Back

Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in US Blood Donors

Vassallo, R. R.; Bravo, M. D.; Dumont, L. J.; Hazegh, K.; Kamel, H.

2020-09-18 public and global health
10.1101/2020.09.17.20195131 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundTo identify blood donors eligible to donate Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) Convalescent Plasma (CCP), a large blood center began testing for antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, the etiologic agent of COVID-19. We report the seroprevalence of total immunoglobulin directed against the S1 spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 in US blood donors. MethodsUnique non-CCP donor sera from June 1-July 31, 2020 were tested with the Ortho VITROS Anti-SARS-CoV-2 total immunoglobulin assay (positive: signal-to-cutoff (S/C) [≥]1). Donor age, sex, race/ethnicity, ABO/RhD, education, and experience were compared to June and July 2019. Multivariate regressions were conducted to identify demographics associated with the presence of antibodies and with S/C values. ResultsUnique donors (n=252,882) showed an overall seroprevalence of 1.83% in June (1.37%) and July (2.26%), with the highest prevalence in northern New Jersey (7.3%). In a subset of donors with demographic information (n=189,565), higher odds of antibody reactivity were associated with non-Hispanic Native American/Alaskan (NH-NAA/A) and Black (NH-B), and Hispanic (H) race/ethnicity, age 18-64, middle school or lesser education, blood Group A, and never or non-recent donor status. In positive donors (n=2,831), antibody signal was associated with male sex, race/ethnicity (NH-NAA/A, NH-B and H) and geographic location. ConclusionsSeroprevalence remains low in US blood donors but varies significantly by region. Temporal trends in reactivity may be used to gauge the effectiveness of public health measures. Before generalizing these data from healthy donors to the general population however, rates must be corrected for false positive test results among low prevalence test subjects and adjusted to match the wider demography.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Transfusion
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
45.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
15.6%
50% of probability mass above
3
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.3%
4
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.8%
5
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.3%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.8%
7
Annals of Internal Medicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
8
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis
28 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
9
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
10
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
11
EClinicalMedicine
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
12
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
13
Diagnostic Microbiology and Infectious Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
14
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
15
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.7%
16
JAMA
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
17
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
18
Vaccines
196 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
19
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
20
Journal of Internal Medicine
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%
21
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
22
Blood
67 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
The American Journal of Pathology
31 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%