| Literature DB >> 33800721 |
Giuseppe Vetrugno1,2, Daniele Ignazio La Milia3, Floriana D'Ambrosio4, Marcello Di Pumpo4, Roberta Pastorino5, Stefania Boccia4,5, Rosalba Ricci6, Fabio De-Giorgio2, Michela Cicconi1, Federica Foti1, Domenico Pascucci4,5, Francesco Castrini4, Elettra Carini4, Andrea Cambieri3, Maria Elena D'Alfonso3, Gennaro Capalbo3, Massimo Fantoni6,7, Umberto Moscato4,5, Domenico Staiti5,8, Francesco Maria De Simone5, Filippo Berloco3, Gianfranco Damiani4,5, Maurizio Zega9, Paola Cattani6, Brunella Posteraro10,11, Maurizio Sanguinetti6,10, Patrizia Laurenti4,5.
Abstract
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.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; healthcare workers; point-of-care; serological tests; seroprevalence
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33800721 PMCID: PMC7967358 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390