SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody responses in rt-PCR positive cases: first report from India =================================================================================== * Girish Chandra Dash * Debaprasad Parai * Hari Ram Choudhary * Annalisha Peter * Usha Kiran Rout * Rashmi Ranjan Nanda * Jaya Singh Kshatri * Srikanta Kanungo * Subrata Kumar Palo * Sanghamitra Pati * Debdutta Bhattacharya ## Abstract The SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses remain poorly understood and the clinical utility of serological testing is still unclear. As it is thought to confer some degree of immunity, this study is carried out to know the relationship between demographics and ct value of confirmed rt-PCR patients. A total of 384 serum samples were collected between 4-6 weeks after confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. IgG positivity was found to be 80.2% (95% CI, 76.2 – 84.2). The positivity increased with the decrease in the ct value, with highest of 87.6% positivity in individuals with <20 ct value. The mean (SD) ct value of IgG positives and negatives was 23.34 (± 6.09) and 26.72 (± 7.031) respectively. There was no significant difference found between the demographic characteristics such as age, sex, symptoms and antibody response. The current study is first of its kind wherein we have assessed the correlation of ct of RT-PCR with development of IgG against SARS-CoV-2. Our study showed that although Ct value might not have any relation with severity of the diseases but is associated with the antibody response among the SARS-CoV-2 infected individual. ## Introduction An outbreak of pneumonia in late December 2019 which was reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China1 which was later identified to be caused by a novel beta coronavirus closely related to the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV) family and was recently termed SARS-CoV-2.2 As of October 30, 2020, more than 51.8 million individual were infected with SARS-CoV-2, with 1.28 million SARS-CoV-2-associated deaths.3 USA, India and Brazil account for the majority of the cases worldwide with India accounting for 8.2 million cases and 1.2 million deaths.4 There is a scarcity of information on antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection.5 SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been detected from a range of few days to 3 weeks after onset of symptoms, with median time reported as 6 days for detectable levels of IgG.6,7,8 The presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies is thought to confer some degree of immunity which is indicative of current or previous infection by SARS-CoV-2,9 however there is uncertainty regarding the duration and extent of immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies.8,10 The present study was carried out semi-quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody estimation to understand how the body’s antibody responds in correlation to the severity of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms, ct value, gender and age. ## Methodology ### Sample collection A subset of 384 patients were included in the study to evaluate the SARS-CoV-2 IgG between 4 and 6 weeks after confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 by rt-PCR from the month of August to October 2020. The ct values, age, gender and symptoms of the patients were correlated with the development of antibodies. Confirmed COVID-19 cases were defined as those that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 RNA using real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing of combined nasopharyngeal and throat swab (NT) samples. Patients who presented with any one or more symptoms such as fever, breathlessness, cough, fatigue, muscle pain clogged nasal cavity sore throat diarrhoea Loss of taste (anosmia) and loss of smell (ageusia) during the time of RT-PCR testing was considered symptomatic. ### Testing for SARS-CoV-2 IgG Semi-quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing was performed using ARCHITECT i2000SR platform which uses chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) technology for the detection of immunoglobulin class G (IgG) antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein of SARS-CoV-2 from human serum. The cut off for antibody response was 1.4 index, above which the sample was considered positive. ### Data analysis Data were entered using MS-Excel and descriptive statistical analysis were performed using SPSS software (IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 24.0, Armonk, NY). ## Results Out of the total 384 samples, 80.2% (95% CI, 76.2 – 84.2) of the samples were found to be positive for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. (Table 1) The median time of the samples collected was 34 days after confirmatory RT-PCR testing. The mean (SD) ct value of the positives was 23.34 (± 6.09) and in the negatives was 26.72 (± 7.031). The percentage of positives increased with the decrease in the ct value, i.e. increase in viral load, which was found to be statistically significant. The samples were collected predominantly from male 334 (86.9%) than females 50 (13.1%). Males were having higher chances of producing antibodies than females after a SARS-CoV-2 infection but was found to be statistically insignificant. The mean age of the IgG positive and negative individuals was 36.94 ± 11.29 and 36.09 ± 10.18 respectively. The mean ct value of symptomatic and symptomatic patients was 23.48 ± 6.070 and 24.16 ± 6.521 respectively. There was no significant difference for antibody response in different age groups as well as symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. The antibody titre values of the positive individuals mostly presented between 1.4 to 6.0 index (Figure 2). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.13.20229716/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.13.20229716/F1) Figure 1: Association between demographic characteristics and Ct value with IgG antibody response. (a) Percentages of IgG Results in various Age groups (b) Percentages of IgG Results in Males and Females (c) Percentages of IgG Results in Symptomatic and asymptomatic cases (d) Percentages of IgG Results in various Ct value groups. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.13.20229716/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/11/13/2020.11.13.20229716/F2) Figure 2: Antibody titre vs ct value of all 384 COVID-19 patients. Red line indicates the reactive titre value (1.4 index). ## Discussion In this second phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, sero-testing emerges as a most handful utility platform to track down the susceptible population. This method is fast and is being considered as a complementary to the gold standard RT-PCR test. Most of the studies have found a surprisingly lower IgG prevalence among the recovered patients, although a handful of the literature suggested quite a higher percentage for the same. This anomaly demands the need for a study based on patients’ demography, infection severity, viral load. In this study, the antibody response was found to be 80.2% among covid-19 positive individuals which is less than the positivity found in various studies. A study in (Humoral response and PCR positivity) reported around 88% of cases who had positive for antibody response.8 Some studies have reported 100% IgG response in covid-19 patients.9 This difference needs to be studied if there is any variation due to kits and different procedures or due to demographics, virus characteristics or environmental conditions. In our study, the ct value was found to be associated with the antibody response among covid-19 recovered individuals. The positivity rate was increasing as the ct value or the viral load was decreasing. The study was 1st of its kind which demostrated any correlation between the ct value and antibody response. Currently, there is scarcity as well as poorly understood studies related to response and the clinical utility of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Some studies have found it to be not related to the severity of the disease.12 Age groups of the individuals were not significantly associated with antibody response. There was no significant difference in IgG response between symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals. Without the use of a standard curve using reference materials, the ct value by itself cannot be interpreted directly as viral load.13 In our study no significant association was found between ct value and development of symptoms. IgG response was greater in males than in females but was statistically insignificant. This may have been caused due to the predominant positive male population from which the samples were collected. There are additional implications from our study for blood banks wherein donors are screened for antibodies using qualitative antibody tests for convalescent plasma to treat Covid-19 patients. To support a previous diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2, these facilities often relied on self-reporting about patient history and onset of symptoms. The correlation of ct values with a semi-quantitative SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay can provide significant assistance in plasma donor selection. The current study is the first of its kind wherein we have assessed the correlation of ct of RT-PCR with the development of IgG against SARS-CoV-2. Ct value might not have any relation with the severity of the diseases but is associated with the antibody response by the SARS-CoV-2 infected persons. However further long-term studies of longitudinal follow-up of a cohort will help in better understanding and definitive conclusion. ## Data Availability Data will be available from Corresponding Author on genuine request ## Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was cleared by institutional ethical committee. ## Funding source The study was carried out with intramural funding support from Indian Council of Medical Research. ## Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests in any form. ## Acknowledgment The authors gratefully acknowledge all the healthcare workers for their tireless dedication at each level to fight COVID-19. The authors are thankful to Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi for providing financial grants for this study. * Received November 13, 2020. * Revision received November 13, 2020. * Accepted November 13, 2020. * © 2020, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory The copyright holder for this pre-print is the author. All rights reserved. The material may not be redistributed, re-used or adapted without the author's permission. ## References 1. 1).Huang C, Wang Y, Li X, Ren L, Zhao J, Hu Y, Zhang L, Fan G, Xu J, Gu X, Cheng Z. Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):497–506 [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.13.20229716.atom) 2. 2).Wang C, Horby PW, Hayden FG, Gao GF. A novel coronavirus outbreak of global health concern. The Lancet. 2020 Feb 15;395(10223):470–3. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0140-6736(20)&link_type=DOI) 3. 3).WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 13]. Available from: [https://covid19.who.int](https://covid19.who.int) 4. 4).Home | Ministry of Health and Family Welfare | GOI [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 13]. Available from: [https://main.mohfw.gov.in/](https://main.mohfw.gov.in/) 5. 5).Reifer J, Hayum N, Heszkel B, Klagsbald I, Streva VA. SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibody responses in New York City. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2020 Nov;98(3):115128. 6. 6).Xiao AT, Gao C, Zhang S. Profile of specific antibodies to SARS-CoV-2: The first report. J Infect. 2020 Jul;81(1):147–78. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.13.20229716.atom) 7. 7).Zhao J, Yuan Q, Wang H, Liu W, Liao X, Su Y, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Mar 28; 8. 8).Wajnberg A, Mansour M, Leven E, Bouvier NM, Patel G, Firpo-Betancourt A, et al. Humoral response and PCR positivity in patients with COVID-19 in the New York City region, USA: an observational study. The Lancet Microbe. 2020 Nov 1;1(7):e283–9. 9. 9).Long Q-X, Liu B-Z, Deng H-J, Wu G-C, Deng K, Chen Y-K, et al. Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19. Nat Med. 2020;26(6):845–8. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.13.20229716.atom) 10. 10).Azkur AK, Akdis M, Azkur D, Sokolowska M, van de Veen W, Brüggen M-C, et al. Immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and mechanisms of immunopathological changes in COVID-19. Allergy. 2020;75(7):1564–81. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/all.14364&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32396996&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.13.20229716.atom) 11. 11).Guo L, Ren L, Yang S, Xiao M, Chang D, Yang F, et al. Profiling Early Humoral Response to Diagnose Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Clin Infect Dis. 2020 28;71(15):778–85. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2020%2F11%2F13%2F2020.11.13.20229716.atom) 12. 12).Tang Y-W, Schmitz JE, Persing DH, Stratton CW. Laboratory Diagnosis of COVID-19: Current Issues and Challenges. J Clin Microbiol. 2020 26;58(6). 13. 13).Han MS, Byun J-H, Cho Y, Rim JH. RT-PCR for SARS-CoV-2: quantitative versus qualitative. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 May 20;S1473-3099(20)30424-2