Department Emergency Medicine, George Washington University School of Medicine, Washington, DC, USA.
Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington University School of Public Health, Washington, DC, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2021 Feb;40:27-31. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2020.11.064. Epub 2020 Dec 2.
The COVID-19 pandemic has spread through the US during the last few months exposing healthcare providers to possible infection. Here we report testing of emergency department (ED) healthcare providers (HCP) for exposure to COVID-19 through lateral flow point of care (POC) and lab-based enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and RTq-PCR for evidence of acute infection. 138 ED HCP were tested between May 26th (approximately one month after the peak of COVID-19 first wave of cases) and June 14th. Enrolled ED HCP represented about 70% of the total ED HCP workforce during the study period. Subjects were tested with a POC COVID-19 antibody test, and standard ELISA performed by a university-based research lab. Subjects also provided a mid-turbinate swab and a saliva specimen for RTq-PCR. All subjects provided demographic information, past medical history, information about personal protective equipment (PPE) use, COVID-19 symptoms, as well as potential COVID-19 exposures during the previous 4 weeks, both in the ED, and outside the clinical setting. None of the HCP had positive RT-PCR results; 7 HCP (5%) had positive IgG for COVID-19; there was strong agreement between the lab-based ELISA (reference test) and the POC Ab test (P ≤ 0.0001). For the POC Ab test there were no false negatives and only one false positive among the 138 participants. There was no significant difference in demographic/ethnic variables, past medical history, hours worked in the ED, PPE use, or concerning exposures between seropositive and seronegative individuals. Moreover, there was no significant difference in reported symptoms between the two groups during the previous four weeks. The rate of COVID-19 seroconversion in our ED was 5% during the month following the pandemic's first wave. Based on questionnaire responses, differences in demographics/ethnicity, medical history, COVID-19 exposures, and PPE use were not associated with ED HCP having been infected with SARS-CoV-2. In the setting of our limited cohort of subjects the COVID-19 POC Ab test performed comparably to the ELISA lab-based standard.
在过去的几个月里,COVID-19 在美国蔓延,使医疗保健提供者面临可能的感染。在这里,我们报告了通过横向流动即时检测 (POC) 和基于实验室的酶联免疫吸附测定 (ELISA) 以及 RTq-PCR 对急诊科 (ED) 医疗保健提供者 (HCP) 进行 COVID-19 暴露检测。在 5 月 26 日(大约是 COVID-19 第一波病例高峰后一个月)至 6 月 14 日期间,对 138 名 ED HCP 进行了检测。参与研究的 ED HCP 代表了研究期间 ED HCP 劳动力的约 70%。研究对象接受了 POC COVID-19 抗体检测和大学研究实验室进行的标准 ELISA 检测。研究对象还提供了鼻中隔拭子和唾液样本进行 RTq-PCR。所有研究对象均提供了人口统计学信息、既往病史、个人防护设备 (PPE) 使用信息、COVID-19 症状以及过去 4 周内在 ED 和临床环境之外的潜在 COVID-19 暴露情况。所有 HCP 的 RT-PCR 结果均为阴性;7 名 HCP (5%) COVID-19 抗体 IgG 阳性;实验室 ELISA (参考测试) 和 POC Ab 测试之间具有很强的一致性(P ≤ 0.0001)。对于 POC Ab 测试,在 138 名参与者中没有假阴性,只有一个假阳性。在血清阳性和血清阴性个体之间,人口统计学/种族变量、既往病史、在 ED 工作的小时数、PPE 使用或相关暴露情况没有显著差异。此外,在过去四周内,两组报告的症状之间也没有显著差异。在大流行第一波过后的一个月内,我们 ED 的 COVID-19 血清转化率为 5%。根据问卷调查结果,在人口统计学/种族、既往病史、COVID-19 暴露和 PPE 使用方面的差异与 ED HCP 是否感染 SARS-CoV-2 无关。在我们的有限研究对象队列中,COVID-19 POC Ab 测试与基于实验室的 ELISA 标准相比表现相当。