CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 940SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Antibody Status and Incidence of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Health Care Workers

Open access
Lumley, Sheila F., O’Donnell, Denise, Stoesser, Nicole E., Matthews, Philippa C., Howarth, Alison, Hatch, Stephanie B., Marsden, Brian D., Cox, Stuart, James, Tim, Warren, Fiona, Peck, Liam J., Ritter, Thomas G., de Toledo, Zoe, Warren, Laura, Axten, David, Cornall, Richard J., Jones, E. Yvonne, Stuart, David I., Screaton, Gavin, Ebner, Daniel, Hoosdally, Sarah, Chand, Meera, Crook, Derrick W., O’Donnell, Anne-Marie, Conlon, Christopher P., Pouwels, Koen B., Walker, A. Sarah, Peto, Tim E.A., Hopkins, Susan, Walker, Timothy M., Jeffery, Katie, Eyre, David W.·2021·New England Journal of Medicine
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa2034545PMC PMC7781098

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The relationship between the presence of antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the risk of subsequent reinfection remains unclear. METHODS: We investigated the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in seropositive and seronegative health care workers attending testing of asymptomatic and symptomatic staff at Oxford University Hospitals in the United Kingdom. Baseline antibody status was determined by anti-spike (primary analysis) and anti-nucleocapsid IgG assays, and staff members were followed for up to 31 weeks. We estimated the relative incidence of PCR-positive test results and new symptomatic infection according to antibody status, adjusting for age, participant-reported gender, and changes in incidence over time. RESULTS: A total of 12,541 health care workers participated and had anti-spike IgG measured; 11,364 were followed up after negative antibody results and 1265 after positive results, including 88 in whom seroconversion occurred during follow-up. A total of 223 anti-spike-seronegative health care workers had a positive PCR test (1.09 per 10,000 days at risk), 100 during screening while they were asymptomatic and 123 while symptomatic, whereas 2 anti-spike-seropositive health care workers had a positive PCR test (0.13 per 10,000 days at risk), and both workers were asymptomatic when tested (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.03 to 0.44; P = 0.002). There were no symptomatic infections in workers with anti-spike antibodies. Rate ratios were similar when the anti-nucleocapsid IgG assay was used alone or in combination with the anti-spike IgG assay to determine baseline status. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of anti-spike or anti-nucleocapsid IgG antibodies was associated with a substantially reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 reinfection in the ensuing 6 months. (Funded by the U.K. Government Department of Health and Social Care and others.).

Overview

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa2034545

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Muecksch F, Wise H, Batchelor B, et al. Longitudinal analysis of serology and neutralizing antibody levels in COVID19 convalescents. J Infect Dis 2020 November 3 (Epub ahead of print).33140086
  2. To KK-W, Hung IF-N, Ip JD, et al. COVID-19 re-infection by a phylogenetically distinct SARS-coronavirus-2 strain confirmed by whole genome sequencing. Clin Infect Dis 2020 August 25 (Epub ahead of print).32840608

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 913

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lumley, S. F., O’Donnell, D., Stoesser, N. E., Matthews, P. C., Howarth, A., Hatch, S. B., Marsden, B. D., Cox, S., James, T., Warren, F., Peck, L. J., Ritter, T. G., de Toledo, Z., Warren, L., Axten, D., Cornall, R. J., Jones, E. Y., Stuart, D. I., Screaton, G., Ebner, D., Hoosdally, S., Chand, M., Crook, D. W., O’Donnell, A.-M., Conlon, C. P., Pouwels, K. B., Walker, A. S., Peto, T. E. A., Hopkins, S., Walker, T. M., Jeffery, K., & Eyre, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Public Health England (GB)
  • From Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (S.F.L., N.E.S., P.C.M., S.C., T.J., F.W., L.W., D.A., A.-M.O., K.J.), Nuffield Department of Medicine (S.F.L., D.O., N.E.S., P.C.M., A.H., S.B.H., B.D.M., R.J.C., E.Y.J., D.I.S., G.S., D.E., S. Hoosdally, D.W.C., C.P.C., A.S.W., T.E.A.P., T.M.W.), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (N.E.S., P.C.M., S. Hoosdally, D.W.C., A.S.W., T.E.A.P., D.W.E.), the Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology Research (B.D...
Corresponding author
Eyre, David W.
ORCID
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Publisher
Massachusetts Medical Society
Published
2021-02-11
Volume
384
Issue
6
Pages
533-540
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
DOI
10.1056/nejmoa2034545
PMC
PMC7781098
OpenAlex
W3117382778
Cited by
940
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 299 · 2021: 434
FWCI
28.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
U.K. Government
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Modeling and Simulation › COVID-19 epidemiological studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › COVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Keywords
SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 reinfection, healthcare workers, anti-spike IgG, seropositivity, seroconversion, asymptomatic infection, symptomatic infection, infection incidence, antibody status
MeSH terms
Seroconversion, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Coronavirus Nucleocapsid Proteins, COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing, COVID-19 Serological Testing, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Antibodies, Viral, Female, United Kingdom, Health Personnel, Humans, Immunoglobulin G, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Incidence, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Young Adult, Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus

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