SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity in Nursing Home Staff and Residents during the First SARS-CoV-2 Wave in Flanders, Belgium

Viruses Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.3390/v16091461

Liselore De Rop, Hanne Vercruysse, Ulysse Alenus, Judith Brusselmans, Steven Callens, Maud Claeys, Nimphe De Coene, Peter Persyn, Elizaveta Padalko, Stefan Heytens, Jan Y. Verbakel, Piet Cools

{"title":"SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity in Nursing Home Staff and Residents during the First SARS-CoV-2 Wave in Flanders, Belgium","authors":"Liselore De Rop, Hanne Vercruysse, Ulysse Alenus, Judith Brusselmans, Steven Callens, Maud Claeys, Nimphe De Coene, Peter Persyn, Elizaveta Padalko, Stefan Heytens, Jan Y. Verbakel, Piet Cools","doi":"10.3390/v16091461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(1) Background: early in the COVID-19 pandemic, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was limited. Assessing seroprevalence helps understand prevalence and reinfection risk. However, such data are lacking for the first epidemic wave in Belgian nursing homes. Therefore, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and cumulative RT-PCR positivity in Belgian nursing homes and evaluated reinfection risk. (2) Methods: we performed a cross-sectional study in nine nursing homes in April and May 2020. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the odds of (re)infection between seropositive and seronegative participants. (3) Results: seroprevalence was 21% (95% CI: 18–23): 22% (95% CI: 18–25) in residents and 20% (95% CI: 17–24) in staff. By 20 May 2020, cumulative RT-PCR positivity was 16% (95% CI: 13–21) in residents and 8% (95% CI: 6–12) in staff. ORs for (re)infection in seropositive (compared to seronegative) residents and staff were 0.22 (95% CI: 0.06–0.72) and 3.15 (95% CI: 1.56–6.63), respectively. (4) Conclusion: during the first wave, RT-PCR test programmes underestimated the number of COVID-19 cases. The reinfection rate in residents was 3%, indicating protection, while it was 21% in staff, potentially due to less cautious health behaviour. Future outbreaks should use both RT-PCR and serological testing for complementary insights into transmission dynamics.","PeriodicalId":501326,"journal":{"name":"Viruses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Viruses","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/v16091461","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

(1) Background: early in the COVID-19 pandemic, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was limited. Assessing seroprevalence helps understand prevalence and reinfection risk. However, such data are lacking for the first epidemic wave in Belgian nursing homes. Therefore, we assessed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and cumulative RT-PCR positivity in Belgian nursing homes and evaluated reinfection risk. (2) Methods: we performed a cross-sectional study in nine nursing homes in April and May 2020. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to compare the odds of (re)infection between seropositive and seronegative participants. (3) Results: seroprevalence was 21% (95% CI: 18–23): 22% (95% CI: 18–25) in residents and 20% (95% CI: 17–24) in staff. By 20 May 2020, cumulative RT-PCR positivity was 16% (95% CI: 13–21) in residents and 8% (95% CI: 6–12) in staff. ORs for (re)infection in seropositive (compared to seronegative) residents and staff were 0.22 (95% CI: 0.06–0.72) and 3.15 (95% CI: 1.56–6.63), respectively. (4) Conclusion: during the first wave, RT-PCR test programmes underestimated the number of COVID-19 cases. The reinfection rate in residents was 3%, indicating protection, while it was 21% in staff, potentially due to less cautious health behaviour. Future outbreaks should use both RT-PCR and serological testing for complementary insights into transmission dynamics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比利时法兰德斯第一次 SARS-CoV-2 浪潮期间疗养院员工和住客的 SARS-CoV-2 血清阳性反应

(1) 背景：在 COVID-19 大流行的早期，反转录聚合酶链反应（RT-PCR）检测是有限的。评估血清流行率有助于了解流行情况和再感染风险。然而，比利时疗养院的第一波流行缺乏此类数据。因此，我们评估了比利时养老院的 SARS-CoV-2 血清流行率和 RT-PCR 阳性累积率，并评估了再感染风险。(2）方法：我们于 2020 年 4 月和 5 月在 9 家养老院进行了横断面研究。通过计算比值比（ORs）来比较血清阳性和血清阴性参与者之间的（再）感染几率。(3）结果：血清阳性率为 21%（95% CI：18-23）：住院患者为 22%（95% CI：18-25），工作人员为 20%（95% CI：17-24）。截至 2020 年 5 月 20 日，住院患者 RT-PCR 阳性率累计为 16%（95% CI：13-21），员工为 8%（95% CI：6-12）。血清阳性（与血清阴性相比）住院患者和员工的（再）感染 OR 分别为 0.22（95% CI：0.06-0.72）和 3.15（95% CI：1.56-6.63）。(4) 結論：在第一階段，RT-PCR 測試計劃低估了 COVID-19 個案的數目。居民的再感染率为 3%，这表明他们受到了保护，而工作人员的再感染率为 21%，这可能是由于他们的健康行为不太谨慎。未来的疫情爆发应同时使用 RT-PCR 和血清学检测，以补充对传播动态的了解。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Viruses

自引率

0.00%

发文量