Could antibody serologic tests downplay SARS-CoV-2 virus prevalence?
Antibody studies might underestimate the share of a population that has been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Most antibody tests have been validated using blood samples from people hospitalized with severe disease. But these individuals, who make up only a small fraction of infected people, might have higher levels of antibodies circulating in their body than have people with mild or no symptoms.

In response to a pathogen attack, immune cells produce molecules called antibodies, which can linger in the blood and provide a record of infection. Isabel Rodríguez-Barraquer at the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues identified a potential source of bias in tests that detect the presence of antibodies against the new coronavirus. [1]

Growing evidence suggests that asymptomatic and mild SARS-CoV-2 infections, together comprising >95% of all infections, may be associated with lower antibody titers than severe infections. [2-6] In addition, antibody levels peak a few weeks after infection and decay gradually. Yet, positive controls used for determining the sensitivity of serological assays are usually limited to samples from hospitalised patients with severe disease, leading to what is commonly known as spectrum bias in estimating seroprevalence in the general population. [7-8]

Assay validation requires samples from individuals with known infection status in order to determine test performance characteristics (i.e., sensitivity and specificity). Due to potential cross-reactivity of antibody responses to seasonal coronaviruses, much of the focus of assay development has been on ensuring near perfect specificity, to minimize the risk of false positive results. This is particularly important during early stages of the epidemic, when the number of true positives is expected to be very low. However, if the purpose of deploying a serological assay is to quantify the proportion of the population that has been infected by SARS-CoV-2 (i.e., serosurveillance), adequate characterization of assay sensitivity to detect prior infection in the general population is important as well. [9]

Assays with imperfect sensitivity lead to underestimates of the true seroprevalence, but can be easily corrected for if the actual sensitivity of the assay in the sampled population is known. However, if test sensitivity has been determined from positive control sets skewed towards those with severe clinical outcomes (high antibody levels), the measured prevalence, even after correction, will still underestimate the true prevalence. The magnitude of the underestimate will depend on how biased the distribution of positive controls is relative to the population, and on how much assay sensitivity varies with disease severity. Similarly, corrected prevalence will only equal the true prevalence if decreases in sensitivity due to waning antibody responses over time can be accounted for. [1]

These results have important implications for assay development and for the interpretation of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies. First, they highlight the need to quantify the extent to which the sensitivity of the assays used in ongoing serosurveillance studies varies with disease severity and over time. Incorporating loss of sensitivity with increasing time since infection will gain importance as the pandemic progresses. More importantly, these results highlight the need for detailed studies characterizing kinetics of antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 across the severity spectrum. If antibody responses are significantly lower in milder cases, or if there is significant waning in the months following infection, assays for seroprevalence studies should be optimized to detect these lower titers. Finally, these results caution against accepting aggregate sensitivities and specificities reported by assay manufacturers at face value. Ideally, sensitivities and specificities should be stratified by disease severity and time since infection, and the characteristics of the validation set should be reported at a minimum. [1]

The researchers say more detailed studies are needed to assess how well antibody tests detect previous infection in people who had mild disease.

These findings have not yet been peer reviewed.

References:

  1. Takahashi, S., Greenhouse, B., & Rodríguez-Barraquer, I. (2020, May 30). Are SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates biased?. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/y3fxt
  2. Whitman JD, Hiatt J, Mowery CT, et al. Test performance evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS). 2020; published online April 29. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.25.20074856
  3. Okba NMA, Muller MA, Li W, et al. SARS-CoV-2 specific antibody responses in COVID-19 patients. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS). 2020; published online March 20. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.18.20038059
  4. Wu F, Wang A, Liu M, et al. Neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in a COVID-19 recovered patient cohort and their implications. Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS). 2020; published online April 6. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.20047365
  5. Ferguson NM, Laydon D, Nedjati-Gilani G, Imai N, Ainslie K, Baguelin M. Report 9: Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand. https://doi.org/10.25561/77482
  6. Cervia C, Nilsson J, Zurbuchen Y, et al. Systemic and mucosal antibody secretion specific to SARS-CoV-2 during mild versus severe COVID-19. bioRxiv. 2020; https://doi.org/2020.05.21.108308
  7. Sethuraman N, Jeremiah SS, Ryo A. Interpreting Diagnostic Tests for SARS-CoV-2. JAMA 2020; published online May 6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.8259
  8. Rosado J, Cockram C, Merkling S, et al. Serological signatures of SARS-CoV-2 infection: Implications for antibody-based diagnostics. 2020; published online May 11. https://hal-pasteur.archives-ouvertes.fr/pasteur-02569149/document
  9. Krammer F, Simon V. Serology assays to manage COVID-19. Science 2020; published online May 15. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abc1227

further
reading

cosmetic products

New Formaldehyde Threshold in Cosmetic Products

The European Commission has issued a draft regulation to amend the preamble of Annex V regarding the threshold for labelling formaldehyde releasers. This amendment results from a scientific advice published by the SCCS concluding that the current threshold does not sufficiently protect consumers sensitized to formaldehyde.

Read More »
cosmetic products

New Restriction on the Use of Benzophenone-3 in Cosmetics

Benzophenone-3 was part of a priority list of potential endocrine disruptors established by the European Commission in 2019. The SCCS was asked to assess the safety of this ingredient and the European Cosmetics Regulation will be amended in accordance with the SCCS assessment conclusions.

Read More »
endocrine disruptors
cosmetic products

European Commission Calls for Data on Ingredients with Potential Endocrine-Disrupting Properties

Substances classified as endocrine disruptors are compounds that can alter the functioning of the endocrine system and negatively affect the health of humans and animals. In 2019, the European Commission set out two lists of ingredients suspected of having endocrine disrupting properties. More recently, the Commission has published a call for data for 10 ingredients that were included in the low priority group (Group B) for the SCCS to be able to assess their safety.

Read More »
cosmetic products

SCCS Preliminary Opinion on Prostaglandins and Prostaglandin-analogues

Following the mandate from the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published a preliminary opinion on Prostaglandins and Prostaglandin-analogues used in cosmetic products. This preliminary opinion is open for comments and the deadline was set for 23 november 2021.

Read More »
cosmetic products

SCCS Preliminary Opinion on Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT)

Following the mandate from the European Commission, the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) has published a preliminary opinion on Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT). This preliminary opinion is open for comments and the deadline was set for 23 november 2021.

Read More »
cosmetic products

EU Prohibition of Zinc Pyrithione in Cosmetic Products

Zinc Pyrithione has been used for more than 60 years as an anti-dandruff agent in cosmetic products. Last month, the European Commission published the Commission Regulation (EU) 2021/1092, which includes this ingredient in Annex II. From March 2022 onwards, Zinc Pyrithione will be prohibited in cosmetic products.

Read More »
medical devices

EUDAMED Status Update 2021

The development and deployment of EUDAMED is progressing. Following the implementation plan and getting familiar with the information stored in the database’s modules is crucial for economic operators compliance in the EU market.

Read More »
cosmetic products

EU Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability

The Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) was recently published by the European Union. The CSS is part of the European Green Deal which aims for a toxic-free environment leading to zero pollution. The initiative proposes a new legislative amend to the EU Cosmetic Products Regulation. Simplification and digitalization of labelling requirements plus review of the definition of nanomaterial are two of the main objectives of the CSS.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Nanotechnology in Sun Care Products

Nanomaterials are increasingly used in cosmetics and personal care products. They are similar to other chemicals/substances, but with specific risks associated to their use. Currently, there are 4 nano-ingredients approved in the European Union for use as UV filters in cosmetic products.

Read More »
cosmetic products

May Butylphenyl Methylpropional be used in Cosmetic Products?

Butylphenyl Methylpropional, also known as Lilial, is a fragrance ingredient that has been used for years in several cosmetic and non-cosmetic products. Nevertheless, some concerns have been expressed regarding the use of this ingredient and its risk to consumers. According to an amendment to the CLP Regulation, the use of Butylphenyl Methylpropional will be prohibited in cosmetic products from 1st March 2022.

Read More »
cosmetic products

How are Cosmetic Products Regulated in the United Arab Emirates?

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are an emerging market for the beauty industry. Cosmetics and personal care products supplied or sold in the UAE must comply with the health and safety requirements set out in UAE legislation. Overall, the process for importing a cosmetic product into the UAE market from the European Union can be quite straightforward since the UAE has aligned several of its requirements with the European Cosmetic Regulation.

Read More »