%0 Journal Article %A Katrina A. S. Davis %A Ewan Carr %A Daniel Leightley %A Valentina Vitiello %A Gabriella Bergin-Cartwright %A Grace Lavelle %A Alice Wickersham %A Michael H. Malim %A Carolin Oetzmann %A Catherine Polling %A Sharon A.M Stevelink %A Reza Razavi %A Matthew Hotopf %A On behalf of the KCL CHECK research team %T Indicators of COVID-19 status in a cohort study of university staff and post-graduate research students, including results from home antibody testing %D 2020 %R 10.1101/2020.12.07.20245183 %J medRxiv %P 2020.12.07.20245183 %X Background Cohort studies of people with a history of COVID-19 infection and controls will be essential to understand the epidemiology of long-term effects. However, clinical diagnosis requires resources that are frequently restricted to the severely ill. Cohort studies may have to rely on surrogate indicators of COVID-19 illness. We describe the prevalence and overlap of five potential indicators: self-reported suspicion, self-reported core symptoms, symptom algorithm, self-reported routine test results, and home antibody testing.Methods An occupational cohort of staff and postgraduate students at a large London university who participated in surveys and antibody testing. Self-report items cover March to June 2020 and antibody test results from ‘lateral flow’ IgG/IgM antibody test cassettes sent to participants in June 2020.Results Valid antibody test results were returned for 1882 participants. Of the COVID-19 indicators, the highest prevalence was core symptoms (770 participants positive, 41%), followed by participant suspicion of infection (n=509, 27%), a symptom algorithm (n=297, 16%), study antibody positive test (n=124, 6.6%) and self-report of a positive external test (n=39, 2.1%). Study antibody positive result was rare in people who had no suspicion they had experienced COVID-19 (n=4, 0.7%) or did not experience core symptoms (n=10, 1.6%). When study antibody test results were compared with earlier external antibody results in those who had reported them, the study antibody results agreed in 88% cases (kappa= 0.636), with a lower proportion testing positive on this occasion (proportion with antibodies detected 15% in study test vs 24% in external testing).Discussion Our results demonstrate that there is some agreement between different COVID indicators, but that they a more complete story when used together. Antibody testing may provide greater certainty and be one of the only ways to detect asymptomatic cases, but is likely to under-ascertain due to weak antibody responses to mild infection, which wane over time. Cohort studies will need to review how they deal with different and sometimes conflicting indicators of COVID-19 illness in order to study the long-term outcomes of COVID-19 infection and related impacts.What is already known on this subject?Research into the effects of COVID-19 in the community is needed to respond to the pandemic. Objective testing has not been widely available and accuracy may not be high when carried out in retrospect. Many cohort studies are considering how best to measure COVID-19 infection status.What this study adds?Antibody testing is feasible, but it is possible that sensitivity may be poor. Each indicator included added different aspects to the ascertainment of COVID-19 exposure. Using combinations of self-reported and objectively measured variables, it may be possible to tailor COVID-19 indicators to the situation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialn/aFunding StatementThis study was funded by Kings College London. This paper represents independent research supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. MHM is a Wellcome Trust Investigator.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethical approval has been gained from Kings College London Psychiatry, Nursing and Midwifery Research Ethics Committee (HR-19/20-18247)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesResearchers may access pseudonymised data by application to the Principal Investigators (Professor Matthew Hotopf, Professor Reza Razavi and Dr Sharon Stevelink, email: check@kcl.ac.uk) subject to conditions set out in the protocol %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/12/07/2020.12.07.20245183.full.pdf