ABSTRACT
Background We investigated six London care homes experiencing a COVID-19 outbreak and found very high rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection among residents and staff. Here we report follow-up serological analysis in these care homes five weeks later.
Methods Residents and staff had a convalescent blood sample for SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels and neutralising antibodies by SARS-COV-2 RT-PCR five weeks after the primary COVID-19 outbreak investigation.
Results Of the 518 residents and staff in the initial investigation, 208/241 (86.3%) surviving residents and 186/254 (73.2%) staff underwent serological testing. Almost all SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive residents and staff were antibody positive five weeks later, whether symptomatic (residents 35/35, 100%; staff, 22/22, 100%) or asymptomatic (residents 32/33, 97.0%; staff 21/22, 95.1%). Symptomatic but SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR negative residents and staff also had high seropositivity rates (residents 23/27, 85.2%; staff 18/21, 85.7%), as did asymptomatic RT-PCR negative individuals (residents 62/92, 67.3%; staff 95/143, 66.4%). Neutralising antibody was present in 118/132 (89.4%) seropositive individuals and was not associated with age or symptoms. Ten residents (10/108, 9.3%) remained RT-PCR positive, but with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold values; all 7 tested were seropositive. New infections were detected in three residents and one staff member.
Conclusions RT-PCR testing for SARS-CoV-2 significantly underestimates the true extent of an outbreak in institutional settings. Elderly frail residents and younger healthier staff were equally able to mount robust and neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2. More than two-thirds of residents and staff members had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 irrespective of their nasal swab RT-PCR positivity or symptoms status.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Public Health England as part of the COVID-19 response. The authors had sole responsibility for the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and writing of the report. The authors are all employed by Public Health England, the study funder, which is a public body (an executive agency of the Department of Health). The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The research protocol was approved by the PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group (REGG Ref: NR0204, 07 May 2020).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Additional data are available for sharing
