Abstract
Background The correlates of protection against SARS-CoV-2 and their longevity remain unclear. Studies in severely ill individuals have identified robust cellular and humoral immune responses against the virus. Asymptomatic infection with SARS-CoV-2 has also been described, but it is unknown whether this is sufficient to produce antibody responses.
Methods We performed a cross-sectional study recruiting 554 health care workers from University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust who were at work and asymptomatic. Participants were tested for current infection with SARS-CoV-2 by nasopharyngeal swab for real-time polymerase chain reaction and for seroconversion by the measurement of anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein antibodies by enzyme linked immunosorbent assay. Results were interpreted in the context of previous, self-reported symptoms of illness consistent with COVID-19.
Results The point prevalence of infection with SARS-CoV-2, determined by the detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA on nasopharnygeal swab was 2.39% (n=13/544). Serum was available on 516 participants. The overall rate of seroconversion in the cohort was 24.4% (n=126/516). Individuals who had previously experienced a symptomatic illness consistent with COVID-19 had significantly greater seroconversion rates than those who had remained asymptomatic (37.5% vs 17.1%, χ2 =21.1034, p<0.0001). In the week preceding peak COVID-19-related mortality at UHBFT, seroconversion rates amongst those who were suffering from symptomatic illnesses peaked at 77.8%. Prior symptomatic illness generated quantitatively higher antibody responses than asymptomatic seroconversion. Seroconversion rates were highest amongst those working in housekeeping (34.5%), acute medicine (33.3%) and general internal medicine (30.3%) with lower rates observed in participants working in intensive care (14.8%) and emergency medicine (13.3%).
Conclusions In a large cross-sectional seroprevalence study of health-care workers, we demonstrate that asymptomatic seroconversion occurs, however prior symptomatic illness is associated with quantitatively higher antibody responses. The identification that the potential for seroconversion in health-care workers can associate differentially with certain hospital departments may inform future infection control and occupational health practices.
Evidence before the study To date, no study has examined the cross-sectional seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Existing evidence suggests that the levels of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies developing following infection may vary with disease severity in keeping with previous coronavirus pandemics.
Added value of this study We demonstrate that seroconversion can occur in health care workers who have suffered no previous symptoms of SARS-Cov-2 infection. However, prior symptomatic infection tends to drive quantitatively superior antibody responses against the virus. We observed differential seroconversion rates in individuals working within different hospital departments. Using intensive care as a reference, the relative risk for seroconversion was greatest for those working in housekeeping, acute and general internal medicine.
Implications of all the available evidence Insight into the current seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies within a high-risk cohort of health-care workers is of direct relevance as a reference point for future community serological surveys. We provide further evidence of asymptomatic infection and seroconversion, strengthening the argument for regular, routine screening of health-care workers. Finally, we provide evidence that individuals working in particular roles within the NHS are at greater risk of seroconversion with significant implications for their occupational health.
Competing Interest Statement
MTD reports personal fees from Abingdon Health, outside the submitted work.
Funding Statement
This study was funded internally by the University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and carried out at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)/Wellcome Trust Birmingham Clinical Research Facility. The views expressed are those of the authors(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. This study was also supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research, Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres Funding scheme. Laboratory studies were undertaken by the Clinical Immunology Service, University of Birmingham. The work in Prof. Max Crispin’s laboratory was funded by the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the Collaboration for AIDS Vaccine Discovery (OPP1084519 and OPP1115782), the Scripps Consortium for HIV Vaccine Development (CHAVD) (AI144462), and the University of Southampton Coronavirus Response Fund which has over 1000 donors from around the world. Prof. Andrew Beggs is currently supported by a Cancer Research UK Advanced Clinician Scientist award (C31641/A23923) and his laboratory is supported by CRUK Centre Birmingham (C17422/A25154) and the Birmingham Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (C11497/A25127).
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.
