tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Environ Res Public Health
. 2021 Mar 6;18(5):2650.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052650.
COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests
Giuseppe Vetrugno[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Daniele Ignazio La Milia[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Floriana D'Ambrosio[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Marcello Di Pumpo[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Roberta Pastorino[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Stefania Boccia[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Rosalba Ricci[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Fabio De-Giorgio[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Michela Cicconi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Federica Foti[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Domenico Pascucci[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Francesco Castrini[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Elettra Carini[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Andrea Cambieri[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Maria Elena D'Alfonso[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Gennaro Capalbo[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Massimo Fantoni[SUP] 6 7 [/SUP], Umberto Moscato[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Domenico Staiti[SUP] 5 8 [/SUP], Francesco Maria De Simone[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Filippo Berloco[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Gianfranco Damiani[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Maurizio Zega[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Paola Cattani[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Brunella Posteraro[SUP] 10 11 [/SUP], Maurizio Sanguinetti[SUP] 6 10 [/SUP], Patrizia Laurenti[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP]
Affiliations
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.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; healthcare workers; point-of-care; serological tests; seroprevalence.
. 2021 Mar 6;18(5):2650.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052650.
COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests
Giuseppe Vetrugno[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Daniele Ignazio La Milia[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Floriana D'Ambrosio[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Marcello Di Pumpo[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Roberta Pastorino[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Stefania Boccia[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Rosalba Ricci[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Fabio De-Giorgio[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Michela Cicconi[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Federica Foti[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Domenico Pascucci[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Francesco Castrini[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Elettra Carini[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Andrea Cambieri[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Maria Elena D'Alfonso[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Gennaro Capalbo[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Massimo Fantoni[SUP] 6 7 [/SUP], Umberto Moscato[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Domenico Staiti[SUP] 5 8 [/SUP], Francesco Maria De Simone[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Filippo Berloco[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Gianfranco Damiani[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP], Maurizio Zega[SUP] 9 [/SUP], Paola Cattani[SUP] 6 [/SUP], Brunella Posteraro[SUP] 10 11 [/SUP], Maurizio Sanguinetti[SUP] 6 10 [/SUP], Patrizia Laurenti[SUP] 4 5 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 33800721
- DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18052650
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.
Keywords: COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; healthcare workers; point-of-care; serological tests; seroprevalence.