 and 5 weeks after the onset of symptoms. Reference Liu, Wang and Zhao8 Asymptomatic individuals are more prone for early reversal of antibody titers to negative. Reference Long, Tang and Shi7Reference Paiva, Grisson and Chan9

In conclusion, our results reveal that HCPs working in emergencies in Southern Brazil had a high rate (82.3%) of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, during the peak of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. In total, 5.6% of HCPs manifested antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, which is probably an underestimation due to the limited sensitivity of the diagnostic test used in the study. Antibodies became negative over time in ∼50% of patients 3 weeks after their initial evaluation.

Acknowledgments

We would like all health care workers involved in this study. Thank you for your strenght during these hard times.

Financial support

This study was sponsored by Instituto Cultural Floresta. We are in debt with Claudio Goldsztein and Marcelo Wallauer for supporting this study, in addition to all donors to Instituto Cultural Floresta.

Conflicts of interest

All the authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this article.

References

Lan, FY, Lan, FY, Filler, R, et al. COVID-19 symptoms predictive of healthcare workers SARS-CoV-2 PCR results. PLoS One 2020;15(6):e0235460.10.1371/journal.pone.0235460CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, SCY, Kwong, RT, Wu, TC, et al. Risk of nosocomial transmission of coronavirus disease 2019: an experience in a general ward setting in Hong Kong. J Hosp Infect 2020;105:119127.10.1016/j.jhin.2020.03.036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh MFQK- Van Den. SARS-CoV-2 infection in 86 healthcare workers in two Dutch hospitals in March. medRxiv 2020. doi: 10.1101/2020.03.23.20041913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sotgiu, G, Barassi, A, Miozzo, M, et al. SARS-CoV-2 specific serological pattern in healthcare workers of an Italian COVID-19 forefront hospital. BMC Pulm Med 2020;20:203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moscola, J, Sembajwe, G, Jarrett, M, et al. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare personnel in the New York City area. JAMA 2020;324:893895.10.1001/jama.2020.14765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malfertheiner, S, Brandstetter, S, Roth, S, et al. Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers following a COVID- 19 outbreak: a prospective longitudinal study. J Clin Virol 2020;130:104575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, QX, Tang, XJ, Shi, QL, et al. Clinical and immunological assessment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. Nat Med 2020;26:12001204.10.1038/s41591-020-0965-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, A, Wang, W, Zhao, X, et al. Disappearance of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 patient after recovery. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26:17031705.10.1016/j.cmi.2020.07.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paiva, KJ, Grisson, RD, Chan, PA, et al. Validation and performance comparison of three SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays. J Med Virol 2021;93:916923.10.1002/jmv.26341CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Positivity for COVID-19 IgM and IgG antibodies in the first (A) and second (B) phases of the study, in the 5 hospitals studied. Hospitals are not identified in this slide, they are randomly named A–E.