Orthogonal antibody testing for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in a non-epidemic place and time:Japan's Iwate Prefecture, May 18-31, 2020.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Fukushima Journal of Medical Science Pub Date : 2021-04-10 Epub Date: 2021-02-26 DOI:10.5387/fms.2020-21
Akihiro Nakamura, Ryoichi Sato, Sanae Ando, Natsuko Oana, Eiji Nozaki, Hideaki Endo, Yoshiharu Miyate, Jun Soma, Go Miyata
{"title":"Orthogonal antibody testing for COVID-19 among healthcare workers in a non-epidemic place and time:Japan's Iwate Prefecture, May 18-31, 2020.","authors":"Akihiro Nakamura,&nbsp;Ryoichi Sato,&nbsp;Sanae Ando,&nbsp;Natsuko Oana,&nbsp;Eiji Nozaki,&nbsp;Hideaki Endo,&nbsp;Yoshiharu Miyate,&nbsp;Jun Soma,&nbsp;Go Miyata","doi":"10.5387/fms.2020-21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Of the 47 prefectures in Japan, Iwate had the fewest cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the first diagnosis officially confirmed on July 28, 2020. A baseline serological survey of COVID-19 antibodies is essential to accurately evaluate an epidemic outbreak. The primary purpose of this study was to determine pre-epidemic prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies among healthcare workers, using two laboratory-based quantitative tests. In addition, a point-of-care (POC) qualitative test, rapid, simple, and convenient for primary care clinics, was compared with the laboratory-based tests. All antibody tests were performed on serum from 1,000 healthcare workers (mean age, 40 ± 11 years) in Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital, May 29-31, 2020. A COVID-19 case was defined as showing positive results in both laboratory-based quantitative tests. None of 1,000 samples had positive results in both of the laboratory immunoassays. The POC test showed positive results in 33 of 1,000 samples (3.3%) (95% confidence interval:2.19-4.41), but no samples were simultaneously positive in both laboratory-based tests. In conclusion, COVID-19 cases were not serologically confirmed by a baseline control study of healthcare workers at our hospital in late May, 2020. Moreover, the POC qualitative test may offer no advantage in areas with very low prevalence of COVID-19, due to higher false-positive reactions compared with laboratory-based quantitative immunoassays.</p>","PeriodicalId":44831,"journal":{"name":"Fukushima Journal of Medical Science","volume":"67 1","pages":"27-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2f/22/2185-4610-67-027.PMC8075555.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fukushima Journal of Medical Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5387/fms.2020-21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/2/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Of the 47 prefectures in Japan, Iwate had the fewest cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with the first diagnosis officially confirmed on July 28, 2020. A baseline serological survey of COVID-19 antibodies is essential to accurately evaluate an epidemic outbreak. The primary purpose of this study was to determine pre-epidemic prevalence of COVID-19 antibodies among healthcare workers, using two laboratory-based quantitative tests. In addition, a point-of-care (POC) qualitative test, rapid, simple, and convenient for primary care clinics, was compared with the laboratory-based tests. All antibody tests were performed on serum from 1,000 healthcare workers (mean age, 40 ± 11 years) in Iwate Prefectural Central Hospital, May 29-31, 2020. A COVID-19 case was defined as showing positive results in both laboratory-based quantitative tests. None of 1,000 samples had positive results in both of the laboratory immunoassays. The POC test showed positive results in 33 of 1,000 samples (3.3%) (95% confidence interval:2.19-4.41), but no samples were simultaneously positive in both laboratory-based tests. In conclusion, COVID-19 cases were not serologically confirmed by a baseline control study of healthcare workers at our hospital in late May, 2020. Moreover, the POC qualitative test may offer no advantage in areas with very low prevalence of COVID-19, due to higher false-positive reactions compared with laboratory-based quantitative immunoassays.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2020年5月18日至31日,在非疫情地点和时间对医护人员进行COVID-19正交抗体检测:日本岩手县
在日本47个县中,岩手县的2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)病例最少,第一例确诊于2020年7月28日。COVID-19抗体基线血清学调查对于准确评估疫情暴发至关重要。本研究的主要目的是通过两项基于实验室的定量测试,确定卫生保健工作者中流行前COVID-19抗体的流行情况。此外,还比较了用于初级保健诊所的快速、简单、方便的即时护理(POC)定性检测与基于实验室的检测。所有抗体检测均于2020年5月29日至31日在岩手县中心医院对1000名卫生工作者(平均年龄40±11岁)进行血清检测。新冠肺炎病例被定义为两项实验室定量检测结果均为阳性。在1000个样本中,没有一个在这两项实验室免疫分析中都呈阳性结果。POC检测结果显示,1000个样本中有33个(3.3%)呈阳性(95%置信区间:2.19-4.41),但没有样本在两种实验室检测中同时呈阳性。综上所述,2020年5月下旬在我院开展的医护人员基线对照研究未得到COVID-19病例血清学确诊。此外,与基于实验室的定量免疫测定相比,POC定性检测在COVID-19流行率极低的地区可能没有优势,因为假阳性反应更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Fukushima Journal of Medical Science
Fukushima Journal of Medical Science MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
Clinical factors associated with arteriovenous fistula patency among Japanese patients undergoing hemodialysis: a single-center retrospective study. Perioperative worsening of diastolic function after transcatheter aortic valve implantation is associated with adverse clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and severe aortic stenosis. Clonal hematopoiesis and circulating biomarkers in cardiovascular diseases. A case of late retrograde type A aortic dissection after hybrid aortic arch repair. Abdominal organ injury caused by seemingly minor blunt trauma with focal impact in children.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1