RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Detection of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections among healthcare workers: results from a large-scale screening program based on rapid serological testing
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.07.30.20149567
DO 10.1101/2020.07.30.20149567
A1 Carozzi, Francesca Maria
A1 Cusi, Maria Grazia
A1 Pistello, Mauro
A1 Galli, Luisa
A1 Bartoloni, Alessandro
A1 Anichini, Gabriele
A1 Azzari, Chiara
A1 Emdin, Michele
A1 Gandolfo, Claudia
A1 Maggi, Fabrizio
A1 Mantengoli, Elisabetta
A1 Moriondo, Maria
A1 Moscato, Giovanna
A1 Paganini, Irene
A1 Passino, Claudio
A1 Profili, Francesco
A1 Voller, Fabio
A1 Zappa, Marco
A1 Quattrone, Filippo
A1 Rossolini, Gian Maria
A1 Francesconi, Paolo
A1 SARS-CoV-2 serosurvey Tuscan working group
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/04/2020.07.30.20149567.abstract
AB Objective To evaluate the performance of two available rapid immunological tests for identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies and their subsequent application to a regional screening of health care workers (HCW) in Tuscany (Italy).Design measures of accuracy and HCW serological surveillanceSetting 6 major health facilities in Tuscany, Italy.Participants 17,098 HCW of the Tuscany Region. Measures of accuracy were estimated to assess sensitivity in 176 hospitalized Covid-19 clinical subjects at least 14 days after a diagnostic PCR-positive assay result. Specificity was assessed in 295 sera biobanked in the pre-Covid-19 era in winter or summer 2013-14Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity, and 95% confidence intervals, were measured using two serological tests, named T-1 and T-2. Positive and Negative predictive values were estimated at different levels of prevalence. HCW of the health centers were tested using the serological tests, with a follow-up nasopharyngeal PCR-test swab in positive tested cases.Results Sensitivity was estimated as 99% (95%CI: 95%-100%) and 97% (95% CI: 90%-100%), whereas specificity was the 95% and 92%, for Test T-1 and T-2 respectively. In the historical samples IgM cross-reactions were detected in sera collected during the winter period, probably linked to other human coronaviruses. Out of the 17,098 tested, 3.1% have shown the presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies, among them 6.8% were positive at PCR follow-up test on nasopharyngeal swabs.Conclusion Based on the low prevalence estimate observed in this survey, the use of serological test as a stand-alone test is not justified to assess the individual immunity status. Serological tests showed good performance and might be useful in an integrated surveillance, for identification of infected subjects and their contacts as required by the policy of contact tracing, with the aim to reduce the risk of dissemination, especially in health service facilities.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author 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:Serological tests on health workers were performed according to the ordinance of the Health Tuscan Regional Authority n. 23/ April 3rd 2020.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 referred into the manuscript are available.