Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Assessment and Comparison of Two Serological Approaches for the Surveillance of Health Workers Exposed to SARS-CoV-2.
Russo, Antonio; Calò, Federica; Di Fraia, Alessandra; Starace, Mario; Minichini, Carmine; Gentile, Valeria; Angelillo, Italo Francesco; Coppola, Nicola.
  • Russo A; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Calò F; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Di Fraia A; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Starace M; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Minichini C; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Gentile V; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Angelillo IF; Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
  • Coppola N; Department of Mental Health and Public Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, University of Campania, Naples, Italy.
Infect Drug Resist ; 13: 4501-4507, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-999914
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

AIM:

The aim of the present study was to assess the diagnostic performance of an LFA compared with an ELISA test in a cohort of HWs operating in a COVID-19 unit of a teaching hospital in southern Italy.

METHODS:

We performed an observational, prospective, interventional study including 65 COVID-19 unit personnel. On a total of 196 serum samples (at least 2 serum samples for each HW), LFA and ELISA tests for SARS-COV-2 IgG and IgM were performed. Also, 32 serum samples of SARS-CoV-2 RNA positive patients at least 21 days before sampling, and 30 serum samples of patients obtained up to November 2019, before COVID-19 outbreak in China, were used as positive and negative controls, respectively.

FINDINGS:

Of the 65 HWs enrolled, 6 were positive in LFA; overall, of the 196 serum samples, 20 were positive in LFA. All ELISA tests performed on serum samples collected from HWs were negative. The specificity of LFAs was 90.77% considering the 65 HWs and 89.80% considering all the 196 health workers serum samples analyzed. Considering the data on HWs, ELISA test for SARS-COV-2 antibodies showed a specificity of 100%, including all the 196 serum samples collected, and 100% including the 65 HWs. The ELISA and LFAs performed after 21 days last COVID-19 patient was discharged were all negative.

CONCLUSION:

LFAs compared to ELISA tests result in less specificity, considering COVID-19 negative personnel and patients. Thus, LFAs seem to be not adequate in the active surveillance of HWs.
Keywords

Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Journal: Infect Drug Resist Year: 2020 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: IDR.S282652

Similar

MEDLINE

...
LILACS

LIS


Full text: Available Collection: International databases Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Cohort study / Diagnostic study / Observational study / Prognostic study Language: English Journal: Infect Drug Resist Year: 2020 Document Type: Article Affiliation country: IDR.S282652