NPVs were acceptable for both exams, whereas the PPVs were acceptable limited to the venous bloodstream check, seeing that shown inTable 3

NPVs were acceptable for both exams, whereas the PPVs were acceptable limited to the venous bloodstream check, seeing that shown inTable 3. (harmful), whereas those of the venous bloodstream check had been 92.86% (positive) and 98.53% (bad). According to your research, these serological exams can’t be a valid option to diagnose COVID-19 infections happening. Keywords:COVID-19, healthcare employees, point-of-care, SARS-CoV-2, serological exams, seroprevalence == 1. Launch == In Dec 2019, a cluster of unidentified acute respiratory health problems happened in Wuhan town, Hubei province, China, and quickly pass on to the areas in the next a few months [1,2]. The responsible agent was identified by the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CCDC) on 7 January 2020 and was subsequently named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The disease was later named (COronaVIrus Disease 19 (COVID-19) by the World Health Organization (WHO) [3]. Due to the widespread global transmission Sodium Channel inhibitor 1 of COVID-19 and the high rate of contagiousness, the WHO declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic on 11 March 2020 [3]. Early in the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak, several healthcare workers (HCWs) were infected while providing care to patients with COVID-19 [4,5,6]. Identification and isolation of infected and potentially infectious HCWs is indeed relevant to protect them and their families and may also prevent onward transmission to patients and colleagues, as well as reduce the risk of healthcare-associated outbreaks [5]. In Italy, COVID-19 cases increased rapidly from 23 February 2020, with SARS-CoV-2 spreading mostly in northern regions, particularly in the Lombardy region, where, on 4 June 2020, the number of COVID-19 cases was 89,526 (38.26% of the total cases in Italy). The heavy impact of COVID-19 was also highlighted by the estimation of its burden through Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) computation. Indeed, by the end of April 2020, the total burden of COVID-19 in Italy was 121,449 DALYs [7]. Although, in the Lazio region, on the same date, the number of COVID-19 cases was 7764, the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli (FPG) IRCCS (Istituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico)a large teaching university hospital in Rome that was enlisted as a COVID-19 hospitalhad treated 553 COVID-19 patients, 133 of them in the intensive care unit (ICU). Based on this evidence and by agreement with the Lazio Sodium Channel inhibitor 1 region, [8] the FPG launched a seroprevalence investigation to assess the potential contagion sources among FPG HCWs. Previous studies have already discussed data on HCWs seroprevalence across different countries worldwide, indicating that isolation protocols, hygiene standards, and personal protective equipment (PPE) may prevent high levels of nosocomial transmission [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. The current diagnostic tests for COVID-19 fall into two main categories: molecular tests detecting SARS-CoV-2 RNA, and serological tests detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulins (Igs; i.e., IgG/IgM) [19]. The reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) molecular test, usually performed on nasal/oropharyngeal swab (NOS) samples, is considered the reference standard for COVID-19 diagnosis [20]. However, this test has long turnaround times (it takes over 2 to 3 3 h to generate results) and requires certified laboratories, expensive equipment, and trained technicians to operate. Limitations include potential false-negative results and precarious availability of test materials Sodium Channel inhibitor 1 [19,20]. Conversely, serological tests have been proposed as an alternative to RT-PCR in cases of acute SARS-CoV-2 infection [21]. They are cheaper and easier to implement in laboratory diagnostics for SARS-CoV-2, especially in a point-of-care (POC) format. A clear advantage of these tests over RT-PCR is that they can identify individuals previously infected by SARS-CoV-2, even if they did not undergo testing while acutely ill [19]. Considering their short time of appearance from the onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection, viral-specific IgG and IgM antibodies could indicate an ongoing infection [20]. In this regard, population-based sero-epidemiological surveys, especially in healthcare settings, Nr4a1 quantifying the proportion of individuals with anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, may be very helpful [22]. The aim of this study was to assess the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2-specific IgG.