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, Daniele Ignazio La Milia, Floriana D'Ambrosio, Floriana D'Ambrosio, Marcello Di Pumpo, Roberta Pastorino, Stefania Boccia, Rosalba Ricci, Fabio De Giorgio, Michela Cicconi, Federica Foti, Domenico Pascucci, Francesco Castrini, Elettra Carini, Andrea Cambieri, Maria Elena D'Alfonso, Gennaro Capalbo, Massimo Fantoni, Umberto Moscato, Domenico StaitiFrancesco Maria De Simone, Filippo Berloco, Gianfranco Damiani, Maurizio Zega, Paola Cattani Franchi, Brunella Posteraro, Maurizio Sanguinetti, Patrizia Laurenti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Volume18
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Keywords

  • Antibodies, Viral
  • COVID-19
  • Health Personnel
  • Healthcare workers
  • Hospitals
  • Humans
  • Point-of-care
  • Rome
  • SARS-CoV-2
  • Seroepidemiologic Studies
  • Serologic Tests
  • Serological tests
  • Seroprevalence

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Covid-19 seroprevalence among healthcare workers of a large covid-19 hospital in rome reveals strengths and limits of two different serological tests'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this