Back

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody responses do not predict COVID-19 disease severity

Phipps, W. S.; SoRelle, J. A.; Li, Q.-Z.; Mahimainathan, L.; Araj, E.; Markantonis, J.; Lacelle, C.; Balani, J.; Parikh, H.; Solow, E. B.; Karp, D. R.; Sarode, R.; Muthukumar, A.

2020-05-18 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.05.15.20103580
Show abstract

BackgroundInitial reports indicate adequate performance of some serological-based SARS-CoV-2 assays. However, additional studies are required to facilitate interpretation of results, including how antibody levels impact immunity and disease course. MethodsIn this study, a total of 968 subjects were tested for IgG antibodies reactive to SARS-CoV-2. We confirmed analytic specificity using 656 plasma samples from healthy donors, 49 sera from patients with rheumatic disease, and 90 specimens from individuals positive for PCR-based respiratory viral panel. One-hundred seventy-three cases of confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 were tested for IgG. A subgroup of 37 SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive cases was tested for nucleocapsid-specific IgM antibody using an in-house developed microarray method. Antibody levels were compared between disease severity groups. ResultsAll specificity specimens were negative for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies (0/656, 0%). Cross reactivity was not detected in specimens with antinuclear antibodies and rheumatoid factor, or cases with previous diagnosis of viral infection including human coronavirus. Positive agreement of IgG with PCR was 83% of samples confirmed to be more than 14 days from symptom onset, with less than 100% sensitivity attributable to a case with severe immunosuppression. Virus-specific IgM was positive in a higher proportion of cases less than 3 days from symptom onset. No association was observed between mild and severe disease course with respect to IgG and IgM levels. ConclusionsThe studied SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay had 100% specificity and no adverse cross-reactivity. Index values of IgG and IgM antibodies did not predict disease severity in our patient population.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
based on 219 papers
Top 3%
7.6%
2
Journal of Medical Virology
based on 95 papers
Top 1%
6.4%
3
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 28%
6.4%
4
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 137 papers
Top 0.8%
6.4%
5
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
4.7%
6
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 2%
4.5%
7
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 72%
4.5%
8
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
based on 115 papers
Top 2%
4.5%
9
Journal of Clinical Virology
based on 54 papers
Top 1.0%
2.8%
10
Frontiers in Immunology
based on 140 papers
Top 3%
2.8%
50% of probability mass above
11
Frontiers in Medicine
based on 99 papers
Top 6%
2.8%
12
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
based on 54 papers
Top 1%
2.8%
13
Journal of Infection
based on 64 papers
Top 1%
2.8%
14
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
based on 18 papers
Top 0.4%
2.3%
15
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
based on 124 papers
Top 5%
1.8%
16
BMC Infectious Diseases
based on 110 papers
Top 9%
1.6%
17
Viruses
based on 79 papers
Top 3%
1.6%
18
Journal of Virological Methods
based on 20 papers
Top 1%
1.3%
19
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
20
Emerging Infectious Diseases
based on 84 papers
Top 8%
1.3%
21
Journal of Clinical Medicine
based on 77 papers
Top 13%
1.2%
22
eBioMedicine
based on 82 papers
Top 6%
0.8%
23
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 40%
0.8%
24
Infectious Diseases
based on 15 papers
Top 0.9%
0.8%
25
Microorganisms
based on 21 papers
Top 1%
0.7%
26
JCI Insight
based on 63 papers
Top 6%
0.7%
27
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Journal of Clinical Immunology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.8%
0.7%