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.

Vetrugno, G., La Milia, D. I., D'ambrosio, F., Di Pumpo, M., Pastorino, R., Boccia, S., Ricci, R., De-giorgio, F., Cicconi, M., Foti, F., Pascucci, D., Castrini, F., Carini, E., Cambieri, A., D'alfonso, M. E., Capalbo, G., Fantoni, M., Moscato, U., Staiti, D., De Simone, F. M., Berloco, F., Damiani, G., Zega, M., Cattani, P., Posteraro, B., Sanguinetti, M., Laurenti, P., Covid-19 seroprevalence among healthcare workers of a large covid-19 hospital in rome reveals strengths and limits of two different serological tests, <<INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH>>, 2021; 18 (5): 1-10. [doi:10.3390/ijerph18052650] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/205122]

Covid-19 seroprevalence among healthcare workers of a large covid-19 hospital in rome reveals strengths and limits of two different serological tests

Vetrugno G.;La Milia D. I.;D'ambrosio F.;Di Pumpo M.;Pastorino R.;Boccia S.;Ricci R.;Pascucci D.;Castrini F.;Carini E.;Cambieri A.;D'alfonso M. E.;Capalbo G.;Fantoni M.;Moscato U.;Staiti D.;Berloco F.;Damiani G.;Zega M.;Posteraro B.;Sanguinetti M.;Laurenti P.
Ultimo
2021

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.
Inglese
Vetrugno, G., La Milia, D. I., D'ambrosio, F., Di Pumpo, M., Pastorino, R., Boccia, S., Ricci, R., De-giorgio, F., Cicconi, M., Foti, F., Pascucci, D., Castrini, F., Carini, E., Cambieri, A., D'alfonso, M. E., Capalbo, G., Fantoni, M., Moscato, U., Staiti, D., De Simone, F. M., Berloco, F., Damiani, G., Zega, M., Cattani, P., Posteraro, B., Sanguinetti, M., Laurenti, P., Covid-19 seroprevalence among healthcare workers of a large covid-19 hospital in rome reveals strengths and limits of two different serological tests, <>, 2021; 18 (5): 1-10. [doi:10.3390/ijerph18052650] [http://hdl.handle.net/10807/205122]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ijerph-18-02650.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia file ?: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 323.23 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
323.23 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/10807/205122
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact