4.7 Article

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 Antibodies in First Responders and Public Safety Personnel, New York City, New York, USA, May-July 2020

Journal

EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 27, Issue 3, Pages 796-804

Publisher

CENTERS DISEASE CONTROL & PREVENTION
DOI: 10.3201/eid2703.204340

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. US Health and Human Services [75P00120C00036]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A serologic survey conducted in public service agencies in New York City revealed a 22.5% prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among first responders, with correctional staff and emergency medical technicians having the highest seroprevalence. The study found associations between seropositivity and exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive household members, non-Hispanic Black race or ethnicity, and severe obesity.
We conducted a serologic survey in public service agencies in New York City, New York, USA, during May-July 2020 to determine prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among first responders. Of 22,647 participants, 22.5% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. Seroprevalence for police and firefighters was similar to overall seroprevalence; seroprevalence was highest in correctional staff (39.2%) and emergency medical technicians (38.3%) and lowest in laboratory technicians (10.1%) and medicolegal death investigators (10.8%). Adjusted analyses demonstrated association between seropositivity and exposure to SARS-CoV-2-positive household members (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.52 [95% CI 3.19-3.87]), non-Hispanic Black race or ethnicity (aOR 1.50 [95% CI 1.33-1.68]), and severe obesity (aOR 1.31 [ 95% CI 1.05-1.65]). Consistent glove use (aOR 1.19 [95% CI 1.06-1.33]) increased likelihood of seropositivity; use of other personal protective equipment had no association. Infection control measures, including vaccination, should be prioritized for frontline workers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available