4.5 Article

Stringent thresholds in SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays lead to under-detection of mild infections

Journal

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-021-05878-2

Keywords

SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Serology; Antibodies; Anosmia; Ageusia

Funding

  1. UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care
  2. National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance at Oxford University
  3. Public Health England (PHE) [HPRU-2012-10041]
  4. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford
  5. Medical Research Council [MR/N00065X/1]
  6. Wellcome Intermediate Fellowship [110110/Z/15/Z]
  7. SGC, a registered charity [1097737]
  8. AbbVie
  9. Bayer Pharma AG
  10. Boehringer Ingelheim
  11. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  12. Eshelman Institute for Innovation
  13. Genome Canada through Ontario Genomics Institute [OGI-055]
  14. Innovative Medicines Initiative (EU/EFPIA) [ULTRA-DD grant] [115766]
  15. Janssen
  16. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
  17. MSD
  18. Novartis Pharma AG
  19. Pfizer
  20. Sao Paulo Research Foundation-FAPESP
  21. Takeda
  22. Wellcome
  23. Kennedy Trust for Rheumatology Research
  24. Schmidt Foundation
  25. Wellcome Trust [214560/Z/18/Z]
  26. MRC [MR/N00065X/1, MC_UU_00008/6] Funding Source: UKRI
  27. Wellcome Trust [214560/Z/18/Z] Funding Source: Wellcome Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated quantitative IgG responses in a cohort of healthcare workers in Oxford, UK, finding that following mild SARS-CoV-2 infection, a certain percentage of individuals may have negative immunoassay results. This has implications for epidemiological analyses and result interpretation in individuals with a high pre-test probability.
BackgroundThresholds for SARS-CoV-2 antibody assays have typically been determined using samples from symptomatic, often hospitalised, patients. In this setting the sensitivity and specificity of the best performing assays can both exceed 98%. However, antibody assay performance following mild infection is less clear.MethodsWe assessed quantitative IgG responses in a cohort of healthcare workers in Oxford, UK, with a high pre-test probability of Covid-19, in particular the 991/11,475(8.6%) who reported loss of smell/taste. We use anosmia/ageusia and other risk factors as probes for Covid-19 infection potentially undiagnosed by immunoassays by investigating their relationship with antibody readings either side of assay thresholds.ResultsThe proportion of healthcare workers reporting anosmia/ageusia increased at antibody readings below diagnostic thresholds using an in-house ELISA (n =9324) and the Abbott Architect chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA; n =11,324): 426/906 (47%) reported anosmia/ageusia with a positive ELISA, 59/449 (13.1%) with high-negative and 326/7969 (4.1%) with low-negative readings. Similarly, by CMIA, 518/1093 (47.4%) with a positive result reported anosmia/ageusia, 106/686 (15.5%) with a high-negative and 358/9563 (3.7%) with a low-negative result. Adjusting for the proportion of staff reporting anosmia/ageusia suggests the sensitivity of both assays in mild infection is lower than previously reported: Oxford ELISA 89.8% (95%CI 86.6-92.8%) and Abbott CMIA 79.3% (75.9-82.7%).ConclusionFollowing mild SARS-CoV-2 infection 10-30% of individuals may have negative immunoassay results. While lowered diagnostic thresholds may result in unacceptable specificity, our findings have implications for epidemiological analyses and result interpretation in individuals with a high pre-test probability. Samples from mild PCR-confirmed infections should be included in SARS-CoV-2 immunoassay evaluations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available