Frank Buntinx1,2,3, Peter Claes2, Marjo Gulikers2, Jan Verbakel1, De Lepeleire Jan1, Michaël Van der Elst1,3,4, Jan Van Elslande5,6, Marc Van Ranst5,6, Pieter Vermeersch5,7. 1. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Woonzorgcentrum Bessemerberg, Lanaken, Belgium. 3. Department of Health Services Research, Maastricht University, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Laboratory of Experimental Radiotherapy, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Clinical Department of Laboratory Medicine and National Reference Center for Respiratory Pathogens, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 6. Laboratory of Clinical and Epidemiological Virology (Rega Institute), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 7. Department of Cardiovascular Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the added value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in a nursing home during an acute COVID-19 outbreak. RT-PCR is the gold standard, but can be false-negative. METHODS: 119 residents and 93 staff members were tested with RT-PCR test and/or a rapid IgM/IgG test. Of these participants, 176 had both tests, 24 only RT-PCR, and 12 only IgM/IgG in the period April 14 to 16 April 2020. RESULTS: 40 (34%) residents and 11 (13%) staff were PCR-positive. Using a rapid IgM/IgG test, 17 (17%) residents and 18 (20%) staff were positive for IgM and/or IgG (IgM/IgG). Thirty-two PCR-positive residents had an IgM/IgG test: 9 (28%), 11 (34%), and 13 (41%) were positive for IgM, IgG, and IgM/IgG. Ten PCR-positive staff had an IgM/IgG test: 3 (30%), 6 (60%), and 6 (60%) were positive for IgM, IgG, and IgM/IgG. Additional IgM/IgG tests were performed in 9 residents 11 to 14 days after the positive RT-PCR test. Of those, 7 (78%) tested positive for IgM/IgG. When retested 3 weeks later, the 2 remaining residents also tested positive. Of the 134 PCR-negative participants who had an IgM/IgG test, 15 were positive for IgM/IgG (8% of the 200 participants tested with RT-PCR). CONCLUSIONS: During an acute outbreak in a nursing home, 26% of residents and staff were PCR-positive. An additional 8% was diagnosed using IgM/IgG antibody testing. The use of RT-PCR alone as the sole diagnostic method for surveillance during an acute outbreak is insufficient to grab the full extent of the outbreak.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the added value of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing in a nursing home during an acute COVID-19 outbreak. RT-PCR is the gold standard, but can be false-negative. METHODS: 119 residents and 93 staff members were tested with RT-PCR test and/or a rapid IgM/IgG test. Of these participants, 176 had both tests, 24 only RT-PCR, and 12 only IgM/IgG in the period April 14 to 16 April 2020. RESULTS: 40 (34%) residents and 11 (13%) staff were PCR-positive. Using a rapid IgM/IgG test, 17 (17%) residents and 18 (20%) staff were positive for IgM and/or IgG (IgM/IgG). Thirty-two PCR-positive residents had an IgM/IgG test: 9 (28%), 11 (34%), and 13 (41%) were positive for IgM, IgG, and IgM/IgG. Ten PCR-positive staff had an IgM/IgG test: 3 (30%), 6 (60%), and 6 (60%) were positive for IgM, IgG, and IgM/IgG. Additional IgM/IgG tests were performed in 9 residents 11 to 14 days after the positive RT-PCR test. Of those, 7 (78%) tested positive for IgM/IgG. When retested 3 weeks later, the 2 remaining residents also tested positive. Of the 134 PCR-negative participants who had an IgM/IgG test, 15 were positive for IgM/IgG (8% of the 200 participants tested with RT-PCR). CONCLUSIONS: During an acute outbreak in a nursing home, 26% of residents and staff were PCR-positive. An additional 8% was diagnosed using IgM/IgG antibody testing. The use of RT-PCR alone as the sole diagnostic method for surveillance during an acute outbreak is insufficient to grab the full extent of the outbreak.
Entities:
Keywords:
COVID-19; disease outbreaks; immunoassay; point-of-care testing; sensitivity and specificity
Authors: Marjolein E A Verbiest; Annerieke Stoop; Aukelien Scheffelaar; Meriam M Janssen; Leonieke C van Boekel; Katrien G Luijkx Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Jan M Stratil; Renke L Biallas; Jacob Burns; Laura Arnold; Karin Geffert; Angela M Kunzler; Ina Monsef; Julia Stadelmaier; Katharina Wabnitz; Tim Litwin; Clemens Kreutz; Anna Helen Boger; Saskia Lindner; Ben Verboom; Stephan Voss; Ani Movsisyan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-09-15
Authors: Nathan Post; Danielle Eddy; Catherine Huntley; May C I van Schalkwyk; Madhumita Shrotri; David Leeman; Samuel Rigby; Sarah V Williams; William H Bermingham; Paul Kellam; John Maher; Adrian M Shields; Gayatri Amirthalingam; Sharon J Peacock; Sharif A Ismail Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240