Cited by 108SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchSARS-CoV-2 detection and testingCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

Serologic responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospital staff with mild disease in eastern France

Open access
Fafi-Kremer, Samira, Bruel, Timothée, Madec, Yoann, Grant, Rebecca, Tondeur, Laura, Grzelak, Ludivine, Staropoli, Isabelle, Anna, François +18 more·2020·eBioMedicine

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The serologic response of individuals with mild forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection is poorly characterized. METHODS: Hospital staff who had recovered from mild forms of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies using two assays: a rapid immunodiagnostic test (99.4% specificity) and the S-Flow assay (~99% specificity). The neutralizing activity of the sera was tested with a pseudovirus-based assay. FINDINGS: Of 162 hospital staff who participated in the investigation, 160 reported SARS-CoV-2 infection that had not required hospital admission and were included in these analyses. The median time from symptom onset to blood sample collection was 24 days (IQR: 21-28, range 13-39). The rapid immunodiagnostic test detected antibodies in 153 (95.6%) of the samples and the S-Flow assay in 159 (99.4%), failing to detect antibodies in one sample collected 18 days after symptom onset (the rapid test did not detect antibodies in that patient). Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) were detected in 79%, 92% and 98% of samples collected 13-20, 21-27 and 28-41 days after symptom onset, respectively (P = 0.02). INTERPRETATION: Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in virtually all hospital staff sampled from 13 days after the onset of COVID-19 symptoms. This finding supports the use of serologic testing for the diagnosis of individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection. The neutralizing activity of the antibodies increased overtime. Future studies will help assess the persistence of the humoral response and its associated neutralization capacity in recovered patients. FUNDINGS: The funders had no role in study design, data collection, interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102915

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The positivity threshold of the S-Flow assay was defined as specific binding above 40%, determined after testing 253 pre-pandemic samples.

    “After testing 253 pre-pandemic samples, the positivity of a sample was defined as a specific binding above 40%.”
  • The S-Flow serological assay, assessed with the Wuhan S protein on 253 pre-pandemic samples and 377 RT-qPCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 samples, has a sensitivity of 99.2% (95% CI 97.69-99.78%) and a specificity of 100% (98.5-100%).

    “The specificity and sensitivity of the S-Flow serological assay were originally assessed with the Wuhan S protein using 253 pre-pandemic samples and 377 RT-qPCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 samples.The sensitivity is 99.2% with a 95% confidence interval of 97.69-99.78%and the specificity is 100% (98.5-100%) 33,35 .”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fafi-Kremer, S., Bruel, T., Madec, Y., Grant, R., Tondeur, L., Grzelak, L., Staropoli, I., Anna, F., Souque, P., Fernandes-Pellerin, S., Jolly, N., Renaudat, C., Ungeheuer, M.-N., Schmidt-Mutter, C., Collongues, N., Bolle, A., Velay, A., Lefebvre, N., Mielcarek, M., Meyer, N., Rey, D., Charneau, P., Hoen, B., De Seze, J., Schwartz, O., & Fontanet, A.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Institut Pasteur (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg (FR)
  • Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers (FR)
Corresponding author
Bruel, Timothée
Venue
eBioMedicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-09
Volume
59
Pages
102915
ISSN
2352-3964 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046548218
Cited by
108
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 32
FWCI
3.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EBioMedicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
Funders
Gilead Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 detection and testing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 pandemic, mild COVID-19, serological response, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, neutralizing antibodies, hospital staff, serological diagnosis, humoral immune response, antibody persistence
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Antibodies, Viral, Female, France, Health Personnel, Hospitals, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, RNA, Viral, Serologic Tests, Severity of Illness Index, Coronavirus Infections, Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction, Antibodies, Neutralizing, Pandemics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review