Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a Large Cohort of Italian Police Officers
by
, ,
Sergio Garbarino
1,2,*,†
,
Alexander Domnich
3,†
,
Elisabetta Costa
4,
Irene Giberti
4,
Stefano Mosca
4,
Cristiano Belfiore
1,
Fabrizio Ciprani
1 and
Giancarlo Icardi
3,4 1
Italy State Police Health Service Department, Ministry of Interior, 00198 Rome, Italy
2
Post-Graduate School of Occupational Medicine, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 00168 Rome, Italy
3
Hygiene Unit, San Martino Policlinico Hospital-IRCCS for Oncology and Neurosciences, 16132 Genoa, Italy
4
Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, 16132 Genoa, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(22), 12201; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212201
Submission received: 18 October 2021
/
Revised: 17 November 2021
/
Accepted: 18 November 2021
/
Published: 20 November 2021
Abstract
:Certain professional categories are at a high occupational exposure to COVID-19. The aim of this survey was to quantify the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among police officers in Italy and identify its correlates. In this cross-sectional study, a nationally representative sample of State police employees was tested for IgG and IgM before the start of the National vaccination campaign. A total of 10,535 subjects (approximately 10% of the total workforce) participated in the study. The overall seroprevalence was 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4–5.3%). However, seropositivity was unevenly distributed across the country with a clear (p < 0.001) North–South gradient. In particular, the seroprevalence was 5.6 times higher in northern regions than in southern regions (9.0% vs. 1.6%). Most (71.2%) seropositive subjects reported having no recent symptoms potentially attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Previous dysosmia, dysgeusia, and influenza-like illness symptoms were positive predictors of being seropositive. However, the prognostic value of dysosmia depended (p < 0.05) on both sex and prior influenza-like illness. The baseline seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in police employees is considerable. A significant risk of occupational exposure, frequent asymptomatic cases and the progressive waning of neutralizing antibodies suggest that the police workers should be considered among the job categories prioritized for the booster COVID-19 vaccine dose.
1. Introduction
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has led to a devasting public health and socioeconomic crisis worldwide. At the global level, the attack rate and burden of disease indicators are unevenly distributed among different population strata and depend on a variety of characteristics including age, geographic area, risk of exposure, vaccination coverage, etc. [1,2,3,4]. The officially reported burden indicators are, however, significantly underestimated since a high number of cases are not detected and are underreported due to limited testing capacities [5].
The issue of disease underreporting may be at least partially addressed through well-designed seroepidemiological surveys that are able to quantify the susceptible population fraction and can therefore inform disease modelling, forecasting, and optimize vaccination and other public health measures [6]. Indeed, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [1] has estimated that the true prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection may be up to 11 times higher than the officially reported statistics.
Occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2, especially among first responders and workers in the public sector of primary community interest (e.g., healthcare, transport and police), is of concern. The prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among healthcare workers (HCWs) has received particular attention [3]. Data on other professional categories are limited and usually restricted to small local studies that demonstrated a great variability of seroprevalence between workers of different sectors [7,8]. For instance, in northern Italy the highest seroprevalence before immunization was among workers of long-term care facilities, logistics and some types of factories [8].
In Italy, the police force is considered a target group for some free-of-charge vaccinations, including seasonal influenza [9] and the schedule of COVID-19 vaccines [10]. Indeed, as part of their crucial community role, most State police officers (SPOs) have frequent close contacts with the general public and continue working during lockdowns. However, nationally representative seroepidemiological surveys have been conducted for this professional category as of yet. A study [11] carried out in the metropolitan area of Milan (Lombardy, northern Italy) between May and October 2020 reported an IgM and/or IgG seroprevalence in police workers of 5.5%, which was found to be higher than that of office workers (3.6%), but lower than that of HCWs (12.2%). A small study by De Santi et al. [12] reported that police officers in the region of Marche (central Italy) showed a significant increase in the likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2, as compared with some other professional categories.
The objective of this study was to quantify the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a representative and large sample of SPOs in Italy, and to identify some correlates of seropositivity, which would be useful for establishing future preventive measures, including an eventual booster COVID-19 vaccine dose.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Overall Study Design, Setting and Participants
This cross-sectional study was conducted between April and July 2020, i.e., immediately after the peak (10 March 2020) of the first pandemic wave [13] and before the start of the National vaccination campaign in late December 2020. According to GISAID (www.gisaid.org (accessed on 17 November 2021)), during the study period in Italy most (91%) SARS-CoV-2 isolates led to a D614G mutation in the (S)pike protein.
The study population was composed of approximately 100,000 units of SPOs. The inclusion criteria were as follows: subjects had to be on duty, not previously tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and provide an informed consent. No exclusion criteria were applied.
In order to obtain a geographically representative sample, subjects were enrolled in three macro-areas, namely northern (regions of Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia Romagna), central (regions of Tuscany, Latium and Marche) and southern (regions of Campania and Apulia) Italy.
By assuming a true seroprevalence of 5% (precision of 1%) with a conservative test sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 90%, respectively, we aimed to enroll at least 10,451 participants (i.e., approximately 10% of the total workforce).
Participation in this study was voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed. The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. The survey was approved by the competent Ethics Committee (Prot. #0036646).
2.2. Study Procedures and Outcome
Following a physical examination, venous blood samples were drawn from participants. One sample per was collected subject. Seroprevalence was evaluated with a commercially available qualitative lateral flow assay COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette (Zhejiang Orient Gene Biotech Co Ltd., Huzhou, Zhejiang, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The assay detects anti-S1 and other responses. To summarize, 10 μL of whole blood was applied and results were read after 10–15 min. The manufacturer’s declared sensitivity for IgG and IgM are 97.2% and 87.9%, respectively, while the specificity is 100% for both. However, in a recent meta-analysis [14] the sensitivity for the IgG and the IgM of this kit was found to be lower. Subjects with detectable IgG and/or IgM were deemed seropositive. However, considering that the sensitivity of lateral flow immunoassays for IgM is substantially lower than for IgG and IgG/IgM [15], we conducted a sensitivity analysis by including only subjects with a detectable IgG response.
During the visit, participants were also interviewed about the presence of any underlying morbidities, the recent (from January 2020) presence of olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions, or influenza-like illness (ILI) symptoms. ILI was defined according to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition [16] as “an acute respiratory illness with a measured temperature of ≥38 °C and cough”. The risk of occupational exposure was measured against working patterns, i.e., predominantly office-based or field-based.
2.3. Data Analysis
Seroprevalence was expressed as percentage with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The difference in seropositivity status according to the independent variables considered (age, sex, geographic area, frequent contacts with public, presence of chronic conditions, olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions, and ILI symptoms) was compared by means of the chi-squared test and the effect size was expressed as odds ratio (OR). Multivariable logistic regression was then applied in order to predict the seropositivity status.
Data were analyzed in R stat packages, version 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) [17].
3. Results
A total of 10,535 subjects underwent serological testing and their principal characteristics are reported in Table 1. In summary, most participants were males, healthy, predominantly field-based and their mean age was 45.4 years (range 19–66 years). A recent ILI was reported by 4.5% of police employees, while symptoms of dysosmia or dysgeusia were reported by around 1% of the participants (Table 1).
The overall seroprevalence was 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4–5.3%). Among seropositive subjects (n = 510), the IgG response was 3 times higher than the IgM response [88.6% (95% CI: 85.5–91.3%) vs. 29.6% (95% CI: 25.7–33.8%)]. As shown in Table 2, there was a clear North-South gradient, as the seroprevalence was 9.0% (95% CI: 8.0–10.0%), 3.2% (95% CI: 2.7–3.7%) and 1.6% (95% CI: 1.1–2.2%) in northern, central and southern regions, respectively (p < 0.001). Moreover, SPOs residing in southern regions showed comparatively high IgM reactivity, suggesting a later spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Southern Italy (Figure 1). Subjects reporting recent ILI symptoms, olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions showed significantly increased odds of being seropositive to IgG and/or IgM (Table 2). Among seropositive participants, 71.2% (95% CI: 67.0–75.1%) were completely asymptomatic in the period from the start of pandemic to the blood test.
In the multivariable logistic model (Table 3), the main effect of the independent variables of geographic area, prior olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions and ILI were significantly associated with a positive test result. Moreover, two interaction terms proved statistically significant. First, males with dysosmia had a 91.9% probability of testing seropositive [adjusted OR (aOR) = 11.35], while the probability of seropositivity in females was 97.3% (aOR = 35.60). Secondly, olfactory dysfunction in patients with no ILI history had a higher prognostic value (aOR = 11.35) compared with those who reported some ILI symptoms (aOR = 4.35).
Finally, in the sensitivity analysis which included only subjects with IgG antibodies (n = 452), no major changes occurred (Table 4). Furthermore, as shown by the Akaike information criterion (AIC), the model fit improved substantially (AICs of 3521 and 3144 for the base-case and sensitivity analysis models, respectively).
4. Discussion
To our knowledge, this study is among the first to quantify the baseline risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in a large, nationally representative cohort of SPOs. These findings may be useful for planning effective preventive strategies (e.g., administration of the booster COVID-19 vaccine dose) for this first responder occupational category.
Our results showed that the risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in SPOs is higher than in the general population, and is close to that of HCWs; this latter group is a well-recognized occupational risk category [3,10,11]. As of April 2020, seroprevalence estimates during the first pandemic wave among HCWs in Lombardy ranged from 5.1% [18] to 9.4% (95% CI: 3.9–10.6%) [19]. In the present survey, while the overall seroprevalence was 4.8%, it reached 9.0% in subjects working in the northern Italian regions. We then observed a clear North–South gradient with southern regions displaying significantly lower seroprevalence (1.6%), which resembles the distribution of cases during the first pandemic wave. Again, compared with the proportion observed in our study, previous reports from southern Italy [20,21] showed a lower seroprevalence in the general population, but a similar estimate among HCWs. For example, in Apulia the seroprevalence rate was 0.99% among blood donors (May 2020) [20] and 1.9% in HCWs (March–May 2020) [21]. Analogously, a nationwide seroprevalence study commissioned by the Italian Ministry of Health and National Institute of Statistics and conducted across a similar time period (25 May–15 July 2020), revealed the highest seroprevalence in Lombardy (7.5%) which ranked first, while estimates in all southern regions were <1% [22]. The most plausible reason for the observed North–South gradient is a progressive SARS-CoV-2 diffusion southward from the initial disease outbreak in Lombardy [7]. This is further corroborated by a relatively high IgM reactivity among SPOs residing in the southern regions. Some environmental factors (e.g., southern regions have higher average temperature regimens) may have also contributed to this gradient [23].
According to a recent Circular issued by the Italian Ministry of Health [24], only the professional category of HCWs will be offered a booster COVID-19 vaccine dose. Our data indicate that SPOs have a significant risk of exposure and should therefore be prioritized for the booster dose. Indeed, available studies [25,26] suggest a significant waning of anti-S and anti-spike IgG and neutralizing antibodies following the primary 2-dose schedule of both the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 vaccines. Similarly, following natural infection, the anti-S antibody response declines over time [27]. Notably, it has been demonstrated [26] that neutralizing antibody titers decline more quickly among men than among women [ratio of means 0.64 (95% CI: 0.55–0.75)]; male SPOs represented about four fifth of the total workforce.
About three quarters (71.2%) of seropositive SPOs were fully asymptomatic. A similar proportion of asymptomatic cases was observed among Italian [11], American [28] and Brazilian [29] police officers. As shown in a systematic review by Sah et al. [30], the asymptomaticity rate may range from 4% to 90% depending on symptoms, age (higher age is associated with lower asymptomaticity), and background health status (subjects with comorbidities have lower asymptomaticity). A relatively high proportion of asymptomatic individuals among SPOs may therefore be explained by the fact that these workers are typically young adults and generally healthier than the general population of the same age [31]. Indeed, in our survey, only 5.6% of participants had at least one morbidity, while in the Italian population this proportion is 19.2% among 20–24-year-olds and reaches 60.9% among adults aged 60–64 years [32].
As expected, the presence of recent olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions and ILI were directly associated with positive serology. A previous study conducted among Italian adults [33] reported significantly higher odds of seropositivity in subjects with prior ILI and anosmia and/or ageusia, while the demographic variables of age and sex were not found to be statistically significant in the adjusted model. On the other hand, we established that dysosmia alone has a higher predictive value than dysosmia with ILI symptoms. SARS-CoV-2 infected patients may present a new sudden onset of dysosmia without any other symptom [34] and may act as a warning sign of early-stage COVID-19 [35]. This finding may therefore be useful for the clinical differential diagnosis, especially in low-resource settings. Finally, the association between olfactory dysfunction and positive serology was significantly higher in female workers. In this regard, the available systematic evidence [36] suggests that the prevalence of anosmia is higher in women.
Despite the representativeness of the sample and a large sample size, this study may suffer from some limitations. First, under the lower test sensitivity assumption, true seroprevalence may be higher [37]. Indeed, the sensitivity of lateral flow immunoassays for IgG is still suboptimal [15], especially during the first two weeks following exposure. Secondly, the dichotomization rule of the working pattern (office-based vs. field-based) applied may be reductionist and prone to the subjectivity of judgement. Another explanation could lie in frequent between-colleague contact, i.e., when the field-based SPOs may infect their office-based counterparts during, for example, internal meetings. Therefore, the observed non-difference may be biased. On the other hand, a recent study conducted among Polish police officers [38] has similarly did not find a significant difference in seropositivity to SARS-CoV-2 between office-based and fieldwork employment patterns. Third, the recall bias could not be ruled out, especially concerning the reporting of prior ILI symptoms. Fourth, for some organizational and logistical issues, it was not possible to reach the desired sample size in a shorter time period. This means that seroprevalence estimates in April 2020 are likely to be lower than in July 2020.
In conclusion, the present survey quantified the pre-vaccination prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in a large representative cohort of Italian police workers. The seroprevalence was relatively high, which suggests that exposure in this occupational category is considerable. The relatively high rate of asymptomatic cases makes it difficult to apply contact tracing and other containment strategies successfully. Indeed, the etiological diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in this occupational category is likely underperformed; seroepidemiological studies are therefore useful for obtaining the susceptible population fraction. Considering both the relatively high occupational exposure and progressive waning of the neutralizing antibodies, the booster COVID-19 vaccine dose should also be prioritized for police employees.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.G. and G.I.; methodology, S.G. and G.I.; validation, S.M., C.B. and F.C.; formal analysis, S.G. and A.D.; investigation, E.C., I.G., C.B. and F.C.; resources, S.G. and G.I.; data curation, S.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.G. and A.D.; writing—review and editing, E.C., I.G., C.B. and F.C.; supervision, S.G. and G.I.; project administration, E.C. and I.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
The survey was approved by the competent Ethics Committee (Prot. #0036646).
Informed Consent Statement
Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement
Data used in this study may be obtained from the corresponding author upon a reasonable request and prior permission of the Italian Ministry of Interior.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Update on SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence—Regional and Worldwide. Available online: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X21005395?via%3Dihub (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Madewell, Z.J.; Yang, Y.; Longini, I.M., Jr.; Halloran, M.E.; Dean, N.E. Factors associated with household transmission of SARS-CoV-2: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw. Open 2021, 4, e2122240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hossain, A.; Nasrullah, S.M.; Tasnim, Z.; Hasan, M.K.; Hasan, M.M. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies among health care workers prior to vaccine administration in Europe, the USA and East Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2021, 33, 100770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Zhong, X.; Wang, Y.; Zeng, X.; Luo, T.; Liu, Q. Clinical determinants of the severity of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, H.; Khosrawipour, T.; Kocbach, P.; Ichii, H.; Bania, J.; Khosrawipour, V. Evaluating the massive underreporting and undertesting of COVID-19 cases in multiple global epicenters. Pulmonology 2021, 27, 110–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization Seroepidemiology Technical Working Group. ROSES-S: Statement from the World Health Organization on the reporting of seroepidemiologic studies for SARS-CoV-2. Influenza Other Respir. Viruses 2021, 15, 561–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berselli, N.; Filippini, T.; Paduano, S.; Malavolti, M.; Modenese, A.; Gobba, F.; Borella, P.; Marchesi, I.; Vivoli, R.; Perlini, P.; et al. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the Northern Italy population before the COVID-19 second wave. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health 2021, 35, 137784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among Workers in Northern. Available online: https://academic.oup.com/annweh/advance-article/doi/10.1093/annweh/wxab062/6345793 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Italian Ministry of Health. Prevention and Control of Influenza: Recommendations for 2021/22 Season. Available online: https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/renderNormsanPdf?anno=2021&codLeg=79647&parte=1%20&serie=null (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Italian Ministry of Health. Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2/COVID19. Interim Guidelines on the Target Groups. Available online: https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/re-derPdf.spring?seriegu=SG&datagu=24/03/2021&redaz=21A01802&artp=1&art=1&subart=1&subart1=10&vers=1&prog=002 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Della Valle, P.; Fabbri, M.; Madotto, F.; Ferrara, P.; Cozzolino, P.; Calabretto, E.; D’Orso, M.I.; Longhi, E.; Polosa, R.; Riva, M.A.; et al. Occupational Exposure in the Lombardy Region (Italy) to SARS-CoV-2 Infection: Results from the MUSTANG-OCCUPATION- COVID-19 Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Santi, M.; Diotallevi, A.; Brandi, G. Seroprevalence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in an Italian cohort in Marche Region, Italy. Acta Biomed. 2021, 92, e2021070. [Google Scholar]
- National Institute of Health. COVID-19 Surveillance Data. Available online: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-dashboard (accessed on 16 November 2021).
- Van Walle, I.; Leitmeyer, K.; Broberg, E.K. Meta-Analysis of the Clinical Performance of Commercial SARS-CoV-2 Nucleic Acid, Antigen and Antibody Tests up to 22 August 2020. Available online: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.16.20195917v1.full.pdf+html (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Vengesai, A.; Midzi, H.; Kasambala, M.; Mutandadzi, H.; Mduluza-Jokonya, T.L.; Rusakaniko, S.; Mutapi, F.; Naicker, T.; Mduluza, T. A systematic and meta-analysis review on the diagnostic accuracy of antibodies in the serological diagnosis of COVID-19. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fitzner, J.; Qasmieh, S.; Mounts, A.W.; Alexander, B.; Besselaar, T.; Briand, S.; Brown, C.; Clark, S.; Dueger, E.; Gross, D.; et al. Revision of clinical case definitions: Influenza-like illness and severe acute respiratory infection. Bull. World Health Organ. 2018, 96, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available online: http://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 14 July 2021).
- Amendola, A.; Tanzi, E.; Folgori, L.; Barcellini, L.; Bianchi, S.; Gori, M.; Cammi, G.; Albani, E.; Zuccotti, G.V. Low seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers of the largest children hospital in Milan during the pandemic wave. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 2020, 41, 1468–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Corradini, P.; Gobbi, G.; de Braud, F.; Rosa, J.; Rusconi, C.; Apolone, G.; Carniti, C. Rapid antibody testing for SARS-CoV-2 in asymptomatic and paucisymptomatic healthcare professionals in hematology and oncology units identifies undiagnosed infections. Hemasphere 2020, 4, e408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiore, J.R.; Centra, M.; De Carlo, A.; Granato, T.; Rosa, A.; Sarno, M.; De Feo, L.; Di Stefano, M.; Errico, M.; Caputo, S.L.; et al. Results from a survey in healthy blood donors in South Eastern Italy indicate that we are far away from herd immunity to SARS-CoV-2. J. Med. Virol. 2021, 93, 1739–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Carlo, A.; Lo Caputo, S.; Paolillo, C.; Rosa, A.M.; D’Orsi, U.; De Palma, M.; Reveglia, P.; Lacedonia, D.; Cinnella, G.; Foschino, M.P.; et al. SARS-CoV-2 serological profile in healthcare professionals of a Southern Italy hospital. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 9324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Italian Ministry of Health. COVID-19, the Results of the Seroprevalence Survey Illustrated. Available online: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/news/p3_2_1_1_1.jsp?lingua=italiano&menu=notizie&p=null&id=5012 (accessed on 16 November 2021).
- Mecenas, P.; Bastos, R.T.D.R.M.; Vallinoto, A.C.R.; Normando, D. Effects of temperature and humidity on the spread of COVID-19: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Italian Ministry of Health. Administration of Booster COVID-19 Doses. Available online: https://www.trovanorme.salute.gov.it/norme/renderNormsanPdf?anno=2021&codLeg=82953&parte=1%20&serie=null (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Shrotri, M.; Navaratnam, A.M.D.; Nguyen, V.; Byrne, T.; Geismar, C.; Fragaszy, E.; Beale, S.; Fong, W.L.E.; Patel, P.; Kovar, J.; et al. Spike-antibody waning after second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Lancet 2021, 398, 385–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waning Immune Humoral Response to BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine over 6 Months. Available online: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2114583?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed (accessed on 16 November 2021).
- Bilich, T.; Nelde, A.; Heitmann, J.S.; Maringer, Y.; Roerden, M.; Bauer, J.; Rieth, J.; Wacker, M.; Peter, A.; Hörber, S.; et al. T cell and antibody kinetics delineate SARS-CoV-2 peptides mediating long-term immune responses in COVID-19 convalescent individuals. Sci. Transl. Med. 2021, 13, eabf7517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shukla, V.; Lau, C.S.M.; Towns, M.; Mayer, J.; Kalkbrenner, K.; Beuerlein, S.; Prichard, P. COVID-19 exposure among first responders in Arizona. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 62, 981–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pasqualotto, A.C.; Pereira, P.C.; Lana, D.F.D.; Schwarzbold, A.V.; Ribeiro, M.S.; Riche, C.V.W.; Castro, C.P.P.; Korsack, P.L.; Ferreira, P.E.B.; Domingues, G.C.; et al. COVID-19 seroprevalence in military police force, Southern Brazil. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0249672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sah, P.; Fitzpatrick, M.C.; Zimmer, C.F.; Abdollahi, E.; Juden-Kelly, L.; Moghadas, S.M.; Singer, B.H.; Galvani, A.P. Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2109229118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Risk of Major Chronic Diseases in Transport, Rescue and Security Industries: A Longitudinal Register-Based Study. Available online: https://oem.bmj.com/content/early/2021/08/29/oemed-2021-107764 (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Italian Institute of Statistics. Health and Healthcare. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/files/2016/12/C04.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2021).
- Vena, A.; Berruti, M.; Adessi, A.; Blumetti, P.; Brignole, M.; Colognato, R.; Gaggioli, G.; Giacobbe, D.R.; Bracci-Laudiero, L.; Magnasco, L.; et al. Prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Italian adults and associated risk factors. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 2780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, X.; Deng, Y.; Dai, Z.; Meng, Z. COVID-19 and anosmia: A review based on up-to-date knowledge. Am. J. Otolaryngol. 2020, 41, 102581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ylikoski, J.; Markkanen, M.; Mäkitie, A. Pathophysiology of the COVID-19—Entry to the CNS through the nose. Acta Otolaryngol. 2020, 140, 886–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A.; Iddawela, S.; Pillai, K.; Choudhury, R.Y.; Harky, A. Can symptoms of anosmia and dysgeusia be diagnostic for COVID-19? Brain Behav. 2020, 10, e01839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bryant, J.E.; Azman, A.S.; Ferrari, M.J.; Arnold, B.F.; Boni, M.F.; Boum, Y.; Hayford, K.; Luquero, F.J.; Mina, M.J.; Rodriguez-Barraquer, I.; et al. Serology for SARS-CoV-2: Apprehensions, opportunities, and the path forward. Sci. Immunol. 2020, 5, eabc6347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gujski, M.; Jankowski, M.; Pinkas, J.; Wierzba, W.; Samel-Kowalik, P.; Zaczyński, A.; Jędrusik, P.; Pańkowski, I.; Juszczyk, G.; Rakocy, K.; et al. Prevalence of current and past SARS-CoV-2 infections among police employees in Poland, June–July 2020. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Distribution of seropositive and seronegative police officers, by macro-region.
Table 1.
Characteristics of the study participants (n = 10,535).
| Characteristic | Level | % (n) | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years 1 | Mean | 45.4 | 9.5 |
| Sex | Male | 81.3 (8562) | 80.5–82.0 |
| Female | 18.7 (1973) | 18.0–19.5 | |
| Geographic area | North | 33.8 (3557) | 32.9–34.7 |
| Center | 49.0 (5161) | 48.0–49.9 | |
| South | 18.2 (1917) | 17.5–18.9 | |
| Working pattern | Predominantly field-based | 80.5 (8483) | 79.8–81.3 |
| Predominantly office-based | 19.5 (2052) | 18.7–20.2 | |
| Chronic conditions | Yes | 5.6 (588) | 5.2–6.0 |
| No | 94.4 (9947) | 94.0–94.8 | |
| Recent ILI | Yes | 4.5 (476) | 4.1–4.9 |
| No | 95.5 (10,059) | 95.1–95.9 | |
| Recent olfactory dysfunction | Yes | 1.2 (122) | 1.0–1.4 |
| No | 98.8 (10,413) | 98.6–99.0 | |
| Recent gustatory dysfunction | Yes | 0.9 (94) | 0.7–1.1 |
| No | 99.1 (10,441) | 98.9–99.3 |
1 Results are reported as mean and standard deviation (standard deviation). ILI, influenza-like illness.
Table 2.
Comparison between seropositive and seronegative subjects.
| Characteristic | Level | IgG and/or IgM status, % (95% CI) | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive (n = 510) | Negative (n = 10,025) | |||
| Age, years 1 | Mean | 45.5 (9.7) | 45.4 (9.5) | 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 2 |
| Sex | Male | 76.5 (72.5–80.1) | 81.5 (80.7–82.3) | Ref |
| Female | 23.5 (19.9–27.5) | 18.5 (17.7–19.3) | 1.36 (1.10–1.68) ** | |
| Geographic area | South | 5.9 (4.0–8.3) | 18.8 (18.1–19.6) | Ref |
| Center | 31.6 (27.6–35.8) | 48.9 (47.9–49.9) | 2.07 (1.39–3.06) *** | |
| North | 62.5 (58.2–66.8) | 32.3 (31.4–33.2) | 6.20 (4.24–9.05) *** | |
| Working pattern | Predominantly office-based | 22.9 (19.4–26.8) | 19.3 (18.5–20.1) | Ref |
| Predominantly field-based | 77.1 (73.2–80.6) | 80.7 (79.9–81.5) | 0.80 (0.65–0.99) * | |
| Chronic conditions | No | 94.5 (92.2–96.3) | 94.4 (93.9–94.9) | Ref |
| Yes | 5.5 (3.7–7.8) | 5.6 (5.2–6.1) | 0.98 (0.66–1.45) | |
| Recent ILI | No | 77.3 (73.4–80.8) | 96.4 (96.0–96.8) | Ref |
| Yes | 22.7 (19.2–26.6) | 3.6 (3.2–4.0) | 7.90 (6.27–9.97) *** | |
| Recent olfactory dysfunction | No | 85.9 (82.6–88.8) | 99.5 (99.3–99.6) | Ref |
| Yes | 14.1 (11.2–17.4) | 0.5 (0.4–0.7) | 32.79 (22.58–47.63) *** | |
| Recent gustatory dysfunction | No | 89.8 (86.8–92.3) | 99.6 (99.4–99.7) | Ref |
| Yes | 10.2 (7.7–13.2) | 0.4 (0.3–0.6) | 26.99 (17.78–40.96) *** | |
1 Results are reported as mean and standard deviation (SD); 2 1-year increase; *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05. ILI, influenza-like illness.
Table 3.
Multivariable logistic regression model to predict the SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity status (n = 510).
Table 3.
Multivariable logistic regression model to predict the SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity status (n = 510).
| Characteristic | Level | b (SE) | aOR (95% CI) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | – | −4.614 (0.338) | 0.01 (0.01–0.02) | <0.001 |
| Age | 1-year increase | 0.009 (0.005) | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 0.10 |
| Sex | Male | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Female | 0.063 (0.125) | 1.07 (0.83–1.36) | 0.62 | |
| Geographic area | South | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Center | 0.453 (0.206) | 1.57 (1.05–2.35) | 0.028 | |
| North | 1.651 (0.197) | 5.21 (3.54–7.67) | <0.001 | |
| Working pattern | Predominantly office-based | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Predominantly field-based | −0.043 (0.119) | 0.96 (0.76–1.21) | 0.72 | |
| Chronic conditions | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.138 (0.212) | 1.15 (0.76–1.74) | 0.51 | |
| Recent influenza-like illness | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.623 (0.148) | 5.07 (3.79–6.77) | <0.001 | |
| Recent olfactory dysfunction | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 2.451 (0.381) | 11.60 (5.49–24.51) | <0.001 | |
| Recent gustatory dysfunction | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.792 (0.324) | 2.21 (1.17–4.17) | 0.015 | |
| Sex × olfactory dysfunction | – | 1.102 (0.475) | 3.01 (1.19–7.64) | 0.020 |
| ILI × olfactory dysfunction | – | −0.988 (0.434) | 0.37 (0.16–0.87) | 0.023 |
ILI, influenza-like illness.
Table 4.
Sensitivity analysis including only subjects with the detectable IgG response (n = 452).
| Characteristic | Level | b (SE) | aOR (95% CI) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | – | −4.982 (0.379) | 0.01 (0.00–0.01) | <0.001 |
| Age | 1-year increase | 0.007 (0.006) | 1.01 (1.00–1.02) | 0.22 |
| Sex | Male | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Female | −0.077 (0.139) | 0.93 (0.71–1.21) | 0.58 | |
| Geographic area | South | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Center | 0.732 (0.252) | 2.08 (1.27–3.41) | 0.004 | |
| North | 2.018 (0.243) | 7.53 (4.68–12.11) | <0.001 | |
| Working pattern | Predominantly office-based | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Predominantly field-based | −0.050 (0.126) | 0.95 (0.74–1.22) | 0.69 | |
| Chronic conditions | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.186 (0.225) | 1.20 (0.77–1.87) | 0.41 | |
| Recent influenza-like illness | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 1.702 (0.153) | 5.49 (4.07–7.40) | <0.001 | |
| Recent olfactory dysfunction | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 2.356 (0.394) | 10.54 (4.87–22.82) | <0.001 | |
| Recent gustatory dysfunction | No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 0.975 (0.327) | 2.65 (1.40–5.03) | 0.003 | |
| Sex × olfactory dysfunction | – | 1.414 (0.487) | 3.14 (1.21–8.16) | 0.004 |
| ILI × olfactory dysfunction | – | −1.062 (0.442) | 0.35 (0.15–0.82) | 0.016 |
ILI, influenza-like illness.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Garbarino, S.; Domnich, A.; Costa, E.; Giberti, I.; Mosca, S.; Belfiore, C.; Ciprani, F.; Icardi, G. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a Large Cohort of Italian Police Officers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212201
AMA Style
Garbarino S, Domnich A, Costa E, Giberti I, Mosca S, Belfiore C, Ciprani F, Icardi G. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a Large Cohort of Italian Police Officers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(22):12201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212201
Chicago/Turabian StyleGarbarino, Sergio, Alexander Domnich, Elisabetta Costa, Irene Giberti, Stefano Mosca, Cristiano Belfiore, Fabrizio Ciprani, and Giancarlo Icardi. 2021. "Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a Large Cohort of Italian Police Officers" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 22: 12201. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182212201
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
