ABSTRACT
Background During initial phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, many workplaces were affected by closures and various preventive measures intended to limit infections. Here, we characterize and compare in an ambidirectional cohort study SARS-CoV-2 serology among Norwegian school employees and retail employees at baseline following the first epidemiological wave, and at follow-up after a second wave.
Methods We enrolled a cohort of 238 school and retail employees after the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. Self-reported exposure history and serum samples were collected at 10 schools and 15 retail stores in Oslo, Norway, sampled at two time-points, baseline (May 18. to July 2. 2020) and follow-up (Jan 7. to Mar 17. 2021). SARS-CoV-2 antibodies targeting both spike and nucleocapsid were characterized by multiplex microsphere-based serological methods.
Results At baseline, 6 enrolled workers presented with positive SARS-CoV-2 serology (3%; CI [1, 6]; P=0.019), which was significantly higher than the expected 1% prevalence in the general Oslo-population at this time-point. Five of the positive cases were retail employees. However, school and retail groups distributions at baseline were not significantly different as the number of seropositive observations were limited. Due to a school closure effectuated during the first wave, half of the school employees reported ≤2 days of physical workplace presence per week, while 65% of the retail employees reported ≥5 days per week. Eight months later, after passing a second epidemiological wave, school and retail groups presented 11 new seropositive cases altogether, but there was still no significant differences between the groups. Physical attendance at the workplace was similar between the groups during the second wave, but some preventive measures against viral transmission at workplaces were different. Self-reported virus diagnostics (RNA) for the same period were compared to the serological data obtained in this study, showing that all but one positive SARS-CoV-2 serological findings arising between baseline and follow-up had been diagnosed with virus testing.
Conclusions After the first wave, distribution of SARS-CoV-2 positive serology was slightly higher than expected in a cohort of school and retail employees. Distribution of infection was not significantly different between the groups at baseline nor at follow-up, even though physical workplace attendance had been different. Nearly all new seropositive cases discovered in this study between baseline and follow-up, had already been diagnosed due to widespread virus testing during the second wave. This highlights the importance of extensive viral testing among workers.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the National Institute of Occupational Health (STAMI), Oslo, Norway. Authors or STAMI did not at any time receive payment or services from a third party for any aspect of the submitted work. No external funding was received
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Study approval was granted April 27. 2020 by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in South-Eastern Norway (Reference number 134064). Data handling protocol was reviewed by NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data and approved April 29. 2020 (reference number 560357).
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
Footnotes
↵# Authors contributed equally
Data Availability
All of the data is included in the paper
