Seroprevalence of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibodies in children with household exposure to adults with COVID‐19: Preliminary findings

  1. Danilo Buonsenso
  2. Piero Valentini
  3. Cristina De Rose
  4. Davide Pata
  5. Dario Sinatti
  6. Domenico Speziale
  7. Rosalba Ricci
  8. Angelo Carfì
  9. Francesco Landi
  10. Vittoria Ferrari
  11. Flavio De Maio
  12. Ivana Palucci
  13. Maurizio Sanguinetti
  14. Michela Sali
  15. the Gemelli Against COVID‐19 Post‐Acute Care Study Group

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Weather and the susceptibility of children to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection is still a debated question and currently a hot topic, particularly in view of important decisions regarding opening schools. Therefore, we performed this prospective analysis of anti‐SARS‐CoV‐2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies in children with known household exposure to SARS‐CoV‐2 and compared their IgG status with the other adults exposed to the index case in the same household. A total of 30 families with a documented COVID‐19 index case were included. A total of 44 out of 80 household contacts (55%) of index patients had anti SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibodies. In particular, 16/27 (59,3%) adult partners had IgG antibodies compared with 28/53 (52,3%) of pediatric contacts ( p  > .05). Among the pediatric population, children ≥5 years of age had a similar probability of having SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibodies (21/39, 53.8%) compared to those less than 5 years old (7/14, 50%) ( p  > .05). Adult partners and children also had a similar probability of having SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibodies. Interestingly, 10/28 (35.7%) of children and 5/27 (18.5%) of adults with SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibodies were previously diagnosed as COVID‐19 cases. Our study shows evidence of a high rate of IgG antibodies in children exposed to SARS‐CoV‐2. This report has public health implications, highlighting the need to establish appropriate guidelines for school openings and other social activities related to childhood.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.10.20169912: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1002/ppul.25280
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.10.20169912: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board Statementnot detected.Randomizationnot detected.Blindingnot detected.Power Analysisnot detected.Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.10.20169912v1 on medRxiv