Author: Vetrugno, Giuseppe; La Milia, Daniele Ignazio; D’Ambrosio, Floriana; Di Pumpo, Marcello; Pastorino, Roberta; Boccia, Stefania; Ricci, Rosalba; De-Giorgio, Fabio; Cicconi, Michela; Foti, Federica; Pascucci, Domenico; Castrini, Francesco; Carini, Elettra; Cambieri, Andrea; D’Alfonso, Maria Elena; Capalbo, Gennaro; Fantoni, Massimo; Moscato, Umberto; Staiti, Domenico; De Simone, Francesco Maria; Berloco, Filippo; Damiani, Gianfranco; Zega, Maurizio; Cattani, Paola; Posteraro, Brunella; Sanguinetti, Maurizio; Laurenti, Patrizia
Title: COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests Cord-id: 0ga0a702 Document date: 2021_3_6
ID: 0ga0a702
Snippet: Healthcare workers are at the forefront against COVID-19, worldwide. Since Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS was enlisted as a COVID-19 hospital, the healthcare workers deployed to COVID-19 wards were separated from those with limited/no exposure, whereas the administrative staff were designated to work from home. Between 4 June and 3 July 2020, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)
Document: Healthcare workers are at the forefront against COVID-19, worldwide. Since Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS was enlisted as a COVID-19 hospital, the healthcare workers deployed to COVID-19 wards were separated from those with limited/no exposure, whereas the administrative staff were designated to work from home. Between 4 June and 3 July 2020, an investigation was conducted to evaluate the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunoglobulin (IgG) antibodies among the employees of the FPG using point-of-care (POC) and venous blood tests. Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values were determined with reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction on nasal/oropharyngeal swabs as the diagnostic gold standard. The participants enrolled amounted to 4777. Seroprevalence was 3.66% using the POC test and 1.19% using the venous blood test, with a significant difference (p < 0.05). The POC test sensitivity and specificity were, respectively, 63.64% (95% confidence interval (CI): 62.20% to 65.04%) and 96.64% (95% CI: 96.05% to 97.13%), while those of the venous blood test were, respectively, 78.79% (95% CI: 77.58% to 79.94%) and 99.36% (95% CI: 99.07% to 99.55%). Among the low-risk populations, the POC test’s predictive values were 58.33% (positive) and 98.23% (negative), whereas those of the venous blood test were 92.86% (positive) and 98.53% (negative). According to our study, these serological tests cannot be a valid alternative to diagnose COVID-19 infection in progress.
Search related documents:
Co phrase search for related documents- actual infection and acute respiratory illness: 1
- actual infection and acute sars infection: 1, 2, 3
- acute respiratory illness and adequate ppe: 1, 2, 3
- acute respiratory illness and administrative staff: 1
- acute respiratory illness and lockdown period: 1
- acute respiratory illness and lombardy region: 1
- acute respiratory illness and long term follow: 1, 2, 3
- acute respiratory illness and low risk population: 1
- acute sars infection and adequate ppe: 1, 2, 3
- acute sars infection and administrative staff: 1, 2, 3, 4
- acute sars infection and lockdown period: 1, 2, 3, 4
- acute sars infection and lombardy region: 1, 2, 3
- acute sars infection and long term follow: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
- acute sars infection and low risk population: 1, 2
- acute sars infection case and lombardy region: 1
- adequate ppe and administrative staff: 1, 2
- administrative staff and lockdown period: 1
- administrative staff and lombardy region: 1, 2
- administrative staff and low diagnostic accuracy: 1
Co phrase search for related documents, hyperlinks ordered by date