Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Podcasts
  • Subscriptions

The value of serology testing to manage SARS-CoV-2 infections

Laia Fernández-Barat, Ruben López-Aladid, Antoni Torres
European Respiratory Journal 2020 56: 2002411; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02411-2020
Laia Fernández-Barat
1Cellex Laboratory, CibeRes (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, 06/06/0028), Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
2School of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
3Dept of Pneumology, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Ruben López-Aladid
1Cellex Laboratory, CibeRes (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, 06/06/0028), Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
2School of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
3Dept of Pneumology, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Antoni Torres
1Cellex Laboratory, CibeRes (Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Enfermedades Respiratorias, 06/06/0028), Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain
2School of Medicine, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
3Dept of Pneumology, Thorax Institute, Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Antoni Torres
  • For correspondence: atorres@clinic.cat
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Validated serology tests are a good complement for the SARS-CoV-2 RNA test, allow rapid epidemiological control and reveal immune status before and after vaccination. https://bit.ly/3eKAc6h

The figures presented in the World Health Organization's latest report on the current status of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the COVID-19 dashboard of the Johns Hopkins University of Medicine are quite similar: respectively, 6,416,828 and 6,656,827 cases worldwide, and 382 867 and 391 571 deaths [1, 2].

The origin of the pandemic is believed to have been a wet market in Wuhan, China, where the new strain of coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, SARS-CoV-2) was initially extracted from several patients’ lower respiratory tract samples in December 2019 [3]. These patients presented with symptoms of severe pneumonia, including fever, fatigue, dry cough and respiratory distress in 29% of cases [4, 5].

The evidence shows that virus transmission can occur during the incubation period, which is officially estimated to be between 2 and 14 days [6, 7]. However, a case with an incubation period of 27 days was reported on 22 February by the local government of Hubei province, and high sputum viral loads were found during the recovery phase in a patient with pneumonia caused by COVID-19 [8].

The range of rapid diagnostic methods available to control the pandemic is growing. However, their usefulness remains questionable, given the lack of official validation of their performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity: only a limited number of assays have received emergency use authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration [9].

Rapid PCR tests to diagnose the disease and to avoid its spread, and serological assays to determine the production of antibodies, are two important tools in managing this pandemic. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of PCR methods is no higher than 70%, which may potentially lead to underdiagnosis of COVID-19, especially in less severe or asymptomatic cases. Serological tests are fundamental to determine the acquired immunity of patients who have had the disease and to establish the level of immunity in the general population.

Serology assays overcome two important limitations of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-based techniques. The first is that they can be manipulated in a biosafety level 2 laboratory, whereas the detection of viral load requires a biosafety level 3 environment, in addition to higher protection measures during sample procurement. Secondly, sampling issues are less important in serology assays. Finally, in SARS-CoV-2 PCR-based techniques, the type of respiratory specimen and the sampling method may have a strong influence on the test's sensitivity.

In this issue of the European Respiratory Journal, Bin Lou et al. [10] present interesting data on SARS-CoV-2 assessed using PCR and on seroconversion dynamics in a cohort of 80 patients from the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University in China. The authors measured cumulative levels of antibodies (Ab), IgM and IgG at different time points ranging from 5 to 30 days after the onset of symptoms or after exposure (in only 45 patients). The fact that three different serology assays were used (two in the case of IgG) and the study of the seroconversion dynamics after the onset (0–7, 8–14 or 15–29 days) offer an interesting picture of immune response to SARS-CoV-2, clustered according to short versus long incubation periods and the development of critical versus non-critical illness. Critically ill versus non-critically ill patients did not differ with regard to time to seroconversion after exposure. The seroconversion time correlated inversely with the incubation period.

Using deep sputum instead of swabs, Bin Lou et al. [10] found the highest sensitivity of ELISA in the 15–29 days period for Ab (100%), IgM (97%) and IgG (93%). Overall, these results indicate that viral load decreased as antibody response was enhanced. Indeed, these authors found that the RNA test sensitivity was very high (100%) during the first 7 days of onset but decreased at 8–14 days (to 90%) and at 15–29 days (to 70%). Similar findings by other authors suggest that monitoring the dynamics of COVID-19 infection combining serological tests and high throughput assays would be better than using the RNA test alone [11].

Thus, serology tests seem more useful for studying seroconversion dynamics and for providing relevant epidemiological data during the mid-long term of the disease course rather than at early stages. The cumulative seroconversion showed that Ab, IgM and IgG reached 100% at 15, 18 and 20 days post-exposure or 16, 21 and 29 days after onset of symptoms, respectively. Since the quarantine period is established at 14 days, Bin Lou et al. [10] suggest that serology tests could be performed before and after de-isolation to monitor antibodies and reduce the risk of spread.

Nevertheless, the data presented by Bin Lou et al. [10] are representative of hospitalised patients and include not levels of antibodies but the cumulative seroconversion dynamics. Yong et al. [12] reported three clusters of COVID-19 identified in Singapore by active case-finding and confirmed by RT-PCR: a member of church A met a member of church B at a family gathering and SARS-CoV2 was spread by community transmission. This study suggested that serological testing can play a crucial role in identifying convalescent cases or people with milder disease who might have been missed by other surveillance methods. However, there is a need for more extensive studies in non-hospitalised patients. From the information provided up to now it remains unclear whether a negative serological test (IgG) reflects a lack of active immune response or is a false-negative.

High-sensitivity serology assays may be useful for the rapid identification of a large number of infected patients and asymptomatic carriers, and for preventing virus transmission and ensuring timely treatment of patients [13]. However, in a study quantifying antibodies against the new coronavirus by luminex in health workers, García-Basteiro et al. [14] obtained a higher dynamic range with a specificity of 100% in IgM, IgG and receptor-binding domain and a sensitivity of 97% in both Igs. Interestingly, they reported that asymptomatic patients had lower levels of antibodies than mild-severe cases. In addition, in agreement with Bin Lou et al. [10], they found that seroconversion occurred between 2 and 3 weeks after symptom onset.

Serology testing is a useful tool which may have several more applications in the future. Serology tests can be useful for complementing RNA tests, for the rapid identification of cases and for recommending quarantine or defining clusters. It is also a good method for containing and identifying the route of transmission in order to control the spread of the pandemic and to facilitate epidemiological studies. Serology assay may also be useful to check immune status after vaccination. Finally, serology tests can identify plasma donors for therapeutic approaches involving plasmapheresis. Their usefulness in asymptomatic and mild patients remains unclear, because several studies report that these patients present the lowest levels of antibodies. Further studies are now required to determine the dynamics of antibody levels in severe COVID-19 presentation, its complications, and its associated mortality. Finally, there is still a need to establish the levels of antibodies that confer protection against reinfection, and also how long this protection may last.

Shareable PDF

Supplementary Material

This one-page PDF can be shared freely online.

Shareable PDF ERJ-02411-2020.Shareable

Footnotes

  • Conflict of interest: L. Fernández-Barat has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: R. López-Aladid has nothing to disclose.

  • Conflict of interest: A. Torres has nothing to disclose.

  • Received June 19, 2020.
  • Accepted June 22, 2020.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2020
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This version is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. World Health Organization
    . Coronavirus Disease (COVID-2019) Situation Reports. www.whoint/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports
  2. ↵
    1. Dong E,
    2. Du H,
    3. Gardner L
    . COVID-19 Dashboard by the Center for Systems, Science and Engineering (CSSE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU), April 14, 2020 https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html Date last accessed: 4 June, 2020.
  3. ↵
    1. Li X,
    2. Zai J,
    3. Zhao Q, et al.
    Evolutionary history, potential intermediate animal host, and cross-species analyses of SARS-CoV-2. J Med Virol 2020; 92: 602−611. doi:10.1002/jmv.25731
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  4. ↵
    1. Huang C,
    2. Wang Y,
    3. Li X, et al.
    Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. Lancet 2020; 395: 497–506. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30183-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Yang X,
    2. Yu Y,
    3. Xu J, et al.
    Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a single-centered, retrospective, observational study. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: 475−481. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30079-5
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Shi H,
    2. Han X,
    3. Jiang N, et al.
    Radiological findings from 81 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in Wuhan, China: a descriptive study. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: 425–434. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30086-4
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Cheung JC,
    2. Ho LT,
    3. Cheng JV, et al.
    Staff safety during emergency airway management for COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8: e19. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30084-9
    OpenUrl
  8. ↵
    1. Kong TK
    . Longer incubation period of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in older adults. Aging Med (Milton) 2020; 3: 102–109.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Krammer F,
    2. Simon V
    . Serology assays to manage COVID-19. Science 2020; 368: 1060–1061. doi:10.1126/science.abc1227
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Lou B,
    2. Li TD,
    3. Zheng SF, et al.
    Serology characteristics of SARS-CoV-2 infection after exposure and post-symptom onset. Eur Respir J 2020; 56: 2000763. doi:10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30084-9
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Zhao J,
    2. Yuan Q,
    3. Wang H, et al.
    Antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2 in patients of novel coronavirus disease 2019. Clin Infect Dis 2020; in press [https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa344]. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa344
  12. ↵
    1. Yong SEF,
    2. Anderson DE,
    3. Wei WE, et al.
    Connecting clusters of COVID-19: an epidemiological and serological investigation. Lancet Infect Dis 2020; 20: 809−815. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30273-5
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Li Z,
    2. Yi Y,
    3. Luo X, et al.
    Development and clinical application of a rapid IgM-IgG combined antibody test for SARS-CoV-2 infection diagnosis. J Med Virol 2020; 92: 1518–1524.
    OpenUrl
  14. ↵
    1. Garcia-Basteiro AL,
    2. Moncunil G,
    3. Tortajada M, et al.
    Seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers in a large Spanish reference hospital. medRxiv 2020; preprint [https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.20082289].
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 56 Issue 2 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 56 (2)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The value of serology testing to manage SARS-CoV-2 infections
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
The value of serology testing to manage SARS-CoV-2 infections
Laia Fernández-Barat, Ruben López-Aladid, Antoni Torres
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2002411; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02411-2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The value of serology testing to manage SARS-CoV-2 infections
Laia Fernández-Barat, Ruben López-Aladid, Antoni Torres
European Respiratory Journal Aug 2020, 56 (2) 2002411; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.02411-2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Shareable PDF
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Addressing the effect of ancestry on lung volume
  • Bronchodilators in bronchiectasis: there is light but it is still too dim
  • Consensus statement on quality standards for managing children with bronchiectasis
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2022 by the European Respiratory Society