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 0.7 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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"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
Comparison of attitudes toward schizophrenia among medical students and health professionals in Japan and their associated factorsamong medical students: a cross-sectional study. Histological outcome evaluation of selected brain preparation protocols for white fiber dissection. Remote Orthotic Fabrication Method Using Small Three-Dimensional Printers and Computed Tomography Data: A Technical Report. Seven cases illustrating difficulties in the treatment of MPO-ANCA-positive refractory otitis media. Subjective Difficulty with Higher-Level Functional Capacity in Community-Dwelling Older People withMild Cognitive Impairment.
×
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学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
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