Explore the vast range of titles available.

To date, few empirical estimates of the IFR for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been published owing to challenges in measuring infection rates.1,2 Outside of closed, closely observed populations where infection rates can be monitored through viral surveillance, we must rely on indirect measures of infection, such as antibodies. Representative seroprevalence studies provide an important opportunity to estimate the number of infections in a community, and when combined with death counts can lead to robust estimates of the IFR. Despite having among the highest per-capita incidence of confirmed COVID-19 in Switzerland, Geneva's health system, with additional COVID-19 surge capacity, accommodated the influx of cases needing intensive care (peak of 80 of 110 surge capacity intensive care unit beds were in use at one time) while maintaining care quality standards.

Understanding the risk of infection from household- and community-exposures and the transmissibility of asymptomatic infections is critical to SARS-CoV-2 control. Limited previous evidence is based primarily on virologic testing, which disproportionately misses mild and asymptomatic infections. Serologic measures are more likely to capture all previously infected individuals. We apply household transmission models to data from a cross-sectional, household-based population serosurvey of 4,534 people ≥5 years from 2,267 households enrolled April-June 2020 in Geneva, Switzerland. We found that the risk of infection from exposure to a single infected household member aged ≥5 years (17.3%,13.7-21.7) was more than three-times that of extra-household exposures over the first pandemic wave (5.1%,4.5-5.8). Young children had a lower risk of infection from household members. Working-age adults had the highest extra-household infection risk. Seropositive asymptomatic household members had 69.4% lower odds (95%CrI,31.8-88.8%) of infecting another household member compared to those reporting symptoms, accounting for 14.5% (95%CrI, 7.2-22.7%) of all household infections. Household-based studies can provide insights into SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Here, the authors fit transmission models to serological data from Geneva, Switzerland, and estimate that the risk of infection from single household exposure (17.3%) was higher than for extra-household exposure (5.1%).

Limited data exist on SARS-CoV-2 infection rates across sectors and occupations, hindering our ability to make rational policy, including vaccination prioritization, to protect workers and limit SARS-CoV-2 spread. Here, we present results from our SEROCoV-WORK + study, a serosurvey of workers recruited after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Geneva, Switzerland. We tested workers (May 18—September 18, 2020) from 16 sectors and 32 occupations for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies. Of 10,513 participants, 1026 (9.8%) tested positive. The seropositivity rate ranged from 4.2% in the media sector to 14.3% in the nursing home sector. We found considerable within-sector variability: nursing home (0%–31.4%), homecare (3.9%–12.6%), healthcare (0%–23.5%), public administration (2.6%–24.6%), and public security (0%–16.7%). Seropositivity rates also varied across occupations, from 15.0% among kitchen staff and 14.4% among nurses, to 5.4% among domestic care workers and 2.8% among journalists. Our findings show that seropositivity rates varied widely across sectors, between facilities within sectors, and across occupations, reflecting a higher exposure in certain sectors and occupations. Many job sectors classified as ‘essential’ have continued operating with limited restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially placing workers at higher risk of infection. Here, the authors show that seropositivity rates in workers vary widely across and between job sectors in Geneva, Switzerland.

ObjectPreoperative image-based neuronavigation-assisted endoscopy during intracranial procedures is gaining great interest. This study aimed to analyze the precision of navigation-assisted endoscopy according to the navigation setup, the type of optic and its working angulation.MethodsA custom-made box with four screws was referenced. The navigation-assisted endoscope was aligned on the screws (targets). The precision on the navigation screen was defined as the virtual distance-to-target between the tip of the endoscope and the center of the screws. Three modifiers were assessed: (1) the distance D between the box and the reference array (CLOSE 13 cm – MIDDLE 30 cm – FAR 53 cm), (2) the distance between the tip of the endoscope and the navigation array on the endoscope (close 5 cm – middle 10 cm – far 20 cm), (3) the working angulation of the endoscope (0°-endoscope and 30°-endoscope angled at 90° and 45° with the box).ResultsThe median precision was 1.3 mm (Q1: 1.1; Q3: 1.7) with the best setting CLOSE/close. The best setting in surgical condition (CLOSE/far) showed a distance-to-target of 2.3 mm (Q1: 1.9; Q3: 2.5). The distance D was correlated to the precision (Spearman rho = 0.82), but not the distance d (Spearman rho = 0.04). The type of optic and its angulation with the box were also correlated to the precision (Spearman rho =  − 0.37). The best setting was the use of a 30°-endoscope angled at 45° (1.4 mm (Q1: 1.0; Q3: 1.9)).ConclusionNavigated-assisted endoscopy is feasible and offers a good precision. The navigation setup should be optimized, reducing the risk of inadvertent perifocal damage.

ObjectivesThis cohort study including essential workers, assessed the risk and incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the second surge of COVID-19 according to baseline serostatus and occupational sector.MethodsEssential workers were selected from a seroprevalence survey cohort in Geneva, Switzerland and were linked to a state centralised registry compiling SARS-CoV-2 infections. Primary outcome was the incidence of virologically confirmed infections from serological assessment (between May and September 2020) to 25 January 2021, according to baseline antibody status and stratified by three predefined occupational groups (occupations requiring sustained physical proximity, involving brief regular contact or others).Results10 457 essential workers were included (occupations requiring sustained physical proximity accounted for 3057 individuals, those involving regular brief contact, 3645 and 3755 workers were classified under ‘Other essential occupations’). After a follow-up period of over 27 weeks, 5 (0.6%) seropositive and 830 (8.5%) seronegative individuals had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, with an incidence rate of 0.2 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and 3.2 (95% CI 2.9 to 3.4) cases per person-week, respectively. Incidences were similar across occupational groups. Seropositive essential workers had a 93% reduction in the hazard (HR of 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.17) of having a positive test during the follow-up with no significant between-occupational group difference.ConclusionsA 10-fold reduction in the hazard of being virologically tested positive was observed among anti-SARS-CoV-2 seropositive essential workers regardless of their sector of occupation, confirming the seroprotective effect of a previous SARS-CoV2 exposure at least 6 months after infection.