COVID-19 Antibody in Thai Community Hospitals
=============================================

* Tanawin Nopsopon
* Krit Pongpirul
* Narin Hiransuthikul

## Abstract

**Background** COVID-19 seroprevalence data has been scarce, especially in less developed countries with a relatively low infection rate.

**Methods** A locally developed rapid IgM/IgG test kit was used for screening hospital staff and patients who required procedural treatment or surgery in 33 hospitals in Thailand from April 8 to June 8, 2020. A total of 587 participants were tested—459 were hospital staff and 128 were pre-procedural patients. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20200426002)

**Results** Overall, 3.4% of the participants (20 of 587) had positive immunoglobulin M (IgM) and none had positive immunoglobulin G. Hospitals located in the central part of Thailand had the highest IgM seroprevalence (7.4%). Preprocedural patients had a higher rate of positive IgM than the hospital staff (7.0% vs. 2.4%). Participants with present upper respiratory tract symptoms had a higher rate of positive IgM than those without (5.9% vs. 2.7%). Three quarter (77%, 452 of 587) of the participants were asymptomatic, of which, twelve had positive IgM (2.7%) which consisted of 7 of 369 healthcare workers (1.9%) and 5 of 83 preprocedural patients (6.0%).

**Conclusions** COVID-19 antibody test could detect a substantial number of potential silent spreaders in Thai community hospitals. Antibody testing should be encouraged for mass screening, especially in asymptomatic individuals.

## Introduction

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was introduced as a diagnostic test of choice for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. However, it might not be readily available or affordable in many facilities and could pose an unnecessary risk to the healthcare providers during the specimen collection. Besides, a recent study raised a concern of false-negative result from PCR test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with high pretest probability and encouraged the development of a highly sensitive test [1]. In Thailand, the PCR test was offered in suspected individuals with strict criteria during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a more feasible, cheaper, and safer alternative to the PCR, the antibody test is not only useful for an epidemiological investigation [2] but could also be used for mass screening of potential silent spreaders— asymptomatic COVID-19 individuals.

Hospital is one of the best venues for getting and spreading pathogens. In community hospitals in Thailand, there are two types of people who potentially are silent spreaders and need antibody testing: (1) healthcare workers who have a relatively higher risk of infection than laypersons, and (2) asymptomatic patients who need procedural treatment or operation but do not meet the criteria for PCR testing.

## Methods

From 8th April 2020 to 8th June 2020, hospital staff and patients who needed procedural treatment or operation but did not meet the national PCR testing criteria in 244 hospitals (215 community hospitals and 29 general hospitals) from all regions of Thailand were offered antibody testing. Of 215 community hospitals, only data from 33 hospitals (15.3%) were readily available and complete while none of the data from general hospitals was timely and sufficient. Patients with PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection were quarantined and excluded. Baiya Rapid COVID-19 IgG/IgM test kit (Baiya Phytopharm, Thailand) which reports the presence of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) qualitatively, was used in this study. The internal validation of the test kit using the serum of 51 PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases and 150 controls showed sensitivity 94.1% (48 of 51) and specificity 98.0% (147 of 150) for IgM or IgG antibody.

### Statistical analysis

Categorical data were presented with counts and percentages while continuous data were provided with median and interquartile range. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of the seroprevalence was calculated by Wilson’s method using binomial probabilities. Missing data were excluded. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. All data were analyzed using Stata 16.1 (College Station, TX).

### Ethics Committee Approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chulalongkorn University (IRB No.236/63) and other 18 hospitals. (Thai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20200426002)

## Results

From 33 community hospitals, 587 participants which consisted of 459 hospital staff and 128 pre-procedural patients were included in the study. Their median age was 36 years (interquartile range 28–45), 73.4% were female, 99.0% were Thai, and 77.0% were asymptomatic. The most common symptoms were cough (11.9%), sore throat (8.0%), rhinitis (7.8%), fever (6.1%) and dyspnea (3.6%). History of travel to the high-risk area was 5.8%, history of close contact to the confirmed COVID-19 case was 16.7%, and 12.3% had PCR negative.

Twenty participants (3.4%, 95% CI 2.2–5.2) had IgM antibody against SARS-CoV-2 whereas IgG antibody was not found in any participant. Participants from the Central region of Thailand had the highest IgM seroprevalence (7.4%, 95% CI 4.0–13.0), while the Northern and Southern region showed zero seroprevalences [Fig 1].

![Fig 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/06/26/2020.06.24.20139188/F1.medium.gif)

[Fig 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/26/2020.06.24.20139188/F1)

Fig 1. 
IgM seroprevalence in community hospitals across geographical regions of Thailand.

Pre-procedural patients had an unexpectedly higher proportion of positive IgM than the hospital staff (7.0% vs. 2.4%), especially patients in the central region of Thailand (14.7%, 95% CI 6.4–30.1). Overall, the seropositive prevalence was higher in female (3.9% vs. 2.1%), participants with a history of travel to the high-risk area (5.9% vs. 3.3%), with history of close contact to confirmed COVID-19 case (6.1% vs. 2.9%). Paradoxically, patients without travel history were likely to have an antibody for SARS-CoV-2 (7.8% vs. 3.8%). In general, participants with upper respiratory tract symptoms had a higher chance of being seropositive (5.9% vs. 2.7%), of which sore throat had the highest (10.6%, 95% CI 4.6–22.6). Also, pre-procedural patient with sore throat had the most IgM positive (20.0%, 95% CI 7.0–45.2) while the symptom was dyspnea for healthcare worker (33.3%, 95% CI 6.1–79.2). Of 452 participants without present upper respiratory tract symptom, twelve had IgM positive for COVID-19 (2.7%, 95% CI 1.5–4.6) which consisted of 7 of 369 healthcare workers (1.9%, 95% CI 0.9–3.9) and 5 of 83 patients (6.0%, 95% CI 2.6–13.3). History of negative PCR was associated with a lower chance of seropositive than those with no PCR test result (1.4% vs. 3.7%) [Table 1].

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/26/2020.06.24.20139188/T1)

Table 1. 
Demographic characteristics and seroprevalence in different groups

## Discussion

COVID-19 seroprevalence in asymptomatic staff and patients in Thai community hospitals was comparable to hospitals in China (2.7% vs. 2.5%) [3]. Seroprevalence in asymptomatic hospital staff in Thailand was also similar to hospitals in China (1.9% vs. 1.8%) [3] but less than a tertiary hospital in Belgium (1.9% vs. 6.4%) [4]. Asymptomatic patients in Thailand seemed to have higher seroprevalence than China (6.0% vs. 3.5%) [3]. Unlike China and Belgium where the seroprevalences were mostly from positive IgG, our study revealed only positive IgM. Comparison with Belgium hospital should be interpreted with caution due to unknown PCR status of Belgium subjects.

## Limitations

Limitations of this study include the use of locally developed test kit, lack of IgG-positive participants which might be from early testing and exclusion of PCR positive COVID-19 patients which might underestimate real seroprevalence.

## Conclusions

COVID-19 antibody test could detect a substantial number of potential silent spreaders in Thai community hospitals. Antibody testing should be encouraged for mass screening, especially in asymptomatic individuals.

## Data Availability

Data is available from the corresponding author upon request.

## Author Contributions

**Conceptualization:** TN, KP, NH

**Data curation:** TN, KP

**Formal analysis:** TN, KP

**Investigation:** TN, KP

**Methodology:** TN, KP, NH

**Project administration:** TN, KP, NH

**Resources:** KP, NH

**Software:** TN, KP

**Supervision:** KP, NH

**Validation:** TN, KP

**Visualization:** TN

**Writing – original draft:** TN, KP

**Writing – review & editing:** TN, KP, NH

## Acknowledgements

We thank Baiya Phytopharm, Thailand for supporting the Baiya Rapid COVID-19 IgG/IgM test kit. The company did not involve in the data analysis, interpretation, and the manuscript preparation.

## Footnotes

*   tnopsopon{at}gmail.com

*   narin.h{at}chula.ac.th

*   Received June 24, 2020.
*   Revision received June 24, 2020.
*   Accepted June 26, 2020.


*   © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Woloshin S, Patel N, Kesselheim A. False Negative Tests for SARS-CoV-2 Infection - Challenges and Implications. N Engl J Med. 2020. Epub 2020/06/06. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2015897. PubMed PMID: 32502334.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMp2015897&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32502334&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F06%2F26%2F2020.06.24.20139188.atom) 

2.  2.Yong S, Anderson D, Wei W, Pang J, Chia W, Tan C, et al. Connecting clusters of COVID-19: an epidemiological and serological investigation. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020. Epub 2020/04/25. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30273-5. PubMed PMID: 32330439; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC7173813.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30273-5&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32330439&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F06%2F26%2F2020.06.24.20139188.atom) 

3.  3.Xu X, Sun J, Nie S, Li H, Kong Y, Liang M, et al. Seroprevalence of immunoglobulin M and G antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in China. Nat Med. 2020. Epub 2020/06/07. doi:10.1038/s41591-020-0949-6. PubMed PMID: 32504052.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-020-0949-6&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32504052&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F06%2F26%2F2020.06.24.20139188.atom) 

4.  4.Steensels D, Oris E, Coninx L, Nuyens D, Delforge M, Vermeersch P, et al. Hospital-Wide SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Screening in 3056 Staff in a Tertiary Center in Belgium. Jama. 2020. Epub 2020/06/17. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.11160. PubMed PMID: 32539107.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2020.11160&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32539107&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F06%2F26%2F2020.06.24.20139188.atom)