Discrepancy between frequent occurrence of COVID-19-like symptoms and low seroconversion rates among healthcare workers

Titers of IgG and IgA against SARS-CoV-2 proteins and their association with symptoms in mild COVID-19 infection

Humoral immunity in COVID-19 includes antibodies (Abs) targeting spike (S) and nucleocapsid (N) SARS-CoV-2 proteins. Antibody levels are known to correlate with disease severity, but titers are poorly reported in mild or asymptomatic cases. Here, we analyzed the titers of IgA and IgG against SARS-CoV-2 proteins in samples from 200 unvaccinated Hospital Workers (HWs) with mild COVID-19 at two time points after infection. We analyzed the relationship between Ab titers and patient characteristics, clinical features, and evolution over time. Significant differences in IgG and IgA titers against N, S1 and S2 proteins were found when samples were segregated according to time T1 after infection, seroprevalence at T1, sex and age of HWs and symptoms at infection. We found that IgM + samples had higher titers of IgG against N antigen and IgA against S1 and S2 antigens than IgM - samples. There were significant correlations between anti-S1 and S2 Abs. Interestingly, IgM + patients with dyspnea had lower titers of IgG and IgA against N, S1 and S2 than those without dyspnea. Comparing T1 and T2, we found that IgA against N, S1 and S2 but only IgG against certain Ag decreased significantly. In conclusion, an association was established between Ab titers and the development of infection symptoms.

Discrepancy between frequent occurrence of COVID-19-like symptoms and low seroconversion rates among healthcare workers

During the first wave of the pandemic, we compared the occurrence of subjectively experienced COVID‐19‐like symptoms and true severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) seroconversion rates among medical personnel in general practices. This cross‐sectional study determined the SARS‐CoV‐2‐specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody status of medical staff from 100 outpatient practices in Germany. Study cohort characteristics and COVID‐19‐like symptoms were obtained by questionnaires. The initial screening for SARS‐CoV‐2‐recognizing antibodies was performed using a commercial chemiluminescence microparticle immunoassay. Positive results were controlled with another approved test. Samples with discrepant results were subjected to a third IgG‐binding assay and a neutralization test. A total of 861 participants were included, 1.7% (n = 15) of whom tested positive for SARS‐CoV‐specific IgG in the initial screening test. In 46.6% (n = 7) of positive cases, test results were confirmed by an independent test. In the eight samples with discrepant results, neither spike‐specific antibodies nor in vitro neutralizing capacity were detectable, resulting in a genuine seroprevalence rate of 0.8%. 794 participants completed the questionnaire. Intriguingly, a total of 53.7% (n = 426) of them stated episodes of COVID‐19‐like symptoms. Except for smell and taste dysfunction, there were no significant differences between the groups with and without laboratory‐confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 seroconversion. Our results demonstrated that only 0.8% of participants acquired SARS‐CoV‐2 even though 53.7% of participants reportedly experienced COVID‐19‐like symptoms. Thus, even among medical staff, self‐diagnosis based on subjectively experienced symptoms does not have a relevant predictive value.