Or Kriger1, Yaniv Lustig2, Carmit Cohen3, Sharon Amit4, Asaf Biber5, Galia Barkai6, Liron Talmi7, Shiraz Gefen-Halevi4, Bella Mechnik3, Gili Regev-Yochay8. 1. Paediatric Infectious Disease Unit, The Edmond and Lily Safra Children's Hospital, Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Israel; Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Sheba Medical Centre, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Electronic address: or.kriger@sheba.health.gov.il. 2. Central Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Tel-Hashomer, Israel. 3. Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Sheba Medical Centre, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 4. Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, Sheba Medical Centre, Ramat-Gan, Israel. 5. Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Sheba Medical Centre, Ramat-Gan, Israel; Infectious Disease Unit, Sheba Medical Centre, Affiliated to the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Gan, Israel. 6. Paediatric Infectious Disease Unit, The Edmond and Lily Safra Children's Hospital, Chaim Sheba Medical Centre, Israel; Department of Paediatrics, Safra Children's Hospital, Sheba Medical Centre, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 7. Department of Paediatrics, Safra Children's Hospital, Sheba Medical Centre, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 8. Infection Prevention and Control Unit, Sheba Medical Centre, Ramat-Gan, Israel; Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The role of school closure in mitigating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission has been questioned. In our medical centre, during a 9-week national lockdown, an alternative school was opened for health-care workers' (HCW) children with a small number of children per class and strict symptom surveillance. After lockdown was lifted we screened children and their parents for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of HCW parents and their children after one teacher contracted COVID-19 following exposure at home and 53 children were exposed, isolated and tested by RT-PCR. We compared families with children attending the alternative school with families whose children who remained at home during the 9-week lockdown. Epidemiological and medical data were collected using a short questionnaire; nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were obtained and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, and blood was collected for SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG titres. RESULTS: A total of 435 children attended the Sheba alternative school. Among the 53 children exposed to the infected teacher, none tested positive by RT-PCR. Of these, 18 children-parent pairs were tested for serology and all were negative. A total of 106/435 (24%) children and their 78 parents were recruited for the cross-sectional study; 70 attended the Sheba school and 36 did not. Approximately 16% of children in either group reported symptoms (11/70 in the school group and 6/36 in the 'stay home' group), but SARS-CoV-2 was not detected by PCR in any, and previous exposure, as determined by serological tests, was low and not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: In an alternative school for children of HCWs, active during COVID-19 national outbreak, we found no evidence of increased infection compared with children that stayed home.
OBJECTIVE: The role of school closure in mitigating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) transmission has been questioned. In our medical centre, during a 9-week national lockdown, an alternative school was opened for health-care workers' (HCW) children with a small number of children per class and strict symptom surveillance. After lockdown was lifted we screened children and their parents for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serology. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of HCW parents and their children after one teacher contracted COVID-19 following exposure at home and 53 children were exposed, isolated and tested by RT-PCR. We compared families with children attending the alternative school with families whose children who remained at home during the 9-week lockdown. Epidemiological and medical data were collected using a short questionnaire; nasopharyngeal and oropharyngeal swabs were obtained and tested for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-PCR, and blood was collected for SARS-CoV-2 IgA and IgG titres. RESULTS: A total of 435 children attended the Sheba alternative school. Among the 53 children exposed to the infected teacher, none tested positive by RT-PCR. Of these, 18 children-parent pairs were tested for serology and all were negative. A total of 106/435 (24%) children and their 78 parents were recruited for the cross-sectional study; 70 attended the Sheba school and 36 did not. Approximately 16% of children in either group reported symptoms (11/70 in the school group and 6/36 in the 'stay home' group), but SARS-CoV-2 was not detected by PCR in any, and previous exposure, as determined by serological tests, was low and not significantly different between the groups. CONCLUSION: In an alternative school for children of HCWs, active during COVID-19 national outbreak, we found no evidence of increased infection compared with children that stayed home.
Authors: Saverio Caini; Chiara Martinoli; Carlo La Vecchia; Sara Raimondi; Federica Bellerba; Oriana D'Ecclesiis; Clementina Sasso; Alessandra Basso; Giulio Cammarata; Sara Gandini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Carol Bibiana Colonia; Rosanna Camerano-Ruiz; Andrés Felipe Mora-Salamanca; Ana Beatriz Vásquez-Rodríguez; Camilo Alberto Pino-Gutiérrez; Luz Amparo Pérez-Fonseca; Deidamia García-Quintero; Jennifer Ruiz-González; Iván Osejo-Villamil; Edwin Alberto Ussa-Cristiano; Fernando de la Hoz-Restrepo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 3.390