Search

Understanding SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence among health care personnel is important to explore risk factors for transmission, develop elimination strategies and form a view on the necessity and frequency of surveillance in the future.We enrolled 4927 health care personnel working in pediatric units at 32 hospitals from 7 different regions of Turkey in a study to determine SARS Co-V-2 seroprevalence after the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. A point of care serologic lateral flow rapid test kit for immunoglobulin (Ig)M/IgG was used. Seroprevalence and its association with demographic characteristics and possible risk factors were analyzed.SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity prevalence in health care personnel tested was 6.1%. Seropositivity was more common among those who did not universally wear protective masks (10.6% vs 6.1%). Having a COVID-19-positive co-worker increased the likelihood of infection. The least and the most experienced personnel were more likely to be infected. Most of the seropositive health care personnel (68.0%) did not suspect that they had previously had COVID-19.Health surveillance for health care personnel involving routine point-of-care nucleic acid testing and monitoring personal protective equipment adherence are suggested as important strategies to protect health care personnel from COVID-19 and reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

Background: COVID-19 pandemic affected every single person on earth one way or the other. The healthcare personnel were no exception, their responsibilities as well as their risks being immense. Methods: 4927 healthcare personnel all working in pediatric units at 32 hospitals from seven different regions of Turkey enrolled to the study to determine the seroprevalence of SARS Co-V-2 after the first peak wave. Point of care serologic lateral flow rapid test kit for IgM/IgG was used (Ecotest CE Assure Tech. Co. Ltd.). Seroprevalence and its association with demographic characteristics and possible risk factors were analyzed. Results: Nearly 6.1% of healthcare personnel were found to be seropositive for SARS Co-V- 2. Seropositivity was more common among those who did not universally wear protective masks (10.6% vs 6.1%). Having a COVID-19 co-worker increased the likelihood of infection. The least and the most experienced personnel affected more. Most of the seropositive healthcare personnel (68%) did not have any suspicion that they had COVID-19 previously. Conclusions: Health surveillance for healthcare personnel involving routine point-of-care nucleic acid testing as well as monitoring PPE adherence would be important strategies to protect healthcare personnel from COVID-19 and to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission. 34592441

Highlights • Quickly finding a safe and effective vaccine against SARS Co-V-2 would be of great value. • Collecting rigorous safety and efficacy data without compromising ethical and scientific norms is critical. • The best approach is accelerated individually randomized controlled trials. • Premature distribution could hamper public health and finding safe, effective SARS CoV-2 vaccines., Background A sense of urgency exists to develop vaccines against SARS CoV-2, responsible for numerous global cases and deaths, as well as widespread social and economic disruption. Multiple approaches have been proposed to speed up vaccine development, including accelerated randomized controlled trials (RCT), controlled human challenge trials (CHI), and wide distribution through an emergency use authorization after collecting initial data. There is a need to examine how best to accelerate vaccine development in the setting of a pandemic, without compromising ethical and scientific norms. Methods Trade-offs in scientific and social value between generating reliable evidence about safety and efficacy while promoting rapid vaccine availability are examined along five ethically relevant dimensions: (1) confidence in and generalizability of data, (2) feasibility, (3) speed and cost, (4) participant risks, and (5) social risks. Results Accelerated individually randomized RCTs permit expeditious evaluation of vaccine candidates using established methods, expertise, and infrastructure. RCTs are more likely than other approaches to be feasible, increase speed and reduce cost, and generate reliable data about safety and efficacy without significantly increasing risks to participants or undermining societal trust. Conclusion Ethical analysis suggests that accelerated RCTs are the best approach to accelerating vaccine development in a pandemic, and more likely than other approaches to enhance social value without compromising ethics or science. RCTs can expeditiously collect rigorous data about vaccine safety and efficacy. Innovative and flexible designs and implementation strategies to respond to shifting incidence and test vaccine candidates in parallel or sequentially would add value, as will coordinated data sharing across vaccine trials. CHI studies may be an important complementary strategy when more is known. Widely disseminating a vaccine candidate without efficacy data will not serve the public health nor achieve the goal of identifying safe and effective SARS Co-V-2 vaccines.