Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 8(12): ofab524, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1566042


BACKGROUND: Protests and police fieldwork provide a high-exposure environment for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections. In this cross-sectional analysis, we investigated the seroprevalence among a police cohort, and sociodemographic, work, and health-related factors associated with seropositivity. METHODS: Study participants were invited for serological testing of SARS-CoV-2 and to complete online questionnaires. Serum neutralization titers toward the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (expressing D614G) and the Alpha and Beta variants were measured in seropositive study participants. RESULTS: A total of 978 police personnel representing 35% of the entire staff participated from February to March 2021. The seroprevalence was 12.9%. It varied by geographic region, ranged from 9% to 13.5% in 3 regions, including the city; and was 22% in Bernese Seeland/Jura with higher odds for seropositivity (odds ratio [OR], 2.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.28-4.44], P=.006). Job roles with mainly office activity were associated with a lower risk of seropositivity (OR, 0.33 [95% CI, .14-.77], P=.010). Self-reported compliance with mask wearing during working hours was 100%; 45% of seropositive vs 5% of seronegative participants (P<.001) reported having had contact with a proven coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) case living in the same household prior to serological testing. The level of serum antibody titers correlated with neutralization capacity. Antibodies derived from natural SARS-CoV-2 infection effectively neutralized the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, but were less effective against the Alpha and Beta variants. CONCLUSIONS: The seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies of police officers was comparable to that reported in the general population, suggesting that the personal protective equipment of the police is effective, and that household contacts are the leading transmission venues. The level of serum antibody titers, in particular that of anti-spike antibodies, correlated well with neutralization capacity. Low antibody titers acquired from natural infection were not effective against variants. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04643444.

J Virol Methods ; 297: 114271, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373176


The Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd, Rotkreuz, Switzerland) has been developed for the detection of antibodies to the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike (S) protein. We evaluated the assay performance using samples from seven sites in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. For specificity and sensitivity analyses, 7880 presumed negative pre-pandemic samples and 827 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-confirmed single or sequential samples from 272 different patients were tested, respectively. The overall specificity and sensitivity (≥14 days post-PCR) for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay were 99.95% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 99.87-99.99; 7876/7880) and 97.92% (95% CI: 95.21-99.32; 235/240), respectively. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay had significantly higher specificity compared with the LIAISON® SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.95% [2032/2033] vs 98.82% [2009/2033]), ADVIA Centaur® SARS-CoV-2 Total (100% [928/928] vs 86.96% [807/928]), ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.97% [2931/2932] vs 99.69% [2923/2932]), iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% [928/928] vs 99.57% [924/928]), and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% [903/903] vs 97.45% [880/903]) and IgA (100.00% [895/895] vs 95.75% [857/895]) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S immunoassay had significantly higher sensitivity (≥14 days post-PCR) compared with the ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (98.70% [76/77] vs 87.01% [67/77]), iFlash-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% [76/76] vs 93.42% [71/76]) and IgM (100.00% [76/76] vs 35.53% [27/76]), and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (98.26% [113/115] vs 93.91% [108/115]) assays. Therefore, the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S assay demonstrated a reliable performance across various sample populations for the detection of anti-S antibodies.

COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Antibodies, Viral , Humans , Immunoassay , Sensitivity and Specificity
Infect Dis Ther ; 10(4): 2381-2397, 2021 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1347447


INTRODUCTION: We performed a multicentre evaluation of the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (Roche Diagnostics), an assay utilising a recombinant protein representing the nucleocapsid (N) antigen, for the in vitro qualitative detection of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: Specificity was evaluated using serum/plasma samples from blood donors and routine diagnostic specimens collected before September 2019 (i.e., presumed negative for SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies); sensitivity was evaluated using samples from patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Point estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Method comparison was performed versus commercially available assays. RESULTS: Overall specificity for the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay (n = 9575) was 99.85% (95% CI 99.75-99.92): blood donors (n = 6714; 99.82%), routine diagnostic specimens (n = 2861; 99.93%), pregnant women (n = 2256; 99.91%), paediatric samples (n = 205; 100.00%). The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated significantly higher specificity versus LIAISON SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG (99.71% vs. 98.48%), EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 94.87%), ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (100.00% vs. 87.32%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM (100.00% vs. 99.58%) assays, and comparable specificity to ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (99.75% vs. 99.65%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (100.00% vs. 100.00%) assays. Overall sensitivity for Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay samples drawn at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation (n = 219) was 93.61% (95% CI 89.51-96.46). No statistically significant differences in sensitivity were observed between the Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay versus EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG (90.32% vs. 95.16%) and ARCHITECT SARS-CoV-2 IgG (84.81% vs. 87.34%) assays. The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay showed significantly lower sensitivity versus ADVIA Centaur SARS-CoV-2 Total (85.19% vs. 95.06%) and iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgG (86.25% vs. 93.75%) assays, but significantly higher sensitivity versus the iFlash SARS-CoV-2 IgM assay (86.25% vs. 33.75%). CONCLUSION: The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay demonstrated very high specificity and high sensitivity in samples collected at least 14 days post-PCR confirmation of SARS-CoV-2 infection, supporting its use to aid in determination of previous exposure to SARS-CoV-2.