Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Oxford University Press, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, 9(7), 2020

DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa387

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

The antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
White circle
Published version: policy unclear
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundTesting for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)–specific antibodies has become an important tool, complementing nucleic acid tests (NATs) for diagnosis and for determining the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in population serosurveys. The magnitude and persistence of antibody responses are critical for assessing the duration of immunity.MethodsA SARS-CoV-2-specific immunofluorescent antibody (IFA) assay for immunoglobulin G (IgG), immunoglobulin A (IgA), and immunoglobulin M (IgM) was developed and prospectively evaluated by comparison to the reference standard of NAT on respiratory tract samples from individuals with suspected COVID-19. Neutralizing antibody responses were measured in a subset of samples using a standard microneutralization assay.ResultsA total of 2753 individuals were eligible for the study (126 NAT-positive; prevalence, 4.6%). The median “window period” from illness onset to appearance of antibodies (range) was 10.2 (5.8–14.4) days. The sensitivity and specificity of either SARS-CoV-2 IgG, IgA, or IgM when collected ≥14 days after symptom onset were 91.3% (95% CI, 84.9%–95.6%) and 98.9% (95% CI, 98.4%–99.3%), respectively. The negative predictive value was 99.6% (95% CI, 99.3%–99.8%). The positive predictive value of detecting any antibody class was 79.9% (95% CI, 73.3%–85.1%); this increased to 96.8% (95% CI, 90.7%–99.0%) for the combination of IgG and IgA.ConclusionsMeasurement of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody by IFA is an accurate method to diagnose COVID-19. Serological testing should be incorporated into diagnostic algorithms for SARS-CoV-2 infection to identify additional cases where NAT was not performed and resolve cases where false-negative and false-positive NATs are suspected. The majority of individuals develop robust antibody responses following infection, but the duration of these responses and implications for immunity remain to be established.