COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests
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 (<i<p</i< < 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..
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:18 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health - 18(2021), 2650, p 2650 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Giuseppe Vetrugno [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
doi.org [kostenfrei] |
|---|
| Themen: |
COVID-19 |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3390/ijerph18052650 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
DOAJ048296007 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | DOAJ048296007 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230502142102.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 230227s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3390/ijerph18052650 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)DOAJ048296007 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)DOAJcf719d930eb54e8f95687734b2cc88b0 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 0 | |a Giuseppe Vetrugno |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a COVID-19 Seroprevalence among Healthcare Workers of a Large COVID-19 Hospital in Rome Reveals Strengths and Limits of Two Different Serological Tests |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a 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 (<i<p</i< < 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. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a COVID-19 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a healthcare workers | |
| 650 | 4 | |a point-of-care | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SARS-CoV-2 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a serological tests | |
| 650 | 4 | |a seroprevalence | |
| 653 | 0 | |a Medicine | |
| 653 | 0 | |a R | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Daniele Ignazio La Milia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Floriana D’Ambrosio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Marcello Di Pumpo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Roberta Pastorino |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Stefania Boccia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Rosalba Ricci |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Fabio De-Giorgio |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Michela Cicconi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Federica Foti |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Domenico Pascucci |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Francesco Castrini |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Elettra Carini |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Andrea Cambieri |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Maria Elena D’Alfonso |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Gennaro Capalbo |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Massimo Fantoni |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Umberto Moscato |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Domenico Staiti |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Francesco Maria De Simone |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Filippo Berloco |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Gianfranco Damiani |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Maurizio Zega |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Paola Cattani |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Brunella Posteraro |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Maurizio Sanguinetti |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 0 | |a Patrizia Laurenti |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i In |t International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health |d MDPI AG, 2005 |g 18(2021), 2650, p 2650 |w (DE-627)DOAJ000006807 |x 16604601 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2021 |g number:2650, p 2650 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052650 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doaj.org/article/cf719d930eb54e8f95687734b2cc88b0 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/5/2650 |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1661-7827 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://doaj.org/toc/1660-4601 |y Journal toc |z kostenfrei |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_DOAJ | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2021 |e 2650, p 2650 | ||