The King’s College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at King’s Study: SARS-CoV-2 antibody response in a higher education sample

Abstract

Objective

To assess the feasibility of home antibody testing as part of large-scale study, the King’s College London Coronavirus Health and Experiences of Colleagues at King’s (KCL CHECK).

Methods

Participants of the KCL CHECK study were sent a SureScreen Diagnostics COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette to complete at home in June 2020 (phase 1) and September 2020 (phase 2). Participants were asked to upload a test result image to a study website. Test result images and sociodemographic information were analysed by the research team.

Results

A total of n=2716 participants enrolled in the KCL CHECK study, with n=2003 (73.7%) and n=1825 (69.3%) consenting and responding to phase 1 and 2. Of these, n=1882 (93.9%; phase 1) and n=1675 (91.8%; phase 2) returned a valid result. n=123 (6.5%; phase 1) and n=91 (5.4%; phase 2) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. A total of n=1488 participants provided a result in both phases, with n=57 (3.8%) testing positive for SARS- CoV-2 antibodies across both phases, suggesting a reduction in the number of positive antibody results over time. Initial comparisons showed variation by age group, gender and clinical role.

Conclusions

Our study highlights the feasibility of rapid, repeated and low-cost SARS-CoV-2 serological testing without the need for face-to-face contact.

What is already known about this subject?

Higher education institutions have a duty of care to minimise the spread and transmission of COVID-19 in its campuses, and among staff and students. The reopening of higher education buildings and campuses has brought about a mass movement of students, academics and support staff from across the UK. Serological antibody studies can assist by highlighting groups of people and behaviours associated with high risk of COVID-19.

What are the new findings?

We report a framework for SARS-CoV-2 serological antibody testing in an occupational group of postgraduate research students and current members of staff at King’s College London. Over two phases of data collection, 6.5% (phase 1) and 5.4% (phase 2) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, with only 3.8% testing positive for antibodies in both phases, suggesting a reduction in positive antibody results over time.

How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?

Our study highlights the feasibility of rapidly deploying low-cost and repeatable SARS-CoV-2 serological testing, without the need for face-to-face contact, to support the higher education system of the UK.

SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.26.21249744: (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

Antibodies
Sentences	Resources
A Rapid Immunoglobulin Test Cassette, a lateral flow immunoassay, was used to detect the presence of IgM and IgG antibodies to the ‘spike’protein, thereby providing evidence for previous infection with SARS-CoV-2.	IgG suggested: None
Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
Statistical analysis was performed in STATA 16.0.	STATA suggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)

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:

Our study has some limitations. The SureScreen Diagnostics COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette used in this study was designed for “point-of-care” testing and, at the time of testing, rapid test cassettes had been certified by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for use in laboratories using venous blood as there was insufficient data on their reliability when using capillary blood [9]. This may contribute to the level of invalid results observed and introduces additional uncertainty into the results compared with the laboratory-based validation. We relied on participants providing a clear photograph of the cassette result and recording the results within 10 minutes of applying the buffer solution, however, to overcome reporting issues, the research team developed a range of guidance documents to support participants in conducting and reporting the test results correctly which appear to have been effective. In summary, we found that it was possible to conduct mass testing of postgraduate research students and members of staff at King’s College London using serological cassette testing on two separate occasions. We plan to repeat the antibody testing at regular intervals for two purposes (i) to continue to document changes in the antibody detection in our participants and to identify any associations with self-reported physical and mental health (ii) to look for patterns that can be used to reduce transmission risk within an occupational setting, and there...

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 scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

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.

Read the original source