Association between self-reported signs and symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection in UK key workers.
Antibodies
Covid-19
Symptoms
United kingdom
serology
Journal
The Journal of infection
ISSN: 1532-2742
Titre abrégé: J Infect
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7908424
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
16
09
2020
revised:
16
01
2021
accepted:
19
03
2021
pubmed:
30
3
2021
medline:
1
5
2021
entrez:
29
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. In this study, we investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity. Cross-sectional study of three key worker streams comprising (A) Police and Fire & Rescue (2 sites) (B) healthcare workers (1 site) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive PCR result (5 sites). We collected self-reported signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and compared this with serology results from two SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays (Roche Elecsys® and EUROIMMUN). Between 01 and 26 June, we recruited 2847 individuals (Stream A: 1,247, Stream B: 1,546 and Stream C: 154). Amongst those without previous positive PCR tests, 687/2,579 (26%) reported belief they had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms; however, only 208 (30.3%) of these were seropositive on both immunoassays. Both immunoassays had high sensitivities relative to previous PCR positivity (>93%); there was also limited decline in antibody titres up to 110 days post symptom onset. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had differing symptom profiles and shorter illnesses than seropositive individuals. Non-COVID-19 respiratory illness may have been mistaken for COVID-19 during the outbreak; laboratory testing is more specific than self-reported key worker beliefs in ascertaining past COVID-19 disease.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. In this study, we investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity.
METHODS
Cross-sectional study of three key worker streams comprising (A) Police and Fire & Rescue (2 sites) (B) healthcare workers (1 site) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive PCR result (5 sites). We collected self-reported signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and compared this with serology results from two SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays (Roche Elecsys® and EUROIMMUN).
RESULTS
Between 01 and 26 June, we recruited 2847 individuals (Stream A: 1,247, Stream B: 1,546 and Stream C: 154). Amongst those without previous positive PCR tests, 687/2,579 (26%) reported belief they had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms; however, only 208 (30.3%) of these were seropositive on both immunoassays. Both immunoassays had high sensitivities relative to previous PCR positivity (>93%); there was also limited decline in antibody titres up to 110 days post symptom onset. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had differing symptom profiles and shorter illnesses than seropositive individuals.
CONCLUSION
Non-COVID-19 respiratory illness may have been mistaken for COVID-19 during the outbreak; laboratory testing is more specific than self-reported key worker beliefs in ascertaining past COVID-19 disease.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33775704
pii: S0163-4453(21)00151-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.03.019
pmc: PMC7997203
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Viral
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151-161Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_00002/11
Pays : United Kingdom
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Références
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2027-2034
pubmed: 32221519
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Dec;20(12):1401-1408
pubmed: 32758438
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jun 25;6:CD013652
pubmed: 32584464
J Clin Virol. 2020 Aug;129:104468
pubmed: 32485620
Nature. 1996 Jun 27;381(6585):751-8
pubmed: 8657279
Nat Med. 2020 Jun;26(6):845-848
pubmed: 32350462
Lancet. 2020 Jul 25;396(10246):e6-e7
pubmed: 32653078
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 7;7:CD013665
pubmed: 32633856
Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 27;56(2):
pubmed: 32430429
J Clin Med. 2020 Jul 17;9(7):
pubmed: 32708872
BMJ. 2020 Jan 22;368:l6987
pubmed: 31969318
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;20(7):758-759
pubmed: 32330441
N Engl J Med. 2020 Sep 10;383(11):1085-1087
pubmed: 32706954
Lancet. 2020 Aug 22;396(10250):535-544
pubmed: 32645347
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Sep;20(9):1014-1015
pubmed: 32304632
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May;20(5):565-574
pubmed: 32213337
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Jul;26(7):1478-1488
pubmed: 32267220
Emerg Infect Dis. 2020 Oct;26(10):2484-2487
pubmed: 32579877
Immunity. 2020 Jul 14;53(1):98-105.e5
pubmed: 32561270