SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Workers: Analysis from Verona SIEROEPID Study during the Pre-Vaccination Era.
SARS-CoV-2 infection
health workers
serosurvey
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jun 2021
14 Jun 2021
Historique:
received:
09
05
2021
revised:
10
06
2021
accepted:
10
06
2021
entrez:
2
7
2021
pubmed:
3
7
2021
medline:
8
7
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To report the baseline phase of the SIEROEPID study on SARS-CoV-2 infection seroprevalence among health workers at the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, between spring and fall 2020; to compare performances of several laboratory tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection. 5299 voluntary health workers were enrolled from 28 April 2020 to 28 July 2020 to assess immunological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection throughout IgM, IgG and IgA serum levels titration by four laboratory tests. Association of antibody titre with several demographic variables, swab tests and performance tests (sensitivity, specificity, and agreement) were statistically analyzed. The overall seroprevalence was 6%, considering either IgG and IgM, and 4.8% considering IgG. Working in COVID-19 Units was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the number of infected workers. Cohen's kappa of agreement between MaglumiTM and VivaDiagTM was quite good when considering IgG only (Cohen's kappa = 78.1%, 95% CI 74.0-82.0%), but was lower considering IgM (Cohen's kappa = 13.3%, 95% CI 7.8-18.7%). The large sample size with high participation (84.7%), the biobank and the longitudinal design were significant achievements, offering a baseline dataset as the benchmark for risk assessment, health surveillance and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the hospital workforce, especially considering the ongoing vaccination campaign. Study results support the national regulator guidelines on using swabs for SARS-CoV-2 screening with health workers and using the serological tests to contribute to the epidemiological assessment of the spread of the virus.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To report the baseline phase of the SIEROEPID study on SARS-CoV-2 infection seroprevalence among health workers at the University Hospital of Verona, Italy, between spring and fall 2020; to compare performances of several laboratory tests for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection.
METHODS
METHODS
5299 voluntary health workers were enrolled from 28 April 2020 to 28 July 2020 to assess immunological response to SARS-CoV-2 infection throughout IgM, IgG and IgA serum levels titration by four laboratory tests. Association of antibody titre with several demographic variables, swab tests and performance tests (sensitivity, specificity, and agreement) were statistically analyzed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The overall seroprevalence was 6%, considering either IgG and IgM, and 4.8% considering IgG. Working in COVID-19 Units was not associated with a statistically significant increase in the number of infected workers. Cohen's kappa of agreement between MaglumiTM and VivaDiagTM was quite good when considering IgG only (Cohen's kappa = 78.1%, 95% CI 74.0-82.0%), but was lower considering IgM (Cohen's kappa = 13.3%, 95% CI 7.8-18.7%).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The large sample size with high participation (84.7%), the biobank and the longitudinal design were significant achievements, offering a baseline dataset as the benchmark for risk assessment, health surveillance and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection for the hospital workforce, especially considering the ongoing vaccination campaign. Study results support the national regulator guidelines on using swabs for SARS-CoV-2 screening with health workers and using the serological tests to contribute to the epidemiological assessment of the spread of the virus.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34198715
pii: ijerph18126446
doi: 10.3390/ijerph18126446
pmc: PMC8296263
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Immunoglobulin M
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Références
BMC Pulm Med. 2020 Jul 29;20(1):203
pubmed: 32727446
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Nov;26(11):1557.e1-1557.e7
pubmed: 32745595
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1):
pubmed: 33021927
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652
pubmed: 32584464
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jun 25;58(7):1156-1159
pubmed: 32301750
EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Mar;33:100770
pubmed: 33718853
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2021 Jan 22;59(8):1333-1335
pubmed: 33578505
Acta Biomed. 2020 May 11;91(2):137-145
pubmed: 32420937
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Dec 13;17(24):
pubmed: 33322150
Front Public Health. 2021 Jan 21;8:591900
pubmed: 33553091
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Jun 25;58(7):1081-1088
pubmed: 32301749
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jun 19;17(12):
pubmed: 32575505
BMJ. 2020 Jul 1;370:m2516
pubmed: 32611558
Diagnosis (Berl). 2021 Jan 18;:
pubmed: 33554511
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 Aug 26;58(12):2107-2111
pubmed: 32845861
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 15;17(14):
pubmed: 32679773
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104468
pubmed: 32485620
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2020 Dec;41(12):1468-1469
pubmed: 32758311
J Hosp Infect. 2021 Feb;108:120-134
pubmed: 33212126
JAMA. 2020 Jun 9;323(22):2249-2251
pubmed: 32374370
Emerg Infect Dis. 2021 Jan;27(1):
pubmed: 33261716
Diagnostics (Basel). 2021 May 28;11(6):
pubmed: 34071278
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2020 Aug;26(8):1082-1087
pubmed: 32473953