Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare personnel in Gran Santa Fe (Argentina) during the COVID-19 pandemic

• Autores: Nilva, Gabriela, Wettstein, Magalí, Márquez, Gonzalo, Vera Garate, María Verónica, Barrientos, Triana, Fernández, Hugo, Zerbini, Elsa, Montemaggiore, Sandra, Camuzzi, Beatriz, Perig, Liliana, Cisterna, Silvina, Degiovanni, Gabriela, Rico, Marina, Bertona, María Lilian, Rey, Carolina, Argaraña, Fernanda, Rigo, Laura, Ulmari, Liliana, Kusznierz, Gabriela
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2025
• Institución: Universidad de San Martín de Porres
• Repositorio: Horizonte médico
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:horizontemedico.usmp.edu.pe:article/2923
• Enlace del recurso: https://www.horizontemedico.usmp.edu.pe/index.php/horizontemed/article/view/2923
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Seroepidemiologic Studies; SARS-CoV-2; Health Personnel; Seroprevalencia; Personal de Salud

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection through antibody detection among healthcare personnel (HP) in Gran Santa Fe (Argentina) during virus sustained circulation and remission phases. Materials and methods: A longitudinal, population-based, seroepidemiological study was conducted. The target population consisted of HP working in second- and third-level public health centers in the Gran Santa Fe region. The sample comprised 600 active health workers, proportionally distributed across selected health centers. A self-administered questionnaire collected data on sociodemographic, occupational, clinical and exposure variables of interest. IgG and IgM antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were detected from serum samples using indirect enzyme-linked immunoassays. Results: The prevalence of IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 was 7.6 times higher during the virus circulation phase compared to the remission phase (2.1 % vs. 15.9 %, respectively), while no IgM antibodies were detected. Regarding the level of workplace exposure risk, the highest cumulative prevalence, 26.7 %, was observed in the high-risk group (workers in direct contact with patients and “assigned to the Intensive Care Unit [ICU]” or “assigned to the COVID-19 Area” or “assigned to the Emergency Department”). Nearly one-third of workers reported inconsistent use of recommended personal protective equipment (PPE), and fewer than 10 % reported full adherence to PPE guidelines, regardless of the level of exposure risk. The seroprevalence among HP who reported no symptoms since the beginning of the Aislamiento Social Preventivo y Obligatorio (Preventive and Mandatory Lockdown) was 12.3 % during the remission phase, compared to 10.0 % among HP with a history of negative RT-PCR results (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Complementing passive epidemiological surveillance with active serological surveillance using simple and cost-effective tests is important for accurately tailoring mitigation strategies in vulnerable populations such as HP.