SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Antibody Seroprevalence among UK Healthcare Professionals Working with Cancer Patients during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

  1. D.M. Favara
  2. K. McAdam
  3. A. Cooke
  4. A. Bordessa-Kelly
  5. I. Budriunaite
  6. S. Bossingham
  7. S. Houghton
  8. R. Doffinger
  9. N. Ainsworth
  10. P.G. Corrie

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1016/j.clon.2021.04.005
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.09.18.20197590: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Following consent, samples were collected during June 2020 (day 1 samples) and July 2020 (day 28 samples).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    Manufacturer claimed no cross-reactivity with antibodies against other coronaviruses (HKU1, OC43, NL63, 229E) and a sensitivity of 98·5% and specificity 97·94%.
    NL63
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data was analysed using Prism 8 (Graphpad Software) and R.
    Graphpad
    suggested: (GraphPad, RRID:SCR_000306)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    It remains possible that our and other published studies reporting declining sero-positivity over time were confounded by assay-related detection weaknesses, however all were performed using high sensitivity and specificity laboratory methods in current clinical use. Another possibility is that sustained SARS-CoV-2 antibody production is dependent on a number of factors including the dose of virus received, host genetics including immune system genotype and phenotype, and the strain of virus present in that geographic location. Interestingly, the mean time of 68.5 days from symptom resolution to study antibody testing suggests that we may have missed many participants who could have been asymptomatic but infected and whose SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels had decreased to sero-negative levels before we commenced sample collection. Our finding over the 28-day study period that 2 previously asymptomatic sero-positive participants lost their previously detectable IgG antibodies against the N-antigen whilst developing detectable IgG antibodies against the S-antigen is novel. This suggests an evolving humoral immune response in both participants, which was also noted in other day 1 sero-positive participants who manifested increased levels of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on day 28. IgG antibodies targeting SARS-COV-2 S-antigen have been reported to elicit both neutralising29,30 and non-neutralising responses.31 Additionally, N-antigen exposure has been reported to elicit a strong and viab...

    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.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.09.18.20197590v1 on medRxiv