Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients of Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019

Zhao, Juanjuan; Yuan, Quan; Wang, Haiyan; Liu, Wei; Liao, Xuejiao; Su, Yingying; Wang, Xin; Yuan, Jing; Li, Tingdong; Li, Jinxiu; Shen, Qian; Hong, Congming; Wang, Fuxiang; Liu, Yingxia; Wang, Zhaoqin; He, Qin; He, Bin; Zhang, Tianying; Ge, Shengxiang; Liu, Lei; Zhang, Jun; Xia, Ningshao; Zhang, Zheng

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3546052

Cited by 492 publications

(746 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

681

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The presence of antibodies was <40% among patients in the first 7 days of illness and then rapidly increased to 100% at day 15 after onset of symptoms, which appear to be too late from a public health perspective. 10 In this real-life study setting at a community SARS-CoV-2 testing site after a cluster outbreak, we investigated the superiority of an antibody-based rapid test in comparison with the current SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR gold standard. We tested screened persons of an official screening centre that we had selected by chance.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tObjective: With the current SARS-CoV2 outbreak, countless tests need to be performed on potential symptomatic individuals, contacts and travellers. The gold standard is a quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR)ebased system taking several hours to confirm positivity. For effective public health containment measures, this time span is too long. We therefore evaluated a rapid test in a highprevalence community setting. Study design: Thirty-nine randomly selected individuals at a COVID-19 screening centre were simultaneously tested via qPCR and a rapid test. Ten previously diagnosed individuals with known SARS-CoV-2 infection were also analysed. Methods: The evaluated rapid test is an IgG/IgMebased test for SARS-CoV-2 with a time to result of 20 min. Two drops of blood are needed for the test performance. Results: Of 49 individuals, 22 tested positive by repeated qPCR. In contrast, the rapid test detected only eight of those positive correctly (sensitivity: 36.4%). Of the 27 qPCR-negative individuals, 24 were detected correctly (specificity: 88.9%). Conclusion: Given the low sensitivity, we recommend not to rely on an antibody-based rapid test for public health measures such as community screenings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, the effectiveness of the intervention will depend on the ratio of the number of susceptible, infected and recovered people in the population at the beginning of the intervention. There is evidence that recovered individuals will have immunity to COVID-19 [31] but it is unclear at this point how long this immunity will last. Recovered individuals would be able to re-enter the work force and help the most vulnerable groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness of social distancing interventions against COVID-19

Matrajt

Leung

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SARS-CoV-2 has infected over 140,000 people as of March 14, 2020. We use a mathematical model to investigate the effectiveness of social distancing interventions lasting six weeks in a middle-sized city in the US. We explore four social distancing strategies by reducing the contacts of adults over 60 years old, adults over 60 years old and children, all adults (25, 75 or 95% compliance), and everyone in the population. Our results suggest that social distancing interventions can avert cases by 20% and hospitalizations and deaths by 90% even with modest compliance within adults as long as the intervention is kept in place, but the epidemic is set to rebound once the intervention is lifted. Our models suggest that social distancing interventions will buy crucial time but need to occur in conjunction with testing and contact tracing of all suspected cases to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

show abstract

“…The similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and the other viruses might lead to cross-reactivity. Also here were still false positive and false negative results for IgG/IgM antibodies test (13)(14)(15). Herein, there is an urgent need for elucidating the diagnostic accuracy of different specimens and methods to improve the positive rates, so as to prevent virus transmission and to assure timely treatment of patients.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the auxiliary diagnosis value of antibodies assays for the detection of novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2)

Gao

Yi²,

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The spread of an novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2, previously named 2019-nCoV) has already taken on pandemic proportions, affecting over 100 countries in a matter of weeks. Elucidating the diagnostic value of different methods, especially the auxiliary diagnosis value of antibodies assays for SARS-CoV-2 infection is helpful for improving the sensitivities of pathogenic-diagnosis, providing timely treatment, and differentiating the infected cases from the healthy, thus preventing further epidemics. Methods: Medical records from 38 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the Second People's Hospital of Fuyang from January 22, 2020 to February 28, 2020 were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Specimens including throat swabs, sputum and serum were collected during the hospitalization period, viral RNAs and serum IgM-IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 were measured respectively. The detectability of different methods as well as the auxiliary diagnosis value of antibodies test for SARS-CoV-2 infection were analyzed.Results: Among 38 patients, the total seropositive rate for IgM and IgG was 50.0% and 92.1%, respectively. Two patients remained seronegative throughout the course of illness. In the early phase of illness, the RNA test for sputum specimens possessed the highest detectability(92.3%), followed by the the RNA test for throat swabs (69.2%), and the antibodies assays presented lower positive rates(IgM, 23.0%, IgG, 53.8%).While, the sensitivity of antibodies assays overtook that of RNA test since day 8 after onset (IgM, 50.0%; IgG, 87.5%). Of note, the positive rate of throat swabs was only 13.0% for cases in later phase (≥15 d.a.o), and the sensitivities of IgM and IgG rose to 52.2% and 91.3%, respectively. Combined use of antibodies assay and qRT-PCR at the same time was able to improve the sensitivities of pathogenic-diagnosis, especially for the throat swabs group at the later stage of illness. Moreover, most of these cases with undetectable viral RNA in throat swabs specimens at the early stage of illness were able to be IgM/IgG seropositive after 7 days. Conclusions:The antibodies detection against SARS-CoV-2 offers vital clinical information for physicians, and could be used as an effective supplementary indicator

show abstract

Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 in Patients of Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019

Cited by 492 publications

References 0 publications

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

Rapid point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2 in a community screening setting shows low sensitivity

Evaluating the effectiveness of social distancing interventions against COVID-19

Evaluation of the auxiliary diagnosis value of antibodies assays for the detection of novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About