Newborn dried blood spots for serological surveys of COVID-19 ============================================================= * Feimei Liu * Mytien Nguyen * Pavithra Vijayakumar * Alanna Kaplan * Amit Meir * Yile Dai * Eric Wang * Hannah Walsh * Aaron M. Ring * Saad B. Omer * Shelli F. Farhadian ## Abstract As COVID-19 continues to spread across the globe, the need for inexpensive, large-scale prevalence surveillance testing increases. We present a method for testing newborn dried blood spots (DBS) for anti-SARS-COV-2 IgG antibodies, and demonstrate its applicability as an easily accessible proxy for measuring maternal seroprevalence. ## Introduction Population seroprevalence surveys are helpful for COVID-19 public health decision-making. However, widespread access to serological testing of adults is not currently available for assessing community prevalence of COVID-19, and there are significant hurdles to implementing large-scale serological surveys in resource poor settings.1 This disparity in capacity to implement large-scale serological testing can lead to worsening outcomes for low-and middle-income countries compared to high-income countries.2 Newborn dried blood spot (DBS) is an easy, inexpensive, and widely used method to collect and store newborn blood specimens.3,4 DBS has been widely used in resource-limited countries to monitor HIV prevalence among infants due to its cost-effectiveness and ease of collection, storage, and transport.5 In cases where newborn DBS antibody results reflect maternal seropositivity, DBS may be utilized as a convenient, cost-effective way to measure population seroprevalence trends among pregnant women.6 Here, we evaluated newborn DBS as a potential COVID-19 surveillance tool, and surveyed seropositivity of all infants born in the Yale New Haven hospital system from February 18 to May 26, 2020. ## Methods ### SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Discarded newborn DBS was obtained for all infants born in the Yale New Haven hospital system from February 19-May 26, 2020, a time period that began two weeks prior to the first confirmed case in Connecticut (March 8). Routine SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing of all women who presented to labor and delivery began on April 1, 2020. We adapted a standardized Solid Phase ELISA Serology Assay7 for detecting anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody for use on the newborn DBS. Recombinant SARS CoV-2 S1 protein (ACROBiosystems #S1N-C52H3) was used as the antigen. Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG was measured in all samples, and IgM was measured in DBS where the IgG result was positive. The threshold for a positive ELISA result was set at the 99% confidence interval for the assay, at which 1% of true negatives would be reported as a false positive. Banked cord blood from infants born prior to 2019 was run as negative controls. ### Statistical analysis Connecticut statewide COVID-19 infection rate were obtained from [https://Outbreak.info](https://Outbreak.info).8 To determine the inter-relationship between daily newborn IgG antibody positive rate and maternal SARS-CoV-2 positive rate and statewide positive counts, quasi-Poisson regression and cross-correlation analysis were performed in R version 3.6.0 to account for overdispersion. Maternal demographic and clinical features were collected for mothers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (PCR), including maternal age, body mass index (BMI), date of PCR SARS-CoV-2 test, gestational age, race/ethnicity, COVID-19 symptoms, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, and diabetes or gestational diabetes. Maternal factors were examined in association with the likelihood of an IgG antibody positive newborn using multivariable logistic regression performed in STATA 16.1. This study was deemed exempt from human subjects regulations by the Yale Institutional Review Board. ## Results The first positive DBS in the study was obtained from an infant born in Connecticut on February 18, 2020 **(Figure 1)**. The increased proportion of positive DBS specimens followed the increase in reported cases in the state. Overall 182/3048 (5.9%) DBS tested were positive for anti-SARSCoV-2 IgG. None were positive for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgM. Of the 182 infants with positive antibody results, 134 had mothers who underwent testing for COVID-19 by viral PCR prior to delivery, of which 65 (49%) had a positive test and 69 (51%) had a negative PCR test. None of the pre-2019 cord blood samples were positive for SARS-CoV-2 IgG by this assay. ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/08/16/2020.08.14.20175299/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/08/16/2020.08.14.20175299/F1) Figure 1: Rate of COVID-19 positive antibody and cases in Connecticut from February to May 2020. Daily positive rate (bars) and 7-day moving average (lines) of newborn IgG antibody (blue) in relation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR in mothers (pink), and positive cases per 100,000 people in Connecticut State (orange). Connecticut statewide data were retrieved from Hughes *et al*. (2020) and rate per 100,000 calculated using U.S. Census estimates. We examined the inter-relationship between daily newborn IgG antibody positive rates to maternal and statewide COVID-19 infection rates. The daily proportion of IgG positive DBS specimens were found to be predicted strongly by both maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection rate (*p*<0.001) and statewide COVID-19 daily positive test counts per 100,000 people (*p*=0.010). Further investigations using cross-correlation analysis demonstrated that daily newborn IgG antibody positive rate strongly correlated with maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection rate at zero lag time (r=0.47), and statewide COVID-19 positive test counts at a lag-time of 15-days (r=0.45). We examined maternal demographics and clinical factors that may be associated with the likelihood of a SARS-CoV-2 IgG+ infant. Of the 92 mothers who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR during the universal screening period, 90 had complete demographic and clinical data, and 58 (64%) delivered infants that were antibody positive. When controlled for BMI, hypertension, diabetes, COVID-19 symptoms, gestational age, and days between maternal positive PCR test and delivery, antibody positive infants were more likely to be born later during the study period (adjusted OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.10, *p*=0.01), and to mothers with older maternal age (adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02–1.25, *p*=0.01). No significant associations were found for BMI, hypertension, diabetes, COVID-19 symptoms, gestational age, and days between maternal positive PCR test and delivery. ## Discussion Our findings demonstrate utility of the newborn DBS SARS-CoV-2 antibody assay to detect past maternal infection and suggest a use for DBS to measure population-level trends of COVID-19, as well as a way to monitor for resurgence of this disease. The detection of seropositive newborns prior to the availability of viral testing in CT indicates that DBS surveillance may be a useful tool for COVID-19 surveillance where viral testing is limited. Most, but not all, mothers who screened positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period delivered a newborn with detectable anti-SAR-CoV-2 IgG antibody, a finding that may reflect the lag time in development of detectable antibodies after infection.9 This study has limitations. Most mothers were screened for SARS-CoV-2 at the time of hospitalization for delivery, but we were unable to determine the true date of maternal infection. Because we did not have access to the date of infection or serum antibody testing results for all mothers, we were not able to determine whether mothers who screened positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR but delivered a seronegative newborn had poor antibody responses themselves, had a remote infection with antibody responded that waned prior to delivery, or whether there was inefficient transplacental transfer of antibody in these cases. However, given that the majority of PCR positive mothers delivered seropositive newborns, this does not appear to diminish the utility of DBS as a surveillance tool. In this study, we demonstrate that levels of IgG in DBS reflect overall population-level trends in case incidence, with a lag that is consistent with the time to development of detectable antibodies after infection, making DBS antibody testing an attractive option for large-scale population surveillance during the COVID-19 pandemic. As dried blood spots are routinely collected from newborns, no additional sample collection is required, and specimens can be stored for later assessment. Using DBS as a surveillance tool may therefore be particularly advantageous in resource-poor settings, where innovative tools of field epidemiology will be required in order to control the spread of the virus. ## Author Contributions *SFF had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis*. *Concept and design: SFF and SBO* *Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors*. *Drafting of the manuscript: SFF, MN, PV, FL* *Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: MN, PV, FL* *Administrative, technical, or material support: AR, SFF* *Supervision: SFF* ## Data Availability All data stored on HIPAA-secure server; access may be available upon request ## Acknowledgements We acknowledge Dr. Wade Schulz who assisted with data acquisition. * Received August 14, 2020. * Revision received August 14, 2020. * Accepted August 15, 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.Kuehn BM. Ramping up Diagnostics in Resource-Poor Countries. JAMA. 2020;323(15):1435–1435. 2. 2.Vigo D, Thornicroft G, Gureje O. The Differential Outcomes of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Low-and Middle-Income Countries vs High-Income Countries. JAMA Psychiatry. 2020. 3. 3.Johannessen A, Garrido C, Zahonero N, et al. Dried Blood Spots Perform Well in Viral Load Monitoring of Patients Who Receive Antiretroviral Treatment in Rural Tanzania. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2009;49(6):976–981. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1086/605502&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19663598&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F16%2F2020.08.14.20175299.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000269145100024&link_type=ISI) 4. 4.Nichols BE, Girdwood SJ, Shibemba A, et al. Cost and Impact of Dried Blood Spot Versus Plasma Separation Card for Scale-up of Viral Load Testing in Resource-limited Settings. Clinical Infectious Diseases. 2019;70(6):1014–1020. 5. 5.Anitha D, Jacob SM, Ganesan A, Sushi KM. Diagnosis of HIV-1 infection in infants using dried blood spots in Tamil Nadu, South India. Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS. 2011;32(2):99–102. 6. 6.Bjorkesten J, Enroth S, Shen Q, et al. Stability of Proteins in Dried Blood Spot Biobanks. Mol Cell Proteomics. 2017;16(7):1286–1296. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoibWNwcm90IjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjE2LzcvMTI4NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIwLzA4LzE2LzIwMjAuMDguMTQuMjAxNzUyOTkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 7. 7.Amanat F, Stadlbauer D, Strohmeier S, et al. A serological assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion in humans. Nature medicine. 2020;26(7):1033–1036. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F16%2F2020.08.14.20175299.atom) 8. 8.Hughes LD, Gangavarapu K, Cano M, et al. [https://outbreak.info](https://outbreak.info). Available online: [https://outbreak.info/](https://outbreak.info/) Published 2020. 9. 9.Long QX, Liu BZ, Deng HJ, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. Nature medicine. 2020;26(6):845–848. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F08%2F16%2F2020.08.14.20175299.atom)