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

EU Reduction Of The Impact Of Certain Plastic Products On The Environment

Cosmetics and personal care industry are a growing business, but with this growth comes a major concern: plastic pollution.
The European Commission has published the Directive (EU) 2019/904, known as Single-Use Plastic Directive. This directive addresses the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the environment. Harmonized marking specifications are laid down on the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2151.

Read More »
medical devices

BREXIT – Impact on Medical Devices placed in the UK market

From 31 of December 2020, the UK will be regarded as a third country and not a Member State of the European Union. There will be some changes regarding medical devices placed in the UK. The UK’s MHRA has published guidance regarding the regulation of medical devices from 1 January 2021, where it explains what changes and what there is to know about placing a medical device in the Great Britain, Northern Ireland and EU markets.

Read More »
medical devices

Brazil – Class II Medical Devices – New Resolution

A new Resolution of the Collegiate Board of Directors (RDC No. 423/2020) has been published by Brazil’s National Agency of Health Surveillance (ANVISA). This new Resolution announces the elimination of the ‘Cadastro’ pathway regarding the registration of medical devices (Class II) and IVDs, substituting it with a notification registration system.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Butylphenyl Methylpropional to be prohibited in cosmetics placed in the EU market

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 (Commission Delegated Regulation No. 2020/1182), Butylphenyl Methylpropional is now classified as toxic to reproduction (Repr. 1B – CMR 1B) and it shall be prohibited in cosmetic products from 1st March 2022.

Read More »
cosmetic products

China Bans Microbeads In Cosmetics

On 16th January 2020, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) issued the Notice [2020] No. 80, with the aim of prohibiting the use of microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products. More detailed information was given in the Notice [2020] No. 1146, issued by the NDRC on 10th July 2020.

Read More »
medical devices

EU Medical Devices Regulation – Unique Device Identifier (UDI)

In 2017, two Regulations on medical devices (MDR) and in in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVDR) entered into force in the European Union (EU), establishing a modernized and more robust EU legislative framework and safeguarding a better public health protection and patient safety. According to the these Regulations, the Unique Device Identifier (UDI) will be mandatory for all medical devices and in vitro medical devices.

Read More »
COVID-19

FDA updates on hand sanitizers safety for use

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced that it is providing a new laboratory testing method to assess the quality of finished hand sanitizers. Moreover, the FDA has issued a new press release on August 27th 2020, where it warns consumers about hand sanitizers packaged in food and drink containers. Earlier this month, the FDA expanded hand sanitizer warnings to include 1-propanol contamination.

Read More »
cosmetic products

RAPEX System 2019 Report

Every week, the RAPEX system publishes notifications of urgent measures taken by EU Member-States to prevent, restrict or impose conditions on the marketing of products due to the serious and immediate danger they pose to the health and safety of consumers.

Read More »
cosmetic products

Cosmetic Packaging in European Union

Packaging material is defined as the container (or primary packaging) that is in direct contact with the formulation. According to the European Cosmetic Regulation No. 1223/2009, packaging evaluation is mandatory to guarantee cosmetic product safety. To meet this Regulation requirements, the European Commission issued the Decision 2013/674/EU, establishing guidelines on the practical application of such requirements and identifying information that should be collected on the packaging materials and the potential migration of substances from packaging.

Read More »
cosmetic products

“Anti-pollution” claims in cosmetic products

Nowadays, it is possible to find in the market several cosmetic products with claims like “anti-pollution protection”, “pollution shield”, “against pollution damage” and similar ones. But how can a company test and prove this type of allegations?

Read More »
cosmetic products

UK Product Safety and Metrology EU Exit Regulations

The fact that the United Kingdom (UK) has left the European Union (EU) is not news for anyone. This means that the UK will no longer be considered a Member-State of the EU and will be considered a third country, implying that all the EU rules and regulations will no longer apply.

On July 3rd, the UK government has released the last version of the Product Safety and Metrology EU Exit Regulations, which includes the UK Cosmetic Regulation within Schedule 34.

Read More »
COVID-19

Hand sanitizers contaminated with methanol

The new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to an increasing demand of hand sanitizers. Nevertheless, not all hand sanitizers made available in the market are safe. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a public warning to consumers and health care providers for possible contamination of hand sanitizers with methanol. The FDA advises the public not to use such hand sanitizers, because methanol is a dangerous and toxic substance.

Read More »