Six-month antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 in healthcare workers assessed by virus neutralisation and commercial assays
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
We conducted a prospective study in healthcare workers (n=296) of the University Hospital of Lyon, France. Serum samples (n=296) collected six months after disease onset were tested using three commercial assays: the Wantai Ab assay detecting total antibodies against the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the S protein, the bioMerieux Vidas assay detecting IgG to the RBD and the Abbott Architect assay detecting IgG to the N protein. The neutralising antibody (NAb) titre was also determined for all samples with a virus neutralisation assay (VNA) using live virus. The positivity rate was 100% with the Wantai assay, 84.8% with the bioMerieux assay and 55.4% with the Abbott assay. Only 51% of HCWs were positive for the presence of NAb. Less than 10 % of HCWs had a NAb titre greater than 80. At a neutralising titre of 80, the area under the curves [IC 95%] was 0.71 [0.62-0.81], 0.75 [0.65-0.85] and 0.95 [0.92-0.97] for Wantai, Abbott and Vidas respectively. The data presented herein suggest that commercial assays detecting antibodies against the N protein must not be used in long-term seroprevalence surveys while the Wantai assay could be useful for this purpose. VNA should remain the gold standard to assess the protective antibody response, but some commercial assays could be used as first-line screening of long-term presence of NAb.
Article activity feed
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.08.20245811: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:
Identifier Status Title NCT04341142 Recruiting Assessment of … SciScore for 10.1101/2020.12.08.20245811: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement not detected. Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not 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: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:
Identifier Status Title NCT04341142 Recruiting Assessment of Serological Techniques for Screening Patients … 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.
-
