抗体反应阳性的非covid医护人员:我们正在走向群体免疫吗?

S. Bhandari, Nitya Vyas, Shivankan Kakkar, Bhoopendra Patel, A. Dube, J. Gupta, N. K. Swarnkar, Sunil Kumar, Nisha Patidar
{"title":"抗体反应阳性的非covid医护人员:我们正在走向群体免疫吗?","authors":"S. Bhandari, Nitya Vyas, Shivankan Kakkar, Bhoopendra Patel, A. Dube, J. Gupta, N. K. Swarnkar, Sunil Kumar, Nisha Patidar","doi":"10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.9n.3p.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Antibody testing against SARS-CoV-2 complimentary to RT-PCR could be an effective method for its detection. Development of immunity against COVID-19 in context of reinfection and herd immunity still remains debatable and needs further elucidation. The present study was conducted to investigate the immunity status against SARS-CoV-2 in terms of IgG antibody positivity in health care workers at a tertiary care center. Methodology: This single center study was conducted at a tertiary care center, that involved 1039 healthcare workers and other staff members. The testing of all subjects was performed using ELIFAST (SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA) kits. The sample population was then segregated into RT-PCR positive and negative/status unknown groups. Groups were further segregated on the basis of IgG positivity status and the sensitivity and specificity was also calculated. Results: Among the 1039 enrolled subjects, 179 (17.23%) were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 positive and remaining were either RT-PCR negative or status unknown cases. Among 179 COVID-19 recovered subjects, 19 (10.61%) were negative for IgG, whereas 160 (89.39%) came out IgG positive. Out of 860 (82.77%) RT-PCR Negative/Status unknown, 248 (28.84%) came out IgG positive and the remaining 612 (71.16%) were negative for IgG. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 89.39 and 71.16, respectively. Conclusion: A combined approach of testing for COVID-19 using RT-PCR and rapid antibody assays could be more beneficial. Serological studies project a higher antibody response in population that compel us to think about plausibility of herd immunity. However, variability in serological response could be affected by several factors and the underlying complex immune process of COVID-19 is yet to be fully understood.","PeriodicalId":92322,"journal":{"name":"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Non-COVID Health Care Workers with Positive Antibody Responses: Are We Heading Towards Herd Immunity?\",\"authors\":\"S. Bhandari, Nitya Vyas, Shivankan Kakkar, Bhoopendra Patel, A. Dube, J. Gupta, N. K. Swarnkar, Sunil Kumar, Nisha Patidar\",\"doi\":\"10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.9n.3p.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Antibody testing against SARS-CoV-2 complimentary to RT-PCR could be an effective method for its detection. Development of immunity against COVID-19 in context of reinfection and herd immunity still remains debatable and needs further elucidation. The present study was conducted to investigate the immunity status against SARS-CoV-2 in terms of IgG antibody positivity in health care workers at a tertiary care center. Methodology: This single center study was conducted at a tertiary care center, that involved 1039 healthcare workers and other staff members. The testing of all subjects was performed using ELIFAST (SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA) kits. The sample population was then segregated into RT-PCR positive and negative/status unknown groups. Groups were further segregated on the basis of IgG positivity status and the sensitivity and specificity was also calculated. Results: Among the 1039 enrolled subjects, 179 (17.23%) were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 positive and remaining were either RT-PCR negative or status unknown cases. Among 179 COVID-19 recovered subjects, 19 (10.61%) were negative for IgG, whereas 160 (89.39%) came out IgG positive. Out of 860 (82.77%) RT-PCR Negative/Status unknown, 248 (28.84%) came out IgG positive and the remaining 612 (71.16%) were negative for IgG. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 89.39 and 71.16, respectively. Conclusion: A combined approach of testing for COVID-19 using RT-PCR and rapid antibody assays could be more beneficial. Serological studies project a higher antibody response in population that compel us to think about plausibility of herd immunity. However, variability in serological response could be affected by several factors and the underlying complex immune process of COVID-19 is yet to be fully understood.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.9n.3p.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in bioscience and clinical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.abcmed.v.9n.3p.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:与RT-PCR互补的SARS-CoV-2抗体检测是检测SARS-CoV-2的有效方法。在再感染和群体免疫的背景下,COVID-19免疫的发展仍然存在争议,需要进一步阐明。本研究对某三级保健中心医护人员进行SARS-CoV-2抗体IgG阳性免疫状况调查。方法:这项单中心研究在一家三级保健中心进行,涉及1039名保健工作者和其他工作人员。所有受试者均采用ELIFAST (SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA)试剂盒进行检测。然后将样本群体分为RT-PCR阳性和阴性/状态未知组。根据IgG阳性情况进一步分组,计算敏感性和特异性。结果:1039名入组受试者中,179例(17.23%)SARS-CoV-2阳性,其余为RT-PCR阴性或状态未知病例。179例康复者IgG阴性19例(10.61%),阳性160例(89.39%)。860例(82.77%)RT-PCR阴性/状态未知,248例(28.84%)IgG阳性,612例(71.16%)IgG阴性。总敏感性和特异性分别为89.39和71.16。结论:采用RT-PCR和快速抗体检测相结合的方法检测COVID-19可能更有益。血清学研究在人群中显示出更高的抗体反应,这迫使我们思考群体免疫的合理性。然而,血清学反应的变异性可能受到多种因素的影响,COVID-19潜在的复杂免疫过程尚未完全了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Non-COVID Health Care Workers with Positive Antibody Responses: Are We Heading Towards Herd Immunity?
Background: Antibody testing against SARS-CoV-2 complimentary to RT-PCR could be an effective method for its detection. Development of immunity against COVID-19 in context of reinfection and herd immunity still remains debatable and needs further elucidation. The present study was conducted to investigate the immunity status against SARS-CoV-2 in terms of IgG antibody positivity in health care workers at a tertiary care center. Methodology: This single center study was conducted at a tertiary care center, that involved 1039 healthcare workers and other staff members. The testing of all subjects was performed using ELIFAST (SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA) kits. The sample population was then segregated into RT-PCR positive and negative/status unknown groups. Groups were further segregated on the basis of IgG positivity status and the sensitivity and specificity was also calculated. Results: Among the 1039 enrolled subjects, 179 (17.23%) were RT-PCR positive for SARS-CoV-2 positive and remaining were either RT-PCR negative or status unknown cases. Among 179 COVID-19 recovered subjects, 19 (10.61%) were negative for IgG, whereas 160 (89.39%) came out IgG positive. Out of 860 (82.77%) RT-PCR Negative/Status unknown, 248 (28.84%) came out IgG positive and the remaining 612 (71.16%) were negative for IgG. The overall sensitivity and specificity were 89.39 and 71.16, respectively. Conclusion: A combined approach of testing for COVID-19 using RT-PCR and rapid antibody assays could be more beneficial. Serological studies project a higher antibody response in population that compel us to think about plausibility of herd immunity. However, variability in serological response could be affected by several factors and the underlying complex immune process of COVID-19 is yet to be fully understood.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信