Anti-SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening in Healthcare Workers and Its Correlation with Clinical Presentation in Tertiary Care Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal, from November 2020 to January 2021

  1. Suraj Aryal
  2. Sanskriti Pandit
  3. Sushant Pokhrel
  4. Mandira Chhusyabaga
  5. Pabitra Bista
  6. Mahendra Psd. Bhatt
  7. Dharma Datta Subedi
  8. Basista Psd. Rijal

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background. Antibody titer and the life span of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 have been found to be associated with the clinical presentation in individuals. The extent of exposure of healthcare workers and the general public to SARS-CoV-2 needs to be assessed to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, this study is an attempt in assessing the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody in health care workers. Methods. This laboratory-based cross-sectional study was performed in Manmohan Memorial Medical College and Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu from November 2020 to January 2021. A total of 185 HCWs were enrolled in this study. Their serum samples were screened for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and a structured questionnaire was administered to collect further information. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening was performed using lateral flow immunoassay. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 20. Results. Among 185 HCWs that participated in the study, 41 (22.2%) tested positive for the anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody. Of these 41 HCWs, 37 tested positive for IgG only and 4 of them tested positive for both IgM and IgG antibodies. The presence of the previous history of SARS-CoV-2 infection ( p < 0.001 ), the presence of flu-like symptoms within the last 6 months ( p < 0.001 ), and the presence of positive contact history ( p = 0.002 ) were statistically significant with the presence of the antibody among HCWs. Conclusion. Healthcare workers carry a high burden of SARS-CoV-2 infection and are at risk of acquiring infection from their workplace. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody screening among healthcare workers is highly recommended in multiple healthcare settings as it can help in monitoring transmission dynamics and evaluation of infection control policies.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1155/2022/8515051
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.01.21259884: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Healthcare workers working at MMTH were conveniently selected for the study and HCWs who refused to give informed written consent (n=16) were excluded from the study.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Antibody screening was performed from the serum using SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG Antibody Assay Kit (Colloidal Gold Method) (Zybio Inc., China) as per the manufacturer’s instructions (5µl serum was added to the sample well using a pipette followed by the addition of 2 drops of buffer), and the results were read within 10-15 minutes and the results after 15 minutes were considered invalid.
    SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical Analysis: Data were collected in Microsoft Excel 2013 and analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    This Study had some limitations.This study was time-framed, single center study with a relative small size population. It could have been better if we could use ELISA or CLIA for antibody testing.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.01.21259884v1 on medRxiv