COVID-19 seroprevalence amongst healthcare workers: potential biases in estimating infection prevalence

3Citations
Citations of this article
33Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 serological tests are used to assess the infection seroprevalence within a population. This study aims at assessing potential biases in estimating infection prevalence amongst healthcare workers (HCWs) when different diagnostic criteria are considered. A multi-site cross-sectional study was carried out in April-September 2020 amongst 1.367 Italian HCWs. SARS-CoV-2 prevalence was assessed using three diagnostic criteria: RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab, point-of-care fingerprick serological test (POCT) result and COVID-19 clinical pathognomonic presentation. A logistic regression model was used to estimate the probability of POCT-positive result in relation to the time since infection (RT-PCR positivity). Among 1.367 HCWs, 69.2% were working in COVID-19 units. Statistically significant differences in age, role and gender were observed between COVID-19/non-COVID-19 units. Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection varied according to the criterion considered: 6.7% for POCT, 8.1% for RT-PCR, 10.0% for either POCT or RT-PCR, 9.6% for infection pathognomonic clinical presentation and 17.6% when at least one of the previous criteria was present. The probability of POCT-positive result decreased by 1.1% every 10 days from the infection. This study highlights potential biases in estimating SARS-CoV-2 point-prevalence data according to the criteria used. Although informative on infection susceptibility and herd immunity level, POCT serological tests are not the best predictors of previous COVID-19 infections for public health monitoring programmes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cordioli, M., Mirandola, M., Gios, L., Gaspari, S., Carelli, M., Lotti, V., … Tacconelli, E. (2022). COVID-19 seroprevalence amongst healthcare workers: potential biases in estimating infection prevalence. Epidemiology and Infection, 150. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822000280

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free