SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence by industry, workplace characteristics, and workplace infection prevention and control measures, North Carolina, 2021 to 2022 - Gigot, Carolyn; Pisanic, Nora; Spicer, Kristoffer; Davis, Meghan F.; Kruczynski, Kate; Gregory Rivera, Magdielis; Koehler, Kirsten; Hall, D. J.; Hall, Devon J.; Heaney, Christopher D. (medRxiv, 2024)
Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately affected workers in certain industries and occupations, and the workplace can be a high risk setting for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. In this study, we measured SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence and identified work-related risk factors in a population primarily working at industrial livestock operations.Methods We used a multiplex salivary SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody assay to determine infection-induced antibody prevalence among 236 adult (>=18 years) North Carolina residents between February 2021 and August 2022. We used the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Industry and Occupation Computerized Coding System (NIOCCS) to classify employed participants’ industry and compared infection-induced IgG prevalence by participant industry and with the North Carolina general population. We also combined antibody results with reported SARS-CoV-2 molecular test positivity and vaccination history to identify evidence of prior infection. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of prior infection by potential work-related risk factors, adjusting for industry and date.Results Most participants (55%) were infection-induced IgG positive, including 71% of animal slaughtering and processing industry workers, which is 1.5 to 4.3 times higher compared to the North Carolina general population, as well as higher than molecularly-confirmed cases and the only other serology study we identified of animal slaughtering and processing workers. Considering questionnaire results in addition to antibodies, the proportion of participants with evidence of prior infection increased slightly, to 61%, including 75% of animal slaughtering and processing workers. Participants with more than 1000 compared to 10 or fewer coworkers at their jobsite had higher odds of prior infection (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 4.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0 to 21.0).Conclusions This study contributes evidence of the severe and disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on animal processing and essential workers and workers in large congregate settings. We also demonstrate the utility of combining non-invasive biomarker and questionnaire data for the study of workplace exposures.Conflict of Interest The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.What’s important about this paper High numbers of COVID-19 outbreaks, cases, and deaths have been reported among livestock industry workers, including Black and Hispanic workers, in the United States. Little is known about SARS-CoV-2 infection as measured by antibody prevalence in this setting. Antibody-based estimates of SARS-CoV-2 infection can capture cases missed by SARS-CoV-2 molecular testing, which is important given limitations in worker access to molecular diagnostic testing. We observed high SARS-CoV-2 infection-induced IgG prevalence in animal slaughtering and processing industry workers (71%) between February 2021 and August 2022, which is 1.5 to 4.3 times higher compared to the North Carolina general population, as well as higher than molecularly-confirmed cases and the only serology study we identified of animal slaughtering and processing workers. We also found higher odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among participants at worksites with larger compared to smaller numbers of employees.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was supported by an anonymous gift, the JHU COVID-19 Research and Response Program, the FIA Foundation, NIAID R21 AI139784, and a NIOSH POE Total Worker Health Center (U19 OH012297) pilot project grant. C.G., K. Koehler, and C.D.H. were supported by NIOSH ERC (T42 OH0008428). M.F.D and K. Koehler were also supported by the NIOSH POE Center (U19 OH012297). N.P., K. Kruczynski, M.G.R., K.S., and C.D.H. were supported by an anonymous gift, the JHU COVID-19 Research and Response Program, and the FIA Foundation. C.D.H was additionally supported by NIEHS (R01ES026973), NIAID (R43AI141265, R01AI130066, R01ES026973), and NIH (U24OD023382).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health gave ethical approval for this study (IRB00014420).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesDeidentified data and code can be requested by email to the corresponding authors (cgigot1atjhu.edu and cheaney1atjhu.edu).