Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serology in Asymptomatic Healthcare Professionals: Preliminary Experience of a Tertiary Italian Academic Center

Tosato, Francesca; Pelloso, Michela; Gallo, Nicoletta; Giraudo, Chiara; Llanaj, Gledis; Cosma, Chiara; Pozzato, Catia; Padoan, Andrea; Donato, Daniele; Plebani, Mario

doi:10.1101/2020.04.27.20073858

Cited by 12 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, these studies have been heterogeneous in the population studied, their sampling, methodological rigour and use of a range of non-validated antibody tests with low sensitivity or specificity, or have not reported the performance characteristics of the chosen assay ( Bobrovitz et al , 2020 ). Despite these limitations, seroprevalence estimates for health-care workers have ranged from 5.2% to 24.4%, approximately twice that of the general population and substantially higher than the 4% reported here ( Garcia-Basteiro et al , 2020 ; Pollán et al , 2020 ; Steensels et al , 2020 ; TosaTo et al , 2020 ). This may reflect the standalone nature of fertility centres, i.e.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 70%

“…Several large scale serological surveys of SARS-CoV-2 have been performed (Adams et al ; Bryan et al , 2020 ; Garcia-Basteiro et al , 2020 ; Pollán et al , 2020 ; Salje et al , 2020 ; Snoeck et al , 2020 ; Sood et al , 2020 ; Steensels et al , 2020 ; Stringhini et al , 2020 ; Valenti et al , 2020 ) or are ongoing ( Bobrovitz et al , 2020 ), with several including data on health-care workers ( Garcia-Basteiro et al , 2020 ; Korth et al , 2020 ; Pollán et al , 2020 ; Shields et al , 2020 ; Steensels et al , 2020 ; TosaTo et al , 2020 ). To date, these studies have been heterogeneous in the population studied, their sampling, methodological rigour and use of a range of non-validated antibody tests with low sensitivity or specificity, or have not reported the performance characteristics of the chosen assay ( Bobrovitz et al , 2020 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

SARS-Cov-2 viral and serological screening of staff in 31 European fertility units

Nelson

Ehnert

Gromski

et al. 2020

Human Reproduction Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STUDY QUESTION What is the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral presence and seroconversion in staff members in European fertility units prior to recommencement of clinical activity? SUMMARY ANSWER A large proportion of fertility clinic staff remain susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 with no evidence of seroconversion, indicating that continued comprehensive risk mitigation strategies are essential. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, routine fertility treatment was temporarily stopped in several European countries. The SARS-CoV-2 prevalence and seroconversion in fertility clinic staff, who are at potentially lower risk than routine healthcare workers, are unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This cross-sectional study included 554 staff in 16 European IVF clinics, 13 ultrasound clinics, one diagnostic laboratory and one head office in four European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany and the UK) between 15 April and 30 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS There were 554 staff members returning for resumption of clinical activity. Paired nucleic acid amplification tests of oropharyngeal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 and serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG were performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Of the 554 staff members tested, 0.19% (95% CI 0.03, 1.10%) had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 as detected by RT-PCR. In contrast, 23 staff members, i.e. 4.15% (95% CI 2.78, 6.15%), had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, with a wide range of antibody titres. There was no evidence of differences in seroconversion between countries with estimates ranging from 2.78% (95% CI 0.77, 9.58) in Austria to 6.75% (95% CI 4.46, 10.1) for the UK. There was no strong evidence of clustering within the clinics, with 21 of the 30 facilities having no staff members affected (prevalence estimates ranging from 0% to 35%), and one clinic having seven staff members affected (35% (95% CI 18.1%, 56.7%)). The single staff member who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus was in the pre-symptomatic phase and was isolated, with no contacts having evidence of infection on repeat testing. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This was a cross-sectional study prior to resumption of clinical activity, with repeat testing not undertaken. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The low prevalence of seroconversion of fertility clinic staff highlights the need for continued comprehensive risk mitigation strategies and engagement with national endeavours to identify and isolate new cases and their contacts as we embark on the resumption of fertility services. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The Fertility Partnership funded the study. S.M.N. reports personal fees from Access Fertility, personal fees fro...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 70%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

SARS-Cov-2 viral and serological screening of staff in 31 European fertility units

Nelson

Ehnert

Gromski

et al. 2020

Human Reproduction Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of studies was conducted in Europe (n=31), and then in North America (n=9), Asia (n=6), and Africa (n=3). In particular, nine studies was conducted in USA [ 14 , 15 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 40 ], eight studies in Italy [ 23 , 28 , 30 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 56 , 57 ], seven studies in United Kingdom [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 25 , 33 , 59 , 61 ], five studies in Germany [ 21 , 35 , 42 , 43 , 46 ], four studies in Spain [ 31 , 38 , 49 , 52 ], and three studies in and Japan [ 53 , 58 , 62 ], Belgium [ 18 , 19 , 22 ] and China [ 47 , 48 , 51 ]. Twenty-nine studies did not report the response rate [ [15] , [16] , [17] , 20 , 24 , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [32] , [33] , [34] , 38 , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , 45 , 47 , 48 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Galanis

Vraka

Fragkou

et al. 2021

Journal of Hospital Infection

304

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health care workers (HCWs) represent a high risk population for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Aim To determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs, and to find out the factors that are associated with this seroprevalence. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were applied for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases including PubMed/MEDLINE and pre-print services (medRχiv and bioRχiv) were searched from inception up to August 24, 2020. Findings Forty-nine studies, including 127,480 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs was 8.7% (95% CI: 6.7-10.9%). Seroprevalence was higher in studies that were conducted in North America (12.7%) compared to those in Europe (8.5%), Africa (8.2), and Asia (4%). Meta-regression showed that increased sensitivity of antibodies test was associated with increased seroprevalence. The following factors were associated with seropositivity: male gender, Black, Asian, and Hispanic HCWs, work in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) unit, patient-related work, frontline health care workers, health care assistants, personal protective equipment shortage, self-reported belief for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, previous positive polymerase chain reaction test, and household contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Conclusion The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs is high. Excellent adherence to infection prevention and control measures, sufficient and adequate personal protective equipment, and early recognition, identification and isolation of HCWs that are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are imperative to decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

show abstract

“…79 A study reported from Italy showed 5.25% seropositivity within the asymptomatic health care providers. 80 By contrast, another study from Italy screened health workers and observed discordant results between two immunological assays in reporting sensitivity. 81 Interestingly, a study with health care workers in Switzerland showed negative virus-specific antibodies in serum, whereas it was detected in nasal fluids and tears.…”

Section: A Hunt For Asymptomatic Casesmentioning

confidence: 97%

Antibody detection assays for COVID‐19 diagnosis: an early overview

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has not only commenced a global health emergency but also agitated various aspects of humanity. During this period of crisis, researchers over the world have ramped their efforts to constrain the disease in all possible ways, whether it is vaccination, therapy or diagnosis. Because the spread of the disease has not yet elapsed, sharing the ongoing research findings could be the key to disease control and management. An early and efficient diagnosis could leverage the outcome until a successful vaccine is developed. Both in‐house and commercial kits are the preferred molecular tests being used worldwide in the COVID‐19 diagnosis. However, the limitation of high prices and lengthy procedures impede their use for mass testing. Keeping the constant rise of infection in mind, the search for an alternative test that is cost‐effective, simple and suitable for large‐scale testing and surveillance is the need of the hour. One such alternative could be immunological tests. In the last few months, a deluge of immunological rapid tests have been developed and validated across the globe. The objective of this review is to share the diagnostic performance of various immunological assays reported so far in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 case detection. We consolidate the studies (published and preprints) related to serological tests such as chemiluminescence, enzyme‐linked and lateral flow‐based point‐of‐care tests in COVID‐19 diagnosis and update the current scenario. This review aims to be an add‐on in COVID‐19 research and will contribute to congregation of the evidence for decision making.

show abstract

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Serology in Asymptomatic Healthcare Professionals: Preliminary Experience of a Tertiary Italian Academic Center

Cited by 12 publications

References 12 publications

SARS-Cov-2 viral and serological screening of staff in 31 European fertility units

SARS-Cov-2 viral and serological screening of staff in 31 European fertility units

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Antibody detection assays for COVID‐19 diagnosis: an early overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About