• FluTrackers.com Inc. does not provide medical advice. Information on this web site is collected from various internet resources, and the FluTrackers board of directors makes no warranty to the safety, efficacy, correctness or completeness of the information posted on this site by any author or poster. The information collated here is for instructional and/or discussion purposes only and is NOT intended to diagnose or treat any disease, illness, or other medical condition. Every individual reader or poster should seek advice from their personal physician/healthcare practitioner before considering or using any interventions that are discussed on this website. By continuing to access this website you agree to consult your personal physican before using any interventions posted on this website, and you agree to hold harmless FluTrackers.com Inc., the board of directors, the members, and all authors and posters for any effects from use of any medication, supplement, vitamin or other substance, device, intervention, etc. mentioned in posts on this website, or other internet venues referenced in posts on this website.
  • We are not asking for any donations. Do not donate to any entity who says they are raising funds for us.

ERJ Open Res . The protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Scottish healthcare workers

tetano

Editor, Senior Moderator
ERJ Open Res


. 2021 Jun 7;7(2):00080-2021.
doi: 10.1183/23120541.00080-2021. eCollection 2021 Apr.
The protective effect of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Scottish healthcare workers


Hani Abo-Leyah[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Stephanie Gallant[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Diane Cassidy[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Yan Hui Giam[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Justin Killick[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Beth Marshall[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Gordon Hay[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Caroline Snowdon[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Eleanor J Hothersall[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Thomas Pembridge[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Rachel Strachan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Natalie Gallant[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Benjamin J Parcell[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Jacob George[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Elizabeth Furrie[SUP] 2 5 [/SUP], James D Chalmers[SUP] 1 5 [/SUP]



Affiliations

Abstract

Background: Healthcare workers (HCWs) are believed to be at increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. It is not known to what extent the natural production of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 is protective against re-infection.
Methods: A prospective observational study of HCWs in Scotland (UK) from May to September 2020 was performed. The Siemens SARS-CoV-2 total antibody assay was used to establish seroprevalence in this cohort. Controls, matched for age and sex to the general local population, were studied for comparison. New infections (up to 2 December 2020) post antibody testing were recorded to determine whether the presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies protects against re-infection.
Results: A total of 2063 health and social care workers were recruited for this study. At enrolment, 300 HCWs had a positive antibody test (14.5%). 11 out of 231 control sera tested positive (4.8%). HCWs therefore had an increased likelihood of a positive test (OR 3.4, 95% CI 1.85-6.16; p<0.0001). Dentists were most likely to test positive. 97.3% of patients who had previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR had positive antibodies. 18.7% had an asymptomatic infection. There were 38 new infections with SARS-CoV-2 in HCWs who were previously antibody negative, and one symptomatic RT-PCR-positive re-infection. The presence of antibodies was therefore associated with an 85% reduced risk of re-infection with SARS-CoV-2 (hazard ratio 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.35; p=0.026).
Conclusion: HCWs were three times more likely to test positive for SARS-CoV-2 than the general population. Almost all infected individuals developed an antibody response, which was 85% effective in protecting against re-infection with SARS-CoV-2.
 
Back
Top Bottom