Este artigo é um Preprint
Preprints são relatos preliminares de pesquisa que não foram certificados pela revisão por pares. Eles não devem ser considerados para orientar a prática clínica ou comportamentos relacionados à saúde e não devem ser publicados na mídia como informação estabelecida.
Preprints publicados online permitem que os autores recebam feedback rápido, e toda a comunidade científica pode avaliar o trabalho independentemente e responder adequadamente. Estes comentários são publicados juntamente com os preprints para qualquer pessoa ler e servir como uma avaliação pós-publicação.
Unexplained longitudinal variability in COVID-19 antibody status by Lateral Flow Immuno-Antibody testing
Preprint
em Inglês
| medRxiv
| ID: ppmedrxiv-21261638
ABSTRACT
BackgroundCOVID-19 antibody testing allows population studies to classify participants by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Home lateral flow immune-antibody testing devices offer a very convenient way of doing this, but relatively little is known about how measurement and antibody variability will affect consistency in results over time. We examined consistency by looking at the outcome of two tests three months apart while COVID-19 infection rates were low (summer 2020 in the UK). MethodsThe KCL-Coronavirus Health and Experiences in Colleagues at Kings is an occupational cohort of staff and postgraduate research students. Lateral flow immune-antibody testing kits were sent to participants homes in late June 2020 and late September 2020. Participants also completed regular surveys that included asking about COVID-19 symptoms and whether they thought they had been infected. ResultsWe studied 1489 participants returned valid results in both June and September (59% of those sent kits). Lateral flow immune-antibody test was positive for 7.2% in June and 5.9% in September, with 3.9% positive in both. Being more symptomatic or suspecting infection increased the probability of ever being positive. Of those positive in June, 46% (49/107) were negative in September (seroreversion), and this was similar regardless of symptom characteristics, suspicion, and timing of possible infection. A possible outlier was those aged over 55 years, where only 3 of 13 (23%) had seroreversion. DiscussionThese results do not follow the pattern reported from studies specifically designed to monitor seropositivity, which have found greater consistency over time and the influence of presence, timing and severity of symptoms on seroreversion. We suggest several factors that may have contributed to this difference our low bar in defining initial seropositivity (single test); a non-quantitative test known to have relatively low sensitivity; participants carrying out testing. We would encourage other studies to use these real-world performance characteristics alongside those from laboratory studies to plan and analyse any antibody testing.
cc_by_nc
Texto completo:
Disponível
Coleções:
Preprints
Base de dados:
medRxiv
Tipo de estudo:
Cohort_studies
/
Estudo observacional
/
Estudo prognóstico
/
Pesquisa qualitativa
Idioma:
Inglês
Ano de publicação:
2021
Tipo de documento:
Preprint