Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and risk of future sickness

Background

To design strategies for SARS-CoV-2 control, knowledge of whether exposed individuals are immune against future disease is critical [1]. The incubation time from exposure to onset of symptoms has been estimated to last a median of six days, with peak infectiousness occurring zero to two days before onset of symptoms [2] and pre-symptomatic spread is estimated to account for a substantial proportion of disease transmission [2,3]. Infectiousness decreases with increasing time after onset of symptoms [4] and some individuals may remain asymptomatic despite being virus positive [5]. The IgG response develops rather slowly, commonly concomitantly with symptom resolution and increases in subsequent weeks. One report found that all COVID-19 patients had become seropositive 19 days after onset of symptoms [6]. Although there are many studies on viral antibodies and immunity, it is still uncertain to what extent immunity exists and what the predictive value of presence of viral antibodies is. A problem is that studies that are based on past sickness are fraught with recall biases (subjects knowing their antibody status preferentially recalling events) and that prospective studies using future sickness as endpoint need to be very large.

Methods

The Karolinska University Hospital is one of the largest university hospitals in Europe, with about 15,300 employees (employment during enrollment, 23rd April - 22nd May 2020). The hospital announced that all employees who were at work (without ongoing sickness) were welcome to participate in a study on SARS-CoV-2. We enrolled 14,057 participants who all signed a written informed consent that also included permission to extract data from the employer’s administrative databases that contain data on sick leave. Most participants were between 30-59 years old and 79% were females (Supplementary Table 1). Analysis results were reported to participants, but analyses took 4 weeks post sampling to complete. Sick leave data was obtained from 6 weeks before sampling until 2 weeks after sampling. The study was approved by the National Ethical Review Agency of Sweden (Decision number 2020–01620). Trial registration number: https:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04411576

Results

We invited all employees currently at work at a large hospital in Sweden to participate in a longitudinal cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 testing in relation to both past and future sick leave. We enrolled 14,052 participants (Figure 1). After exclusion of participants not formally employed (e.g. medical students) and subjects with invalid tests, the final cohort consisted of 12,928 subjects with complete data on sick leave and valid SARS-CoV-2 antibody results (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

STROBE flowchart of study participants

The overall number and proportion of employees that tested positive in the antibody tests are shown by age in ten-year spans in Table 1. The proportion of serology-positive subjects was greatest among the youngest employees and decreased significantly with increasing age (p-value for trend < 0.0001).

Positivity in serology was significantly associated with an excess risk for having been on sick leave in the past 6 weeks (Table 2) but did not confer any excess risk for future sick leave for the coming two weeks after testing (Table 2). The mutual adjustments (age, sex and serostatus) in the multivariate model had only minor effects on the estimates (Supplementary Table 2).

As Covid-19 is known to preferentially affect older subjects and have a long sickness duration, we next analyzed the length of sick leave in relation to age and serology status (Table 3). No past sick leave was found for 66% of the antibody-negative subjects, whereas only 35% of the antibody-positive subjects had no past sick leave (Table 3). The association of seropositivity with past sick leave was highly significant (OR: 3.34 (2.98-3.74)) and mostly due to sick leave longer than five days (Table 3). Figure 2 displays the proportion of participants on sick leave in relation to their antibody status. The typical seasonal pattern with reported sick leave declining over time during spring was seen for both seronegative and seropositive subjects (Figure 2), but the elevated excess odds ratio for past sick leave was similar for the different weeks before testing.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2. Proportion (%) of healthcare workers on sick leave during the study period, by serology test result-

Dashed lines around the lines denote the 95% confidence intervals.

Similarly, the sick leave curves for seropositive and seronegative subjects are superimposed on each other after testing (Figure 2), in line with the absence of excess risk after testing (Table 2).

Discussion

We provide large-scale data that antibodies to the SARS-CoV-2 virus associated with protection against excess risk of future sick leave in a large, well-defined cohort of hospital employees. Antibodies were instead associated with past sick leave and serology was thus found to be useful for distinguishing whether subjects who are exposed to the virus may be at risk for development of virus-associated disease or not. Although we find an association of antibodies with protection against excess risk of future disease, it is possible that the antibodies are not directly inducing protection but that their detection SARS-CoV-2 is associated with lowered risk for disease by some indirect association, e.g. if they associate with a resolved disease that has induced cellular immunity.

Strengths of our study include the fact that it was a large and systematically enrolled cohort that used administrative sick leave data and was therefore not hampered by the recall bias to which studies collecting information from participants can be subjected. We used a carefully validated serology platform that contained several SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Test results were delivered to participants, but as the analyses took more than two weeks to complete, registered sick leave after enrollment occurred before the results were delivered and the strong effect seen where serology protected from future excess risk of sickness could thus not have been induced by knowledge of the test results.

A limitation is that we were not able to study infections occurring more than six to seven weeks before enrollment, as community transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in the region started only about six to seven weeks before the study. Participants were not questioned about present or prior symptoms, but the hospital rules were clear that employees with symptoms should not be at work and we had, by design, decided to use only sick leave data to avoid possible recall bias. Hospital rules state that also employees working from home that develop COVID-19 symptoms must report this as sick leave.

We conclude that antibody testing is a powerful tool for identification of subjects who have had prior virus exposure and are protected against future disease. Although it is commonly assumed that antibodies mark immunity, it is important that it has now been shown in a large cohort study that seropositive subjects have no excess risk for future sick leave.

We would like to caution that there is a large number of serology tests currently on the market and the extent of their validation may vary. Also, none of these tests have been specifically validated for the indication proposed here (to separate exposed subjects who are protected from future disease from exposed subjects at risk to develop disease in the future).

In summary, the present study has found that validated antibody testing may be helpful in SARS-CoV-2 screening strategies as antibody-positive subjects were found to have no excess risk for future disease in the weeks after testing.

Author contributions

JD led the study design, data collection, and conceptualization of the analysis in collaboration with KCL. CE, CL, SNK, CH, JO, EA, AJF, SB, EH, EP, AM, PN, MH, SH, LSAM were responsible for preparing and processing samples for laboratory analysis as well as developing and conducting the analyses. JD, KME, JB, and JM analyzed the data. JD and KME wrote the manuscript with support from the co-authors. All authors were involved in the critical revision of the article.

Data and materials availability

The data constitutes sensitive data about health of human research subjects. However, pseudonymised, individual-level data that allow full replication of the results in this article are freely available from joakim.dillner{at}sll.se or from the Karolinska University Hospital data analysis department: tableau.karolinska{at}sll.se