RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Self assessment overestimates historical COVID-19 disease relative to sensitive serological assays: cross sectional study in UK key workers
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.08.19.20178186
DO 10.1101/2020.08.19.20178186
A1 Ranya Mulchandani
A1 Sian Taylor-Philips
A1 Hayley E Jones
A1 AE Ades
A1 Ray Borrow
A1 Ezra Linley
A1 Peter D Kirwan
A1 Richard Stewart
A1 Philippa Moore
A1 John Boyes
A1 Anil Hormis
A1 Neil Todd
A1 Antoanela Colda
A1 Ian Reckless
A1 Tim Brooks
A1 Andre Charlett
A1 Matthew Hickman
A1 Isabel Oliver
A1 David Wyllie
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/22/2020.08.19.20178186.abstract
AB Objective To measure the association between self-reported signs and symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity.Design Cross-sectional study of three key worker groups.Setting Six acute NHS hospitals and two Police and Fire and Rescue sites in England.Participants Individuals were recruited from three streams: (A) Police and Fire and Rescue services (n = 1147), (B) healthcare workers (n = 1546) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive virus detection (n = 154).Main outcome measures Detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in plasma.Results 943 of the 2847 participants (33%) reported belief they had had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms (including 152 from Stream C). Among individuals reporting COVID-19 compatible symptoms, 466 (49%) were seronegative on both Nucleoprotein (Roche) and Spike-protein (EUROIMMUN) antibody assays. However, among the 268 individuals with prior positive SARS-CoV-2 tests, of whom 96% reported symptoms with onset a median of 63 days (IQR 52 – 75 days) prior to venesection, Roche and EUROIMMUN assays had 96.6% (95% CI 93.7% – 98.2%) and 93.3% (95% CI 89.6% – 95.7%) sensitivity respectively. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had significantly earlier symptom onset dates than the symptomatic seropositive individuals, shorter illness duration and a much lower anosmia reporting frequency.Conclusions Self-reported belief of COVID-19 was common among our frontline worker cohort. About half of these individuals were seronegative, despite a high sensitivity of serology in this cohort, at least in individuals with previous positive PCR results. This is compatible with non-COVID-19 respiratory disease during the COVID-19 outbreak having been commonly mistaken for COVID-19 within the key worker cohort studied.What is already known on this topic Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; however, how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. There are limited studies that investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity.What this study adds About one third of a large cohort of key frontline workers believed they had had COVID-19 infection. In around half of these there was no serological evidence of infection. Individuals who believed they had previous infection, but were seronegative, differed systematically from the seropositive individuals: disordered sense of taste and smell was less common, illness duration was shorter, and reported onset of illness commonly predated the main COVID-19 epidemic in the UK.Although some individuals with previous COVID-19 may be seronegative, among symptomatic individuals who had PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 within our cohort, sensitivity of the two immunoassays used (Roche Elecsys ® and EUROIMMUN) exceeded 90%. Together, these data indicate that many key workers may falsely believe, based on symptomatic illness experienced during 2020, that they have had COVID-19. Further research investigating the relationship between antibody detection and protection from future infection, with and without a history of COVID-19 disease, will help define the role serological testing can play in clinical practice.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe study was funded by Public Health England and supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Portfolio.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:The study was approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee (Health Research Authority, IRAS 284980) on 02/06/2020 and PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group (REGG, NR0198) on 21/05/2020.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.YesAll data is stored securely on a secure PHE server. Data is available on reasonable request via PHE's Office of Data Release (ODR).