Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
J Immunol Methods ; 513: 113420, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2165569

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Serologic analysis is an important tool towards assessing the humoral response to COVID-19 infection and vaccination. Numerous serologic tests and platforms are currently available to support this line of testing. Two broad antibody testing categories are point-of-care lateral flow immunoassays and semi-quantitative immunoassays performed in clinical laboratories, which typically require blood collected from a finger-stick and a standard venipuncture blood draw, respectively. This study evaluated the use of dried blood spot (DBS) collections as a sample source for COVID-19 antibody testing using an automated clinical laboratory test system. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-four participants in the BLAST COVID-19 seroprevalence study (NCT04349202) were recruited at the time of a scheduled blood draw to have an additional sample taken via finger stick as a DBS collection. Using the EUROIMMUN assay to assess SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG status, DBS specimens were tested on 7, 14, 21, and 28 days post- collection and compared to the reference serum sample obtained from a blood draw for the BLAST COVID-19 study. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 anti-spike IgG status from DBS collections demonstrated high concordance with serum across all time points (7-28 days). However, the semi-quantitative value from DBS collections was lower on average than that from serum, resulting in increased uncertainty around the equivocal-to-positive analytical decision point. CONCLUSIONS: DBS collections can be substituted for venipuncture when assaying for COVID-19 IgG antibody, with samples being stable for at least 28 days at room temperature. Finger-stick sampling can therefore be advantageous for testing large populations for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies without the need for phlebotomists or immediate processing of samples. We have high confidence in serostaus determination from DBS collections, although the reduced semi-quantitative value may cause some low-level positives to fall into the equivocal or even negative range.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , Antibodies, Viral , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19 Serological Testing , COVID-19 Testing , Dried Blood Spot Testing , Immunoglobulin G , Phlebotomy , SARS-CoV-2 , Sensitivity and Specificity , Seroepidemiologic Studies
2.
Public Health Rep ; 137(6): 1227-1234, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2020754

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Because health care personnel (HCP) are potentially at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, high vaccination rates in this population are essential. The objective of this study was to assess vaccination status, barriers to vaccination, reasons for vaccine acceptance, and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination among HCP. METHODS: We conducted an anonymous online survey at a large US health care system from April 9 through May 4, 2021, to assess COVID-19 vaccination status and endorsement of reasons for acceptance and concerns related to vaccination (based on selections from a provided list). RESULTS: A total of 4603 HCP (12.2% response rate) completed the survey, 3947 (85.7%) had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine at the time of the survey, and 550 (11.9%) reported no plans to receive the vaccine. Unvaccinated HCP were 30 times more likely than vaccinated HCP to endorse religious or personal beliefs as a vaccine concern (odds ratio = 30.95; 95% CI, 21.06-45.48) and 15 times more likely to believe that personal vaccination is not needed if enough others are vaccinated (odds ratio = 14.99; 95% CI, 10.84-20.72). The more reasons endorsed for vaccination (ß = 0.60; P < .001), the higher the likelihood of having received the vaccine. However, the number of concerns about COVID-19 vaccine was not related to vaccination status (ß = 1.01; P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reasons for vaccination acceptance and concerns about vaccination need to be considered to better understand behavioral choices related to COVID-19 vaccination among HCP, because these beliefs may affect vaccination advocacy, responses to vaccine mandates, and promotion of COVID-19 vaccine boosters.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Influenza Vaccines , Influenza, Human , Attitude of Health Personnel , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines , Health Personnel , Humans , Influenza, Human/prevention & control , Vaccination
3.
J Community Health ; 47(3): 519-529, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1739386

ABSTRACT

To identify psychological antecedents of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among healthcare personnel (HCP). We surveyed 4603 HCP to assess psychological antecedents of their vaccination decisions (the '5 Cs') for vaccines in general and for COVID-19 vaccines. Most HCP accept vaccines, but many expressed hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines for the psychological antecedents of vaccination: confidence (vaccines are effective), complacency (vaccines are unnecessary), constraints (difficult to access), calculation (risks/benefits), collective responsibility (need for vaccination when others vaccinate). HCP who were hesitant only about COVID-19 vaccines differed from HCP who were consistently hesitant: those with lower confidence were more likely to be younger and women, higher constraints were more likely to have clinical positions, higher complacency were more likely to have recently cared for COVID-19 patients, and lesser collective responsibility were more likely to be non-white. These results can inform interventions to encourage uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in HCP.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination Hesitancy
4.
Clin Infect Dis ; 73(Suppl 2): S154-S162, 2021 07 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1334204

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although the risk of exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is higher for frontline healthcare workers, not all personnel have similar risks. Determining infection rate is difficult due to the limits on testing and the high rate of asymptomatic individuals. Detection of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 may be useful for determining prior exposure to the virus and assessing mitigation strategies, such as isolation, masks, and other protective equipment. METHODS: An online assessment that included demographic, clinical, and exposure information and a blood sample was collected from 20 614 participants out of ~43 000 total employees at Beaumont Health, which includes 8 hospitals distributed across the Detroit metropolitan area in southeast Michigan. The presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was determined using the EUROIMMUN assay. RESULTS: A total of 1818 (8.8%) participants were seropositive between April 13 and May 28, 2020. Among the seropositive individuals, 44% reported that they were asymptomatic during the month prior to blood collection. Healthcare roles such as phlebotomy, respiratory therapy, and nursing/nursing support exhibited significantly higher seropositivity. Among participants reporting direct exposure to a Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive individual, those wearing an N95/PAPR mask had a significantly lower seropositivity rate (10.2%) compared to surgical/other masks (13.1%) or no mask (17.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Direct contact with COVID-19 patients increased the likelihood of seropositivity among employees but study participants who wore a mask during COVID-19 exposures were less likely to be seropositive. Additionally, a large proportion of seropositive employees self-reported as asymptomatic. (Funded by Beaumont Health and by major donors through the Beaumont Health Foundation). CLINICALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT04349202.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Antibodies, Viral , Health Personnel , Humans , Michigan , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL