The Association Between Antibody Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection and Post-COVID-19 Syndrome in Healthcare Workers.

It is currently unknown how post-COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) may affect those infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This longitudinal study includes healthcare staff who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between March and April 2020, with follow-up of their antibody titers and symptoms. More than half (21 of 38) had PCS after 7-8 months. There was no statistically significant difference between initial reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction titers or serial antibody levels between those who did and those who did not develop PCS. This study highlights the relative commonality of PCS in healthcare workers and this should be considered in vaccination scheduling and workforce planning to allow adequate frontline staffing numbers.

SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for possible use in national covid-19 seroprevalence surveys (React 2): diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the performance of new lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) suitable for use in a national coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) seroprevalence programme (real time assessment of community transmission 2-React 2). DESIGN: Diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Laboratory analyses were performed in the United Kingdom at Imperial College, London and university facilities in London. Research clinics for finger prick sampling were run in two affiliated NHS trusts. PARTICIPANTS: Sensitivity analyses were performed on sera stored from 320 previous participants in the React 2 programme with confirmed previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Specificity analyses were performed on 1000 prepandemic serum samples. 100 new participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection attended study clinics for finger prick testing. INTERVENTIONS: Laboratory sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed for seven LFIAs on a minimum of 200 serum samples from participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 500 prepandemic serum samples, respectively. Three LFIAs were found to have a laboratory sensitivity superior to the finger prick sensitivity of the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence studies (84%). These LFIAs were then further evaluated through finger prick testing on participants with confirmed previous SARS-CoV-2 infection: two LFIAs (Surescreen, Panbio) were evaluated in clinics in June-July 2020 and the third LFIA (AbC-19) in September 2020. A spike protein enzyme linked immunoassay and hybrid double antigen binding assay were used as laboratory reference standards. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The accuracy of LFIAs in detecting immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 compared with two reference standards. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of seven new LFIAs that were analysed using sera varied from 69% to 100%, and from 98.6% to 100%, respectively (compared with the two reference standards). Sensitivity on finger prick testing was 77% (95% confidence interval 61.4% to 88.2%) for Panbio, 86% (72.7% to 94.8%) for Surescreen, and 69% (53.8% to 81.3%) for AbC-19 compared with the reference standards. Sensitivity for sera from matched clinical samples performed on AbC-19 was significantly higher with serum than finger prick at 92% (80.0% to 97.7%, P=0.01). Antibody titres varied considerably among cohorts. The numbers of positive samples identified by finger prick in the lowest antibody titre quarter varied among LFIAs. CONCLUSIONS: One new LFIA was identified with clinical performance suitable for potential inclusion in seroprevalence studies. However, none of the LFIAs tested had clearly superior performance to the LFIA currently used in React 2 seroprevalence surveys, and none showed sufficient sensitivity and specificity to be considered for routine clinical use.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 Infections in Critical Care Staff: Beware the Risks Beyond the Bedside.

OBJECTIVES: Critical care workers were considered to be at high risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection from patients during the first wave of the pandemic. Staff symptoms, previous swab testing, and antibody prevalence were correlated with patient admissions to investigate this assumption. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: A large critical care department in a tertiary-care teaching hospital in London, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS: Staff working in critical care. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants completed a questionnaire and provided a serum sample for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody testing over a 3-day period in April 2020. We compared the timing of symptoms in staff to the coronavirus disease 2019 patient admissions to critical care. We also identified factors associated with antibody detection. Of 625 staff 384 (61.4%) reported previous symptoms and 124 (19.8%) had sent a swab for testing. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection had been confirmed in 37 of those swabbed (29.8%). Overall, 21% (131/625) had detectable severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 antibody, of whom 9.9% (13/131) had been asymptomatic. The peak onset of symptoms among staff occurred 2 weeks before the peak in coronavirus disease 2019 patient admissions. Staff who worked in multiple departments across the hospital were more likely to be seropositive. Staff with a symptomatic household contact were also more likely to be seropositive at 31.3%, compared with 16.2% in those without (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Staff who developed coronavirus disease 2019 were less likely to have caught it from their patients in critical care. Other staff, other areas of the hospital, and the wider community are more likely sources of infection. These findings indicate that personal protective equipment was effective at preventing transmission from patients. However, staff also need to maintain protective measures away from the bedside.

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 lateral flow assays for use in a national COVID-19 seroprevalence survey.

BACKGROUND: Accurate antibody tests are essential to monitor the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver testing at scale. However, reported performance varies, and sensitivity analyses have generally been conducted on serum from hospitalised patients. For use in community testing, evaluation of finger-prick self-tests, in non-hospitalised individuals, is required. METHODS: Sensitivity analysis was conducted on 276 non-hospitalised participants. All had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by reverse transcription PCR and were ≥21 days from symptom onset. In phase I, we evaluated five LFIAs in clinic (with finger prick) and laboratory (with blood and sera) in comparison to (1) PCR-confirmed infection and (2) presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies on two 'in-house' ELISAs. Specificity analysis was performed on 500 prepandemic sera. In phase II, six additional LFIAs were assessed with serum. FINDINGS: 95% (95% CI 92.2% to 97.3%) of the infected cohort had detectable antibodies on at least one ELISA. LFIA sensitivity was variable, but significantly inferior to ELISA in 8 out of 11 assessed. Of LFIAs assessed in both clinic and laboratory, finger-prick self-test sensitivity varied from 21% to 92% versus PCR-confirmed cases and from 22% to 96% versus composite ELISA positives. Concordance between finger-prick and serum testing was at best moderate (kappa 0.56) and, at worst, slight (kappa 0.13). All LFIAs had high specificity (97.2%-99.8%). INTERPRETATION: LFIA sensitivity and sample concordance is variable, highlighting the importance of evaluations in setting of intended use. This rigorous approach to LFIA evaluation identified a test with high specificity (98.6% (95%CI 97.1% to 99.4%)), moderate sensitivity (84.4% with finger prick (95% CI 70.5% to 93.5%)) and moderate concordance, suitable for seroprevalence surveys.