Results: 3
(searched for: doi:10.1136/bmj.n2126)
Infection pp 1-13; https://doi.org/10.1007/s15010-023-02011-0
Abstract:
Purpose: We aimed to assess the seroprevalence trends of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in several Swiss cantons between May 2020 and September 2021 and investigate risk factors for seropositivity and their changes over time. Methods: We conducted repeated population-based serological studies in different Swiss regions using a common methodology. We defined three study periods: May–October 2020 (period 1, prior to vaccination), November 2020–mid-May 2021 (period 2, first months of the vaccination campaign), and mid-May–September 2021 (period 3, a large share of the population vaccinated). We measured anti-spike IgG. Participants provided information on sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics, health status, and adherence to preventive measures. We estimated seroprevalence with a Bayesian logistic regression model and the association between risk factors and seropositivity with Poisson models. Results: We included 13,291 participants aged 20 and older from 11 Swiss cantons. Seroprevalence was 3.7% (95% CI 2.1–4.9) in period 1, 16.2% (95% CI 14.4–17.5) in period 2, and 72.0% (95% CI 70.3–73.8) in period 3, with regional variations. In period 1, younger age (20–64) was the only factor associated with higher seropositivity. In period 3, being aged ≥ 65 years, with a high income, retired, overweight or obese or with other comorbidities, was associated with higher seropositivity. These associations disappeared after adjusting for vaccination status. Seropositivity was lower in participants with lower adherence to preventive measures, due to a lower vaccination uptake. Conclusions: Seroprevalence sharply increased over time, also thanks to vaccination, with some regional variations. After the vaccination campaign, no differences between subgroups were observed.
, Daniela Anker, Julie Dubois, Isabelle Bureau-Franz, Nathalie Piccardi, Sara Colombo Mottaz, Stéphane Cullati, Arnaud Chiolero, Pierre-Yves Rodondi
Frontiers in Public Health, Volume 10; https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.980482
Abstract:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, many companies implemented working from home to mitigate the spread of the disease among their employees. Using data from Corona Immunitas Nestlé, a seroepidemiological study conducted among employees from two Nestlé sites in Switzerland, we aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in SARS-CoV-2 infection rates between employees working most of the time from home and employees mobilized in a workplace equipped with a specialized occupational safety unit and strict sanitary measures. We also investigated whether this association was modified by household size, living with children, vulnerability, worries about an infection, and worries about adverse health consequences if infected. Data were collected between 8 December 2020, and 11 February 2021. Previous SARS-CoV-2 infections were ascertained by the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in the blood. Of the 425 employees included (53% women; mean age 42 years ranging between 21 and 64 years), 37% worked most of the time from home in 2020 and 16% had been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Participants who worked most of the time from home in 2020 had slightly higher odds of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared to participants who never or only sometimes worked from home (adjusted OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.73–2.27). The association was stronger in participants living alone or with one other person (adjusted OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.13–6.25). Among participants living with two or more other persons (adjusted OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.30–1.39) and among vulnerable participants (adjusted OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.13–1.93), working from home tended to be associated with lower odds of infection. In conclusion, in a context of strict sanitary measures implemented in the workplace, employees working from home did not seem to be at lower risk of infection compared to those working on site, especially if living alone or with one other person.
, Stefano Tancredi, Stéphane Cullati
BMJ, Volume 376; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o710