Quantitative SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening of Healthcare Workers in the Southern Part of Kyoto City During the COVID-19 Pre-pandemic Period

This article has been Reviewed by the following groups

Read the full article See related articles

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with a heavy burden on the mental and physical health of patients, regional healthcare resources, and global economic activity. While understanding of the incidence and case-fatality rates has increased, there are limited data concerning seroprevalence of antibodies against the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in healthcare workers during the pre-pandemic period. This study aimed to quantitatively evaluate seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in healthcare workers in the southern part of Kyoto city, Japan.

Methods: We prospectively recruited healthcare workers from a single hospital between April 10 and April 20, 2020. We collected serum samples from these participants and quantitatively evaluated SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody levels using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays.

Results: Five (5.4%), 15 (16.3%), and 72 (78.3%) participants showed positive, borderline, and negative serum SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody status, respectively. We found the mean titer associated with each antibody status (overall, positive, borderline, and negative) was clearly differentiated. Participants working at the otolaryngology department and/or with a history of seasonal common cold symptoms had a significantly higher SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody titer ( p = 0.046, p = 0.046, respectively).

Conclusions: Five (5.4%) and 15 (16.3%) participants tested positive and borderline, respectively, for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody during the COVID-19 pre-pandemic period. These rates were higher than expected, based on government situation reports. These findings suggest that COVID-19 had already spread within the southern part of Kyoto city at the early stage of the pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. SciScore for 10.1101/2020.05.12.20098962: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Ethical approval: This study was approved by the relevant institutional review boards (approved number 20-009).
    Consent: We obtained written consent form all study participants.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Antibodies
    SentencesResources
    After washing, 100 μl HRP-labeled anti-IgG tracer antibody was added into the wells and then the samples were incubated for 30 minutes at room temperature (20-25 °C).
    anti-IgG
    suggested: None
    Wilcoxon rank sum tests or Kruskal-Wallis tests, as appropriate, were used to compare the titer of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody between groups.
    SARS-CoV-2 IgG
    suggested: None
    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: The data were analyzed using JMP version 14.0.0 (SAS institute Inc. Cary, NC).
    SAS institute
    suggested: None

    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:
    There are several limitations to this study. First, as this was a single-center study, selection bias might have affected our findings. Second, the small sample size restricted the statistical power of our analyses. Third, as our participants were recruited from departments where exposure to COVID-19 was more likely, the reported seroprevalence might be an overestimate relative to that of workers at other departments or the general population. Fourth, because the COVID-19 pandemic is an ongoing emerging situation, a significant proportion of available research might be premature; in our discussion, we have referred to such studies. In conclusion, we have shown relatively high frequency of positive and borderline SARS-CoV-2 antibody status in healthcare workers in the southern part of Kyoto city, an area frequented by tourists. Our results suggest that COVID-19 might have already been present in Kyoto at the early stage of pandemic. Several previous studies have evaluated SARS-CoV-2 antibody profiles in patients with COVID-19 (15-17); however, our study is the first to quantitatively evaluate antibody levels in healthcare workers involved with patients during the COVID-19 peri-pandemic period. Serial evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody will reveal risk factors associated with COID-19 susceptibility and mechanisms of disease spread. Finally, these results should be approached with caution, as there remains a lack of evidence regarding the role of antibodies present after reco...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: We found the following clinical trial numbers in your paper:

    IdentifierStatusTitle
    NCT04327206RecruitingBCG Vaccination to Protect Healthcare Workers Against COVID-…
    NCT04362124WithdrawnPerformance Evaluation of BCG Vaccination in Healthcare Pers…


    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.