RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Serologic SARS-CoV-2 testing in healthcare workers with positive RT-PCR test or Covid-19 related symptoms
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.10.25.20219113
DO 10.1101/2020.10.25.20219113
A1 Visci, Giovanni
A1 Lodi, Vittorio
A1 Bonfiglioli, Roberta
A1 Lazzarotto, Tiziana
A1 Violante, Francesco S.
A1 Boffetta, Paolo
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/27/2020.10.25.20219113.abstract
AB Background Limited information is available on prevalence and determinants of serologic response to SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers (HCWs).Methods We analyzed the results of serologic testing with chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer (CLIA), lateral flow immunoassay (LFIA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test among 544 HCWs with at least one positive RT-PCR test and 157 HCWs with Covid-19 related symptoms without a positive RT-PCR test from public hospitals in Bologna, Northern Italy. Tests were performed between March and August 2020. We fitted multivariate logistic regression models to identify determinants of positive serology.Results The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 was 75.2% (LFIA) and 90.6% (CLIA). No differences in seropositivity were observed by sex, while older HCWs had higher positivity than other groups, and nurses had higher positivity compared to physicians, but not other HCWs. An estimated 73.4% of HCWs with Covid-19 symptoms without RT-PCR test were not infected with SARS-CoV-2.Conclusions Our study provides the best available data on sensitivity of serologic tests and on determinants of serologic response among HCWs positive for SARS-CoV-2, and provide evidence on the low specificity of Covid-19 related symptoms to identify infected HCWs.Summary The sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow immunoassay serology in healthcare workers (HCWs) was 75.2%. Older HCWs and nurses had higher positivity than other groups. An estimated 73.4% of HCWs with Covid-19 symptoms without RT-PCR test were not infected with SARS-CoV-2.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialnot availableFunding StatementThis work was supported by internal resources of the participating institutionsAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Declarations a) All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. b) The study was reviewed and considered exempt by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bologna. c) Informed consent was not deemed necessary by the Ethics Committee of the University of Bologna.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are extracted from a cross between Bologna metropolitan dashboard and health surveillance data extractions. We may decide to deposit the dataset on Dryad