Search

• Examines consecutive SARS-CoV-2 antibody seroprevalence changes among hospital staff. • Study found that IgG and IgM antibody seroprevalence among hospital staff decreased. • Participants' seroprevalence consistent with confirmed COVID-19 cases in the area. • Constant follow-up surveys of antibody titers among hospital staff had several merits. Performing a cohort-based SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay is crucial for understanding infection status and future decision-making. The objective of this study was to examine consecutive antibody seroprevalence changes among hospital staff, a high-risk population. A two-time survey was performed in May and October 2020 for 545 hospital staff to investigate the changes in the results of the rapid kit test and chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA). The seroprevalence of each assay was summarized at both the survey periods. The proportion of seropositive individuals in the CLIA for each survey period and the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Central Fukushima were then compared. We chose 515 participants for the analysis. The proportion of IgM seroprevalence in CLIA increased from 0.19% in May to 0.39% in October, and IgG seroprevalence decreased from 0.97% in May to 0.39% in October. The proportion of IgM seroprevalence in the rapid kit test decreased from 7.96% in May to 3.50% in October, and IgG seroprevalence decreased from 7.77% in May to 2.14% in October. The IgG and IgM antibody seroprevalence among hospital staff in rural Central Fukushima decreased; the seroprevalence among hospital staff was consistent with the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the Central Fukushima area. Although it is difficult to interpret the results of the antibody assay in a population with a low prior probability, constant follow-up surveys of antibody titers among hospital staff had several merits in obtaining a set of criteria regarding the accuracy of measures against COVID-19 and estimating the COVID-19 infection status among hospital staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between antibody assays. • Serological assays required independent evaluation in the target populations. • It is crucial to determine in advance how to handle IgM positive participants. • The appropriateness of performing an antibody assay depends on its purpose. The objective of this study was to investigate the differences between the results of two serology assays for detection of COVID-19 among medical staff, who are at higher risks of infection. The immunochromatography (ICG) rapid test kit and the chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) quantitative antibody test were performed. The differences in IgM and IgG antibody prevalence in different serological assays were descriptively analyzed. A total of 637 participants were included in this research. Two staff were IgM positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test (cutoff value: 10 AU/ml) of 51 staff who were IgM positive in the rapid test kit. Six staff were IgG positive in the CLIA quantitative antibody test of 56 staff who were IgG positive in the rapid test kit. The proportion of antibody positive staff differed greatly between the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test. There was a vast difference in the proportions of IgG and IgM antibody positive staff in the rapid test kit and the CLIA quantitative antibody test results. The results from the only rapid test kit might have to be interpreted with caution. Further studies to evaluate antibody testing accuracy are required to promote the understanding of each assay's characteristics and determine their purposes in each community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Serological assays able to detect anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are of great interest. • Most of them focus on IgM and IgG, although IgA are important in mucosal immunity. • The antibody manufacturing relies on recombinant antigens with non-native epitopes. • This is the first technique based on native inactivated SARS-CoV-2 antigens. • This kit identifies more positive samples than those using recombinant antigens. In addition to molecular testing, there is evolving interest for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies serologic assays. Majority of them focus on IgM/IgG despite IgA important role in mucosal immunity. A simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgG/IgM immunoassay, performed on an automated instrument by ELISA kit coated with native inactivated SARS-CoV-2, was detected on two control groups (negative swab healthcare workers; pre-pandemic healthy or with other viral infections individuals) and on two COVID-19 patient groups (early and late infection). Specificities were 100% in all groups, indicating no cross-reactivity with other infectious or pre-pandemic sera. Sensitivities were 94% in early infection group and 97% in total positive patient group, reaching 100% in late infection group. To our knowledge, this is the first technique based on native SARS-CoV-2. It is able to identify more positive samples than kits using recombinant antigens, therefore virus native epitopes as well as simultaneous anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgA/IgM/IgG detection could help to contain COVID-19 spreading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]