Serologic Surveillance and Phylogenetic Analysis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Hospital Health Care Workers

This cohort study investigates prevalence and transmission routes of SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital health care workers in the Netherlands using serologic surveillance and phylogenetic and epidemiological analyses.


Introduction
In 2020 health care institutions worldwide were overwhelmed by Covid-19 patients. Stringent infection prevention and control measures have been applied to prevent transmission from patients to health care workers (HCW) and from HCW-to-HCW. Nonetheless, HCW have become infected during provision of care for COVID-19 patients and there is ongoing debate on which infection prevention and control measures are adequate. [1][2][3] Delivering direct care to Covid-19 patients has been associated with infection or Covid-19 related hospital admission in some [4][5][6][7][8] but not all studies. [9][10][11][12][13] Most studies were cross-sectional and retrospective, and lacked predefined control groups or detailed information on SARS-CoV-2 exposure including use of personal protective equipment (PPE).
To quantify the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW, identify potential risk factors and elucidate potential transmission routes, we performed the Serologic Surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers (S3) study in two tertiary care medical centers in the Netherlands during the 'first wave' of SARS-CoV-2-infections. Serial serologic measurements were combined with phylogenetic analysis of viruses isolated from patients and HCW to identify transmission clusters.

Study design and population
We conducted a prospective serologic surveillance study in HCW of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, the Netherlands, comprising two tertiary care hospitals. Four-weekly measurements of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies were performed over a period of 18 weeks during the first Covid-19 wave (March 23 -June 25, 2020). The first confirmed Covid-19 patient was admitted on March 9.
Enrollment of HCW took place between March 23 and April 7, except for HCW in non-Covid-19 care who were enrolled during the final measurement in June 2020. Phlebotomies were combined with surveys including questions on personal and work-related SARS-CoV-2 exposure and symptoms.
HCW were recruited by leaflets distributed in relevant departments with potentially eligible HCW and by intranet news items.
HCW were eligible for inclusion in one of three specific groups based on Covid-19 patient exposure: 1. HCW working as nurse or physician with bedside contacts with Covid-19 patients on a designated regular care Covid-19 ward, emergency room or intensive care unit; 2. HCW working as nurse or physician on a ward designated for non-Covid-19 care; and 3. HCW not in patient care. The second group participated only in the final measurement. The study was approved by institutional review boards of both hospitals, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01. 10 Additional details regarding infection practices are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Procedures
We collected survey data using Castor EDC. 16 A survey example is provided in the online supplement.
At each measurement, participants reported results of any preceding SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) of nasopharyngeal swabs, performed as part of routine hospital screening of symptomatic HCW. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies were measured in serum using the Wantai SARS-CoV-2 pan-Ig anti-S1-RBD test according to manufacturer's instructions (Beijing Wantai ELISA, Bioscience Co. (Chongqing) CLIA, Zuhai Livzon ELISA). 17 Indeterminate results were classified as negative.

Outcomes
Primary outcome was cumulative incidence of and time to SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study period. SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as presence of SARS-CoV-2 specific antibodies above the threshold set by the manufacturer. Date of SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined as the sampling date of a first positive NAAT result or, in its absence, the midpoint in time between the last seronegative and the first seropositive sample. All participants were assumed to be seronegative on February 27 which was 4 weeks before the first measurement and the day the first Covid-19 patient was diagnosed in the Netherlands.
Outcomes were compared among the three study groups with varying levels of exposure to Covid-19 patients. Subgroup analysis included comparisons between hospital unit types (Covid-19 ward, intensive care unit and emergency room) and profession (nurse, physician). Secondary outcomes included infection rates in relation to self-reported exposure to Covid-19 patients, household  contacts and presence of Covid-19 related symptoms; and results of the phylogenetic analyses. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint

Statistical analysis
We used Kaplan-Meier estimates with log-rank test, and univariable and multivariable cox regression analyses to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection over time between study groups. The proportional hazard assumption did not hold because of fluctuating incidence of Covid-19 during the study period, evidenced by Schoenfeld tests resulting in p<0.05. The reported hazard ratios should therefore be interpreted as an average relative hazard for the entire study period, instead of a relative hazard at each individual time point. Multivariable models contained all other covariates used in the univariable models which were selected based on clinical relevance. Analysis was based on cases with complete data on covariates included in the regression models. Consensus full length SARS-CoV2 genomes (>29,000 nucleotide bases long with >100 minimum depth of coverage for each site) were generated by removing reads ends with PHRED scores <20 using Trimmomatic and mapping raw reads against the WIV04 reference genome (Genbank reference MN996528.1) using Bowtie 2. [18][19][20] We used MAFFT (v7.427) to align SARS-CoV-2 sequences from HCW and patients, together with 300 randomly selected, contemporaneous SAR-CoV-2 virus genomes from the Netherlands (GISAID, Supplementary Data for accession numbers). 21 We inferred a maximum likelihood tree with IQ-TREE (v2.0.6) using the HKY+I+G model. 22 We applied Phydelity to the maximum likelihood tree to infer putative transmission clusters. 23 We used BEAST (v1.10.4) to reconstruct a Bayesian time-scaled phylogenetic tree for the same set of sequences using the HKY+I+G model with a strict molecular clock, exponential growth prior, and an informative clock prior based on recent estimates of SARS-CoV-2 substitution rate (Γ-distribution prior with a mean of 0.8 × 10 -3 subs/site/year and standard deviation of 5 × 10 -4 . 24, 25 We performed and combined two chains of 100 million steps. Convergence was reached for all parameters (ESS>700). is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Viral sequencing and phylogenetic analyses
The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021.  Figure 1A). Within the group of HCW caring for Covid-19 patients, SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence was highest in HCW working on Covid-19 wards (25.7%), as compared with HCW working on intensive care units (7.1%, HR 3.6, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.9), and HCW working in the emergency room (8.0%, HR 3.3, 95% CI 1.5 to 7.1, Figure 1B. Figure 1C shows the number of Covid-19 admissions to study hospitals and regional Covid-19 incidence. Results were similar for individual study sites Main results were similar after adjustment in the multivariable cox regression. Contact with a Covid-19 positive person in the community (including household) and contact with a Covid-19 positive coworker were associated with Covid-19 infection ( Table 2).
SARS-CoV-2 incidence in HCW was particularly high on one regular Covid-19-ward compared to other Covid-19 wards (ward 2; Figure S3 in the Supplementary Appendix). This ward was similar to the other wards with regard to HCW deployment and architectural structure, but had a higher . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint proportion of patients with pre-existing pulmonary disease and use of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy.
To assess contribution of this ward to overall results, the primary outcome was reanalyzed when excluding this ward, resulting in a SARS-CoV-2 incidence of HCW on Covid-19 units of 19.7% (compared with HCW on the intensive care units: HR 2.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 5.5, Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix).

Secondary outcomes
Of the 72 participants with seroconversion, 33 participants (45%) also tested positive by NAAT during routine screening of symptomatic HCW, all of which were HCW in direct patient care due to the restrictive access to SARS-CoV-2 testing at that time. Only one participant without documented seroconversion tested positive by NAAT, which occurred prior to the fourth measurement, but the subsequent blood sample was mislabeled and therefore not analyzed.

Phylogenetic analyses
In the maximum likelihood phylogeny, 32 out of 39 sequences from patients admitted to a Covid-19 ward ( is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in HCW not working in patient care was comparable to healthy blood donors in the Dutch general population at the time. 26 The higher incidence in HCW working in patient care of any kind suggests that working in patient care increases infection risk. Incidence of infection in HCW in Covid-19 care was highest, which could suggest that patient-to-HCW transmission was responsible for the excess incidence in this group. However, we did not find an association between infection and self-reported number of contacts with Covid-19, which would have been expected if patient-to-HCW transmission was the dominant transmission pattern. Additionally, on one Covid-19 ward (of six) multiple HCW were infected before the first Covid-19 patient was admitted. Finally, the phylogenetic analyses showed no evidence for patient-to-HCW transmission, although this cannot be completely ruled out.
Phylogenetic analyses showed evidence for HCW-to-HCW transmission on Covid-19 units. The hypothesis that HCW-to-HCW transmission plays an important role is further supported by the increased incidence among HCW who reported contact with a SARS-CoV-2 positive colleague. More than half of seropositive HCW in our study did not report a positive NAAT result, suggesting a significant proportion of infections in HCW remained unrecognized. As a result, HCW likely have been working whilst unaware of their SARS-CoV-2 infection, hence presenting a risk of transmission.
The number of HCW present on Covid-19 wards was higher than on other regular care wards due to the nature of care and because mobility of HCW working in Covid-19 care through the hospital was discouraged. Personnel break rooms were therefore more crowded than usual. While universal masking was not yet recommended during this period, it is arguable whether this would have made a difference since masks cannot be worn while eating or drinking. The intensive care units differed with regard to facilitating social distancing by using additional break rooms with clearly demarcated spaces between seats. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. Our study has a number of limitations. First, despite the prospective cohort design, selection bias cannot be completely ruled out, e.g. HCW staying at home ill were not able to enroll if this happened during the first measurement resulting in underestimating of incidence. Second, not all nasopharyngeal samples from patients and HCW collected for SARS-CoV-2 NAAT were available for viral sequencing analyses as they were either not stored or the admitted patients were diagnosed elsewhere.
As such, there could be missing clusters and/or missing links in the transmission clusters that were inferred. Third, no systematic data on compliance to infection prevention measures were collected, limiting more precise conclusions. Fourth, infection incidence was substantially higher on one specific Covid-19 ward, which also contributed the majority of transmission clusters. However, when excluding this ward, the proportion of seroconverted HCW on regular Covid-19 wards remained more than double as high when compared to intensive care, emergency room or non-covid-19 wards.
Preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection in HCW is important for the health of the individual HCW, to halt the ongoing pandemic and to maintain a functioning healthcare system. Understandably, much attention has been focused on preventing patient-to-HCW transmission. Our results show that working in hospital patient care leaves HCW vulnerable to infection through HCW-to-HCW transmission, which has received less attention and deserves more consideration. We recommend in the current situation of high SARS-CoV2 incidence optimal measures to facilitate social distancing on the work floor, e.g. reducing the number of people per room by spreading break times, increasing size or number of break rooms, enabling online conferencing, universal use of face masks, and investing in structural auditing and training by infection prevention and control personnel.
In conclusion, HCW working on Covid-19 wards are at increased risk for nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection, with an important role for HCW-to-HCW transmission. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. We thank all participating healthcare workers of Amsterdam UMC, who took time to facilitate this study in the midst of the pandemic, for their contributions. We thank Adinda Pijpers, Esmee Das, Nikita Borstlap and Lisa Urlings for their essential help in performing the study measurements. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint

Tables & Figures
The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint Table 2   Table 2  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint  is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint B: . CC-BY 4.0 International license It is made available under a perpetuity.
is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in (which was not certified by peer review) preprint The copyright holder for this this version posted January 12, 2021. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.01.10.21249440 doi: medRxiv preprint