|
|
|
|
LEADER |
02671nam a2200289Ia 4500 |
001 |
10.1016-j.jcvp.2022.100089 |
008 |
220718s2022 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 26670380 (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 after natural infection in healthcare workers and clinical characteristics as putative antibody production prediction
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Elsevier Ltd
|c 2022
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcvp.2022.100089
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a Introduction: There is a need for detailed data on early antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 as this may contribute to the prediction of the clinical course of COVID-19 and the optimization of convalescent plasma treatment. This study aims to gain insight into developing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in health care workers (HCWs) infected in the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in the Netherlands. Materials and methods: In this retrospective analysis, sera from PCR-confirmed COVID-19 positive HCWs are included at the time of the initial PCR (T = 0, n = 95) and at least 21 days after the initial serum (T ≥ 21, n = 133). This study assesses correlations between qualitative total Ig, IgM, IgA, IgG, and quantitative anti-S-RBD antibody responses and participant characteristics. Results: Higher Ct values were associated with higher antibody positivity rates for total Ig (OR 1.261 (95% CI 1.095–1.452)), IgM (OR 1.373 (95% CI 1.125–1.675)), and IgA (OR 1.222 (95% CI 1.013–1.475)). Gender was predictive of IgM and IgA antibody positivity rates at T = 0 (OR 0.018 (95% CI 0.001–0.268)) and (OR 0.070 (95% CI 0.008–0.646)). At T ≥ 21, a substantial proportion of HCWs developed IgM (103/133; 77.4%) and total Ig (128/133; 96.2%) antibodies. IgA and IgG seroconversions were observed in only 51.1% (67/131) and 55.7% (73/131) of HCWs. Anti-S-RBD responses were higher when the interval between onset of symptoms and sampling was longer. Conclusion: The findings of this study give insight into early antibody responses and may have implications for the selection of convalescent plasma donors and the further development of monoclonal antibody treatment. © 2022 The Authors
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Antibody response
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a ECLIA
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a ELISA
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a SARS-CoV-2
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Serology
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Bank, L.E.A.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a de Leede, S.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Hanssen, D.A.T.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Heijgele, K.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Mulder, M.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Penders, J.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Savelkoul, P.H.M.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Slaats, M.H.C.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a van Loo, I.H.M.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Journal of Clinical Virology Plus
|