Abstract
There is a requirement for easily accessible, high throughput serological testing as part of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response. Whilst of limited diagnostic use in an acute individual setting, its use on a population level is key to informing a coherent public health response. As experience of commercial assays increases, so too does knowledge of their precision and limitations. Here we present our experience of these systems thus far. We perform a spot sero-prevalence study amongst staff in a tertiary hospital’s clinical microbiology laboratory, before undertaking validation of DBS serological testing as an alternate specimen for analysis. Finally, we characterise the spike and nucleocapsid antibody response over 160 days post a positive PCR test in nine non-hospitalised staff members.
Amongst a cohort of 195 staff, 17 tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (8.7%). Self-reporting of SARS-CoV2 infection (P=<0.0001) and testing of a household contact (P = 0.027) were significant variables amongst the positive and negative sub-groups. Testing of 28 matched serum and DBS samples demonstrated 96% accuracy between the sample types. A differential rate of decline of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against nucleocapsid or spike protein was observed. At 4 months post a positive PCR test 7/9 (78%) individuals had detectable antibodies against spike protein, but only 2/9 (22%) had detectable antibodies against nucleocapsid protein. This study reveals a broad agreement amongst commercial platforms tested and suggests the use of DBS as an alternate specimen option to enable widespread population testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These results suggest potential limitations of these platforms in estimating historical infection. By setting this temporal point of reference for this cohort of non-patient facing laboratory staff, future exposure risks and mitigation strategies can be evaluated more fully.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
No funding was received.
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:
Ethical oversight of the project was provided by Public Health Wales (PHW) Research & Development (R&D) Division. The PHW R&D Division advised that NHS research ethics approval was not required as this work was classed as service evaluation as it met the HRA criteria for post market surveillance studies of CE marked devices. Data were held and processed under Public Health Wales information governance arrangements, in compliance with the Data Protection Act, Caldicott Principles and Public Health Wales guidance on the release of small numbers. No data identifying protected characteristics of an individual were released outside Public Health Wales. PHW R&D Office is both an entry point and sub-department of NHS research ethics board.
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
Footnotes
↵* Co-first authorship
Data Availability
All data is available upon request.
