RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Indicators of past COVID-19 infection status: Findings from a large occupational cohort of staff and postgraduate research students from a UK university
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.12.07.20245183
DO 10.1101/2020.12.07.20245183
A1 Katrina A. S. Davis
A1 Ewan Carr
A1 Daniel Leightley
A1 Valentina Vitiello
A1 Gabriella Bergin-Cartwright
A1 Grace Lavelle
A1 Alice Wickersham
A1 Michael H. Malim
A1 Carolin Oetzmann
A1 Catherine Polling
A1 Sharon A.M Stevelink
A1 Reza Razavi
A1 Matthew Hotopf
A1 On behalf of the KCL CHECK research team
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/10/2020.12.07.20245183.abstract
AB Background Definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 requires resources frequently restricted to the severely ill. Cohort studies must rely on surrogate indicators to define cases of COVID-19 in the community. We describe the prevalence and overlap of potential indicators including self-reported symptoms, suspicion, and routine test results, plus home antibody testing.Methods An occupational cohort of 2807 staff and postgraduate students at a large London university. Repeated surveys covering March to June 2020. Antibody test results from ‘lateral flow’ IgG/IgM cassettes in June 2020.Results 1882 participants had valid antibody test results, and 124 (7%) were positive. Core symptoms of COVID-19 were common (770 participants positive, 41%), although fewer met criteria on a symptom algorithm (n=297, 16%). Suspicion of COVID-19 (n=509, 27%) was much higher than positive external tests (n=39, 2%). Positive antibody tests were rare in people who had no suspicion (n=4, 1%) or no core symptoms (n=10, 2%). In those who reported external antibody tests, 15% were positive on the study antibody test, compared with 24% on earlier external antibody tests.Discussion Our results demonstrate the agreement between different COVID indicators. Antibody testing using lateral flow devices at home can detect asymptomatic cases and provide greater certainty to self-report; but due to weak and waning antibody responses to mild infection, may under-ascertain. Multiple indicators used in combination can provide a more complete story than one used alone. Cohort studies need to consider how they deal with different, sometimes conflicting, indicators of COVID-19 illness to understand its long-term outcomes.What is already known on this subject?Research into the effects of COVID-19 in the community is needed to respond to the pandemic, and guidance is needed as to how cohort studies measure COVID-19 infection status retrospectively, particularly given that objective testing for infection was not widely available in the first wave of COVID-19 in many countries. Retrospective testing might be possible using antibodies as a proxy for previous COVID-19 infection.What this study adds?Antibody testing is feasible in community cohorts but sensitivity may be poor. Self-report of suspected infection, recall of symptoms and results of tests received elsewhere add different aspects to the ascertainment of COVID-19 exposure. Combining self-report and objectively measured indicators may enable tailored algorithms for COVID-19 case definition that suits the aims of different research studies.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Trialn/aClinical Protocols https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.16.20132456v2 Funding 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{at}kcl.ac.uk) subject to conditions set out in the protocol