Preliminary Results of Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 at Community Clinics in Tokyo

Takita, Morihito; Matsumura, Tomoko; Yamamoto, Kana; Yamashita, Erika; Hosoda, Kazutaka; Hamaki, Tamae; Kusumi, Eiji

doi:10.1101/2020.04.29.20085449

Cited by 17 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of studies was conducted in Europe (n=31), and then in North America (n=9), Asia (n=6), and Africa (n=3). In particular, nine studies was conducted in USA [ 14 , 15 , 24 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 40 ], eight studies in Italy [ 23 , 28 , 30 , 36 , 44 , 45 , 56 , 57 ], seven studies in United Kingdom [ 16 , 17 , 20 , 25 , 33 , 59 , 61 ], five studies in Germany [ 21 , 35 , 42 , 43 , 46 ], four studies in Spain [ 31 , 38 , 49 , 52 ], and three studies in and Japan [ 53 , 58 , 62 ], Belgium [ 18 , 19 , 22 ] and China [ 47 , 48 , 51 ]. Twenty-nine studies did not report the response rate [ [15] , [16] , [17] , 20 , 24 , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [32] , [33] , [34] , 38 , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , 45 , 47 , 48 ,…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty-nine studies did not report the response rate [ [15] , [16] , [17] , 20 , 24 , [26] , [27] , [28] , [29] , [30] , [32] , [33] , [34] , 38 , [40] , [41] , [42] , [43] , 45 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , 62 ], nine studies did not report HCWs’ age [ 17 , 18 , 21 , 23 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 41 , 48 ], eight studies did not report sex distribution [ 16 , 18 , 21 , 25 , 32 , 33 , 41 , 48 ] and five studies did not report data collection time [ 17 , 36 , 43 , 48 , 56 ]. Females’ percentage ranged from 35% [ 62 ] to 88.5% [ 51 ] and was higher in 41 studies, while in three studies males’ percentage was higher. Mean age of HCWs ranged from 31.2 [ 51 ] years to 47.9 years [ 57 ], while sample size ranged from 25 [ 40 ] to 40,329 HCWs [ 14 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Galanis

Vraka

Fragkou

et al. 2021

Journal of Hospital Infection

298

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Health care workers (HCWs) represent a high risk population for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Aim To determine the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs, and to find out the factors that are associated with this seroprevalence. Methods The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines were applied for this systematic review and meta-analysis. Databases including PubMed/MEDLINE and pre-print services (medRχiv and bioRχiv) were searched from inception up to August 24, 2020. Findings Forty-nine studies, including 127,480 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. The estimated overall seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs was 8.7% (95% CI: 6.7-10.9%). Seroprevalence was higher in studies that were conducted in North America (12.7%) compared to those in Europe (8.5%), Africa (8.2), and Asia (4%). Meta-regression showed that increased sensitivity of antibodies test was associated with increased seroprevalence. The following factors were associated with seropositivity: male gender, Black, Asian, and Hispanic HCWs, work in a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) unit, patient-related work, frontline health care workers, health care assistants, personal protective equipment shortage, self-reported belief for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, previous positive polymerase chain reaction test, and household contact with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. Conclusion The seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among HCWs is high. Excellent adherence to infection prevention and control measures, sufficient and adequate personal protective equipment, and early recognition, identification and isolation of HCWs that are infected with SARS-CoV-2 are imperative to decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Galanis

Vraka

Fragkou

et al. 2021

Journal of Hospital Infection

298

308

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies only looked at COVID-19 incidence, rather than prevalence of antibodies, and were thus considered potentially unreliable as population estimates ( 19 ). The most common reason for exclusion was selection bias – many studies only looked at targeted populations in their seroprevalence data, and thus could not be used as population estimators of IFR ( [14] , [20] , [21] , [22] , [23] , [24] , [25] , [26] , [27] ). For some data, it was difficult to determine the numerator (i.e.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates

Meyerowitz-Katz

Merone

2020

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

359

272

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An important unknown during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the infection fatality rate (IFR). This differs from the case fatality rate (CFR) as an estimate of the number of deaths and as a proportion of the total number of cases, including those who are mild and asymptomatic. While the CFR is extremely valuable for experts, IFR is increasingly being called for by policy makers and the lay public as an estimate of the overall mortality from COVID-19. Methods: Pubmed, Medline, SSRN, and Medrxiv were searched using a set of terms and Boolean operators on 25/04/2020 and researched on 14/05/2020, 21/05/2020 and 16/06/2020. Articles were screened for inclusion by both authors. Meta-analysis was performed in Stata 15.1 by using the metan command, based on IFR and confidence intervals extracted from each study. Google/Google Scholar was used to assess the grey literature relating to government reports. Results: After exclusions, there were 24 estimates of IFR included in the final meta-analysis, from a wide range of countries, published between February and June 2020. The meta-analysis demonstrated a point estimate of IFR of 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%) with high heterogeneity (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on a systematic review and meta-analysis of published evidence on COVID-19 until July 2020, the IFR of the disease across populations is 0.68% (0.53%-0.82%). However, due to very high heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, it is difficult to know if this represents a completely unbiased point estimate. It is likely that, due to age and perhaps underlying comorbidities in the population, different places will experience different IFRs due to the disease. Given issues with mortality recording, it is also likely that this represents an underestimate of the true IFR figure. More research looking at age-stratified IFR is urgently needed to inform policymaking on this front.

show abstract

“…77 Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers from two community clinics in Japan observed 9.1% positivity rate in comparison to the overall rate of 5.9%. 78 Samples collected randomly from health professionals in Spain depicted 11.2% of cumulative prevalence in antibody quantification and 97-100% positive predictive value. 79 A study reported from Italy showed 5.25% seropositivity within the asymptomatic health care providers.…”

Section: A Hunt For Asymptomatic Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Antibody detection assays for COVID‐19 diagnosis: an early overview

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has not only commenced a global health emergency but also agitated various aspects of humanity. During this period of crisis, researchers over the world have ramped their efforts to constrain the disease in all possible ways, whether it is vaccination, therapy or diagnosis. Because the spread of the disease has not yet elapsed, sharing the ongoing research findings could be the key to disease control and management. An early and efficient diagnosis could leverage the outcome until a successful vaccine is developed. Both in‐house and commercial kits are the preferred molecular tests being used worldwide in the COVID‐19 diagnosis. However, the limitation of high prices and lengthy procedures impede their use for mass testing. Keeping the constant rise of infection in mind, the search for an alternative test that is cost‐effective, simple and suitable for large‐scale testing and surveillance is the need of the hour. One such alternative could be immunological tests. In the last few months, a deluge of immunological rapid tests have been developed and validated across the globe. The objective of this review is to share the diagnostic performance of various immunological assays reported so far in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 case detection. We consolidate the studies (published and preprints) related to serological tests such as chemiluminescence, enzyme‐linked and lateral flow‐based point‐of‐care tests in COVID‐19 diagnosis and update the current scenario. This review aims to be an add‐on in COVID‐19 research and will contribute to congregation of the evidence for decision making.

show abstract

Preliminary Results of Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 at Community Clinics in Tokyo

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and associated factors in healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection fatality rates

Antibody detection assays for COVID‐19 diagnosis: an early overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About