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

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":"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","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

(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。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity in Nursing Home Staff and Residents during the First SARS-CoV-2 Wave in Flanders, Belgium
(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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Sputnik V-Induced Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 Variants during the Dissemination of the Gamma Variant in Venezuela Immunogenicity of an Inactivated COVID-19 Vaccine in People Living with HIV in Guangxi, China: A Prospective Cohort Study The Autonomous Fusion Activity of Human Cytomegalovirus Glycoprotein B Is Regulated by Its Carboxy-Terminal Domain Mycologists and Virologists Align: Proposing Botrytis cinerea for Global Mycovirus Studies New Therapies and Strategies to Curb HIV Infections with a Focus on Macrophages and Reservoirs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1