Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters

Database
Language
Document Type
Year range
1.
Infect Dis (Lond) ; 53(12): 920-929, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1341092

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous seroprevalence studies have demonstrated higher anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG seroprevalence in healthcare workers (HCWs) than in the background population during the first phase of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. These studies, however, focussed mainly on hospital employees. AIM: To perform a cross-sectional study comparing the seroprevalence of hospital-based HCWs with those employed in elderly care (home care and nursing homes). METHODS: Employees (n = 4955) in the county of Värmland, Sweden, were recruited between weeks 27 and 42 and tested for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Serological results were combined with self-reported questionnaire data. FINDINGS: IgG seroprevalence was 5.7% in the total group of HCWs, and was higher among those employed in hospital-based healthcare than among those working in elderly care (8.4% vs. 3.7%, p < .001). Being employed as an assistant nurse, working in a COVID-19 unit, and being exposed via co-workers or private acquaintances were all associated with IgG seropositivity. CONCLUSION: The difference in seroprevalence between HCWs in the two settings suggests that not only the profession but also factors in the workplace environment may be of importance. As all studied exposures were associated with IgG seropositivity, and asymptomatic infection was detected in 7.5% of participants, preventing outbreaks among HCWs is challenging. Adequate use of personal protective equipment when working with patients regardless of COVID-19 status, source control in situations with co-workers in which distancing is not possible, and routines enabling symptomatic staff to isolate pending PCR results are required to prevent healthcare-associated outbreaks of COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Antibodies, Viral , Cross-Sectional Studies , Delivery of Health Care , Health Personnel , Hospitals , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Pandemics , Prevalence , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Sweden/epidemiology
2.
Sci Rep ; 11(1): 7614, 2021 04 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1172565

ABSTRACT

We evaluated the performance of 11 SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests using a reference set of heat-inactivated samples from 278 unexposed persons and 258 COVID-19 patients, some of whom contributed serial samples. The reference set included samples with a variation in SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titers, as determined by an in-house immunofluorescence assay (IFA). The five evaluated rapid diagnostic tests had a specificity of 99.0% and a sensitivity that ranged from 56.3 to 81.6% and decreased with low IFA IgG titers. The specificity was > 99% for five out of six platform-based tests, and when assessed using samples collected ≥ 22 days after symptom onset, two assays had a sensitivity of > 96%. These two assays also detected samples with low IFA titers more frequently than the other assays. In conclusion, the evaluated antibody tests showed a heterogeneity in their performances and only a few tests performed well with samples having low IFA IgG titers, an important aspect for diagnostics and epidemiological investigations.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , COVID-19/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Antibodies, Viral/immunology , COVID-19/blood , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/economics , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Immunoglobulin G/blood , Immunoglobulin G/immunology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Sensitivity and Specificity , Time Factors , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL