key: cord-0692350-0tdclekt authors: Mulchandani, Ranya; Taylor-Philips, Sian; Jones, Hayley E.; Ades, A.E.; Borrow, Ray; Linley, Ezra; Kirwan, Peter D; Stewart, Richard; Moore, Philippa; Boyes, John; Hormis, Anil; Todd, Neil; Colda, Antoanela; Reckless, Ian; Brooks, Tim; Charlett, Andre; Hickman, Matthew; Oliver, Isabel; Wyllie, David title: Association between self-reported signs and symptoms and SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection in UK key workers date: 2021-03-26 journal: J Infect DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2021.03.019 sha: fb9d0e076ac3df07051c41c9368f877bfdb0d12a doc_id: 692350 cord_uid: 0tdclekt BACKGROUND: : Screening for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is under way in some key worker groups; how this adds to self-reported COVID-19 illness is unclear. In this study, we investigate the association between self-reported belief of COVID-19 illness and seropositivity. METHODS: : Cross-sectional study of three key worker streams comprising (A) Police and Fire & Rescue (2 sites) (B) healthcare workers (1 site) and (C) healthcare workers with previously positive PCR result (5 sites). We collected self-reported signs and symptoms of COVID-19 and compared this with serology results from two SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays (Roche Elecsys® and EUROIMMUN). RESULTS: : Between 01 and 26 June, we recruited 2847 individuals (Stream A: 1,247, Stream B: 1,546 and Stream C: 154). Among those without previous positive PCR tests, 687/2,579 (26%) reported belief they had had COVID-19, having experienced compatible symptoms; however, only 208 (30.3%) of these were seropositive on both immunoassays. Both immunoassays had high sensitivities relative to previous PCR positivity (>93%); there was also limited decline in antibody titres up to 110 days post symptom onset. Symptomatic but seronegative individuals had differing symptom profiles and shorter illnesses than seropositive individuals. CONCLUSION: : Non-COVID19 respiratory illness may have been mistaken for COVID-19 during the outbreak; laboratory testing is more specific than self-reported key worker beliefs in ascertaining past COVID-19 disease. -Roche Elecsys and EUROIMMUN immunoassays were >93% sensitive in key workers. -About one quarter of keyworkers without a previous positive PCR test believed they had had COVID-19; -However, of these, only 30% had serological evidence of COVID-19. -Symptom profiles and timings suggest symptomatic seronegative individuals had non-COVID illnesses. -Self-reported symptoms are not reliable in ascertaining past COVID- 19 disease. After SARS-CoV-2 infection, most individuals mount antibody responses 1 2 3 4 5,6 . Serological tests aim to identify people who have previously been infected, through detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies 7 . Currently, serological tests are important in helping us better understand how the disease has spread in the population, and can support pandemic planning and response 8 . In the future they may also be used for individual risk assessment; however at present, although antibody titre correlate with in vitro neutralisation 1, 3 and clinical studies suggest an antibody-protection association 9 , it has not yet been proven whether presence of antibody indicates protection against future infection; as such, the usefulness of serology testing in clinical practice is currently unclear. Early in the response to the epidemic, PCR testing was restricted to those needing hospital care. As testing provision rose, test availability was progressively extended to include health care workers, and (less extensively) to other key worker groups such as Police officers. Only in the latter stages of the first wave of infection was widespread community testing available to all who developed symptoms; initially this was restricted only to those with fever or cough. Collectively, this may have resulted in parts of the population believing they have had COVID-19 because of illness during the pandemic, some of whom may not have had the virus. However, the validity of this understandable assumption, and whether it is justified given particular symptom combinations, is poorly quantified. Although some COVID-19 symptoms, such as taste/smell disorders, are highly specific for COVID-19 10 , many others occur in other viral respiratory infections, and a recent Cochrane review has highlighted the substantial uncertainty about the value of clinical symptoms in the diagnosis of COVID-19 11 . Several studies have looked at the association between individual symptoms and seropositivity 12, 13 , identifying associations with symptoms such as anosmia and ageusia and seropositivity; however, to our knowledge, no study has assessed the relationship between self-reported belief of previous COVID-19, combinations of signs and symptoms, and seropositivity. The UK Government recently launched a mass antibody testing programme for staff in the National Health Service (NHS) and for care workers 14 . Large scale testing on historical sera has indicated a very high specificity of the assays used 15 , but concerns have been raised about a lack of data on assay performance >35 days post infection 7 , in community cases (particularly those that did not meet testing criteria early in the response), and serological responses which may be of short duration 16 . Here we address existing uncertainties as to value of symptoms 11 in diagnosing historical COVID-19 infection. To do do, we (i) describe patterns of self reported symptoms in a cohort of key workers, (ii) describe serostatus in individuals >35 days post infection, in a cohort recruited about 2-3 months after the outbreak peak of the initial wave of UK COVID-19 infections, and (iii) analyse relationships between serostatus and self reported symptoms. The study population consists of various key workers, who are anticipated to be the initial users of UK government home antibody testing programme. Key workers were targeted for recruitment as part of the Evaluating Detection of SARS-CoV-2 AntiBodies at HOME (EDSAB-HOME) study (clinical trial registration: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN56609224), a programme designed to evaluate the accuracy of point of care antibody tests. We recruited three streams of key workers (A) Police and Fire & Rescue "Police and Fire" (B) healthcare workers "HCW" and; (C) healthcare workers who had a previous positive nasal or throat swab for SARS-CoV-2 (with or without symptoms) "HCW-PP" and therefore are confirmed to have had previous COVID-19. In this paper, our focus is on the relationship between prior signs and symptoms and seropositivity. Prospective workplace based recruitment was conducted between 01 and 26 June 2020. Senior staff in the NHS, Police and Fire organisations were invited to a telephone conversation in which the study was described and invited to support the study. Those who agreed to take part in the study were sent an ethically approved advert by email to all staff. Individuals interested in the study were directed to an online study portal, where they completed an epidemiological questionnaire, and booked to attend a workplace clinic; availability was given on a first-come-first-served basis. At the clinic appointment, a venous blood sample was taken, which was linked back to their questionnaire via a unique study number. Further methodological details are in Supplementary Material. A volume of 6mL EDTA anticoagulated blood was taken from each participant and sent to PHE Seroepidemiology Unit (SEU) in Manchester each day for plasma separation and sample banking. An aliquot of the samples was sent to PHE Porton Down for analysis. All samples were analysed using Roche Elecsys ® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 (nucleocapsid (N)) 15 and EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) assays (Spike (S) protein S1 domain) 17 . Further details on sample receipt, storage and processing is available in Supplementary Material. Manufacturer cut-offs were used to assess serological positivity (COI ≥ 1.0 for Roche Elecsys ® and Ratio > 0.8 for EUROIMMUN were considered positive) (Further details in Supplementary Material). For the purpose of assessing the relationship between clinical signs and symptoms and seropositivity and estimating seroprevalence amongst sub-cohorts, an individual was considered seropositive if they were positive on either immunoassay. All data were collected via an online questionnaire (Snap Survey), and were stored and managed on a secure server using a relational database management system (SQL). Data were cleaned and analysed using R version 3.5.1. Participants were characterised and reported by an adapted version of the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for confirmed, suspected and probable cases 18 . These definitions were pre-specified; further details are in Supplementary Material. (i) To describe patterns of self reported symptoms in the cohort we: (a) performed univariable description of the cohort by age, gender, ethnicity, occupation, recent symptoms compatible with COVID-19 and previous known exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and by results on the two anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays. Comparison was made with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 data for England obtained from data.coronavirus.gov.uk on 28 July 2020. (b) considered the relationships between different self reported symptoms, we coded symptoms as 1 (present) or 0 (not present). We computed a matrix of Pearson correlation coefficients reflecting coexistence of pairs of symptoms, both for personal symptoms and for those reported in household contacts. To illustrate patterns in this data, we performed hierarchical clustering of the correlation matrix using Euclidean distance metric and central clustering 19 and depicted the reassorted matrix as a heatmap. We used the R hclust and corrplot functions to achieve this. (ii) To describe the serostatus of individuals, we (a) tabulated associations with single clinical risk factors and serostatus; (b) used Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to assess the concordance between the two laboratory immunoassay performed; (c) explored the relationship between symptom onset and quantitative serological response graphically and modelled relationships using linear quantile regression (implemented in the R quantreg package) to test for evidence for a change over time; and (d) assessed the relationship between duration of symptoms (described as a categorical variable) and antibody assay signal (a continuous variable) using Kendall's correlation coefficient. (iii) To describe relationships between serostatus and self reported symptoms, we (a) computed unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) favouring seropositivity given various clinical risk factors for those in Police and Fire and HCW groups using binary logistic regression, and (b) estimated sensitivity of the immunoassays as the proportion of confirmed cases (individuals who had a previously PCR-positive nasal or throat swab) with detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Of the 2,847 individuals, 36% were male and 64% were female. Their ages ranged from 19 to 73 years with a median age of 43 ( Amongst the 2579 individuals without any prior PCR positivity, 27% (n=687) reported believing they had COVID-19 due to compatible symptoms (Table S1 ). By group, 29% (416/1456) in HCW and 24% (271/1123) in Police and Fire groups reported such a belief. Among individuals who reported symptoms, the median time since symptoms onset to the EDSAB-HOME recruitment visit was 75 days (IQR 63 -92 days), which was on average 12 days longer than the time since symptoms among the known previous PCR positives (median 63 days). In this cohort, hospitalisation due to COVID-19 like illness was unusual, being reported in 1% and 4% of Fire & Police and HCW groups, respectively (Table 1) . Some symptoms were commonly reported together (Figure 3 ). For example, altered sense of taste (ageusia) and smell (anosmia) were commonly co-reported; a symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough, muscle aching, fever and fatigue was also evident. Reporting symptoms in both these clusters was strongly associated with both belief that one had had COVID-19, and with seropositivity. Much weaker associations with seropositivity and with belief in prior COVID-19 infection were observed with other symptom clusters identified, and with clusters of symptoms reported in household members. Seropositivity was more common amongst those who reported having had COVID-19 compatible symptoms: amongst those who self-reported COVID-19 compatible symptoms, 28% in Police and Fire and 50% of HCW were seropositive compared with 5% and 11% of those who did not report such symptoms (Table 2) . Therefore, self-belief of having had COVID-19 was associated with seropositivity, in both the Police and Fire (OR 7.5, 95% CI 5.0-11.3) and in HCW (OR 7.9, 95% 6.1-10.3). However, of those seropositive across both groups, only 68% thought they had had COVID-19 (equating to 32% of the seropositives having had asymptomatic COVID-19). Our study detected seropositivity as associated with several known clinical risk factors (Table 2 , We also noted that date of symptom onset (which related to WHO classification) was associated with likelihood of seropositivity: while 46% of the "suspected" (symptoms after 5 March) group were seropositive, only 10% of "early-probable" (symptoms up to 5 March, which predate the national outbreak) were seropositive ( Figure S3 ). Of the "uncertain" group, 19% were seropositive, while 8% were seropositive in those reporting no symptoms (Table 2) . Overall, amongst those who reported a belief of having had COVID-19, characteristics of symptoms reported by Police and Fire and HCW differed compared to HCW-PP. For example, a higher proportion reported symptoms fewer than 7 days (39%, 36%, 20% respectively) or had a household member with COVID-19 compatible symptoms (25%, 26%, 53% respectively) ( Table 1) . Thus, we observed that those reporting symptoms who were seronegative differed in multiple respects from those who reported symptoms and were seropositive. Amongst individuals not reporting any previous COVID-19 compatible symptoms (or any previous PCR test), 158 (8%) were seropositive. Amongst these, 81% reported that no household member (or did not know) had any COVID-19 compatible symptoms; together, these data highlight the potential of serology to identify (albeit to an unknown degree), previously unidentified asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. One explanation for the large numbers of symptomatic individuals with negative serology might be the sensitivity of the assays 7 . In our study, anti-Spike (EUROIMMUN) (Anti-S1) indices and Anti-Nucleocapsid (Roche Elecsys ®) (Anti-N) protein assay ratios showed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.93, p < 0.001) and each had a clear bimodal distribution within streams A and B (Figure 4 ). were negative across both). There is weak statistical evidence for higher anti-S antibody signals in individuals with longer illness duration (p=0.06; for anti-N, p=0.16, Figure 6A , C). There is also evidence for a decline over time for anti-S antibody signals with symptom onset to blood sample intervals of between 35 and 110 days, intervals chosen as they include 87% of symptomatic known previous PCR positive cases (n = 233). Regression models estimate a decline per month of 29.1% (95% CI 3.1% to 36.7%) ( Figure 6B) , with similar results in models adjusting for initial illness duration (not shown). There was a similar trend in anti-N signals (with an estimated 18.7% decline per month, 95% CI -26.2% to 36.9%), however this was not statistically significant ( Figure 6D ). Over the time period studied, this decline has minimal impact on the serological detection of individuals with microbiologically confirmed COVID-19 disease (Supplementary Table 2 ). In summary, neither serological assay sensitivity, nor declining antibody titres, appear to provide an explanation for approximately half of symptomatic individuals who are antibody negative in our cohort. In summary, in our study of key workers, among those without prior positive PCR tests, 27% believed they had had COVID-19 due to compatible symptoms, but that, of these, around half lacked any serological evidence of having had the infection. Amongst individuals who had had symptoms, those who were seronegative reported earlier dates of symptom onset, shorter duration of symptoms and were less likely to report high specificity COVID-19 symptoms of ageusia and anosmia. The high proportion of individuals reporting belief they had had COVID-19 but who were seronegative did not appear to be readily explicable by low serological assay sensitivity or rapidly declining antibody titres. We estimated that both immunoassays used had high sensitivity (93.3%, CI 89.6% -95.7%; and 96.7%, CI 93.7% -98.2%, for EUROIMMUN and Roche Elecsys ® assays, respectively) in the key worker populations studied, who were on average 63 days post PCR-confirmed infection. This is despite many of these individuals having had relatively mild disease: among the 268 previously PCR positive individuals studied, only about 10% had been hospitalised. A limitation is the retrospective collection of symptoms histories, and the potential for recall bias. However, about 97% of the cohort provided symptom data naïve to their serological status, which may have reduced the potential for ascertainment bias. Additionally, we note that (perhaps due to interest in COVID-19 during the ongoing pandemic, and suspected COVID-19 being a memorable event) retrospective symptom collection has yielded symptom onsets which closely mirror the UK outbreak among seropositive (but not seronegative) cases. We also noted that the reporting of symptoms known to be strongly predictive of COVID-19, such as combinations of altered taste and smell 10 , is strongly associated with serostatus, supporting the validity of symptom self reporting. In addition, several other self-reported factors which are known to increase likelihood of infection, such as having had contact with a confirmed/suspected COVID-19 case and having a household member who had a positive swab were also associated with seropositivity. Comparing the data obtained with published data, the test sensitivity estimates we derive are compatible with published results for individuals with mild disease (and who had met the threshold for testing) 20 5 , but are higher than those reported by laboratory assessments using smaller panels with few individuals > 21 days post infection 15, 17 , likely due to the increased time since symptom onset (median 63 days in this cohort) relative to that in previous evaluations. This extended interval has allowed, both antibody concentrations, and perhaps also affinity of antibodies for SARS-CoV-2 21,22 to rise over time. Our results are also congruent with reports from anti-Spike S1 Receptor binding domain assays 23 , and with neutralisation assays 16 , in that we observed anti-S titres decline over time post infection. We did not observe such significant declines in anti-N immunoassay signals over the time interval studied, but cannot exclude this happening; nevertheless, we can extend the existing literature by showing that these declines have minimal impact on assay performance up to 110 days post infection in symptomatic key workers. We caution against generalisation to antibody kinetics in other populations, however: the front line key workers we studied, all of whom worked during the pandemic, may have been re-exposed to SARS-CoV-2 during their work, and may have been serially boosted by re-exposure to virus leading to sustained antibody responses, as noted with other viral pathogens 24 . In conclusion, this study indicates that a substantial proportion of key workers believe that they have had COVID-19 based on symptoms experienced, but have no antibodies detectable a median of 63 days since symptom onset, despite high immunoassay specificity and limited reduction of antibody titres over the study period. The study was approved by NHS Research Ethics Committee (Health Research Authority, IRAS 284980) on 02/06/2020 and PHE Research Ethics and Governance Group (REGG, NR0198) on 21/05/2020. The study was funded by Public Health England and supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Portfolio. Temporal profiles of viral load in posterior oropharyngeal saliva samples and serum antibody responses during infection by SARS-CoV-2: an observational cohort study Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients with COVID-19 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection since exposure and post symptom onset. The European respiratory Antibody Responses to SARS-CoV-2 at 8 Weeks Postinfection in Asymptomatic Patients Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2020 The important role of serology for COVID-19 control. The Lancet Infectious diseases 2020 Pandemic peak SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroconversion rates in London frontline health-care workers Utility of hyposmia and hypogeusia for the diagnosis of COVID-19 Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19 disease Risk of COVID-19 in health-care workers in Denmark: an observational cohort study Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study Antibody testing programme roll out for NHS staff and patients. London: National Health Service; 2020. 15. Evaluation of Roche Elecsys AntiSARS-CoV-2 serology assay for the detection of anti-SARS CoV-2 antibodies. London: Public Health England Evaluation of the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA (IgG) serology assay for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies Global Surveillance for human infection with coronavirus disease (COVID-19 Neutralizing Antibody Production in Asymptomatic and Mild COVID-19 Patients, in Comparison with Pneumonic COVID-19 Patients Clonal selection and learning in the antibody system Analysis of a SARS-CoV-2-Infected Individual Reveals Development of Potent Neutralizing Antibodies with Limited Somatic Mutation Antibodies in Persons with Mild Covid-19 Risk of herpes zoster after exposure to varicella to explore the exogenous boosting hypothesis: self controlled case series study using UK electronic healthcare data The authors declare no competing interests.