Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35548171›Full record

ArticleOpen forum infectious diseases2021

Feasibility of SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Testing in Remote Outpatient Trials.

Sarah M Lofgren, Elizabeth C Okafor, Alanna A Colette, Katelyn A Pastick, Caleb P Skipper, Matthew F Pullen, Melanie R Nicol, Tyler D Bold, Ananta S Bangdiwala, Nicole W Engen and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Open forum infectious diseases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.1field-weighted citation impact, top 56% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah M LofgrenDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6717-2614
Elizabeth C OkaforSchool of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Alanna A ColetteDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Katelyn A PastickSchool of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Caleb P SkipperDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Matthew F PullenDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Melanie R NicolDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5513-5509
Tyler D BoldDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Ananta S BangdiwalaDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Nicole W EngenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Lindsey B CollinsDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Darlisha A WilliamsDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Margaret L AxelrodSchool of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Beth K ThielenDivision of Pediatric Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5922-0241
Kathy H HullsiekDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
David R BoulwareDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4715-0060
Radha RajasinghamDivision of Infectious Diseases and International Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5531-0231
University of Minnesota · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, clinical trials necessitated rapid testing to be performed remotely. Dried blood spot (DBS) techniques have enabled remote HIV virologic testing globally, and more recently, antibody testing as well. We evaluated DBS testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibody testing in outpatients to assess seropositivity. Methods: In 2020, we conducted 3 internet-based randomized clinical trials and offered serologic testing via self-collected DBS as a voluntary substudy. COVID-19 diagnosis was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention case definition with epidemiological link to cases. A minority reported polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing at an outside facility. We tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin via antibody detection by agglutination-PCR (ADAP) and compared the results with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Results: Of 2727 participants in the primary studies, 60% (1648/2727) consented for serology testing; 56% (931/1648) returned a usable DBS sample. Of those who were asymptomatic, 5% (33/707) had positive ADAP serology. Of participants with a positive PCR, 67% (36/54) had positive SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. None of those who were PCR-positive and asymptomatic were seropositive (0/7). Of 77 specimens tested for concordance via ELISA, 83% (64/77) were concordant. The challenges of completing a remote testing program during a pandemic included sourcing and assembling collection kits, delivery and return of the kits, and troubleshooting testing. Self-collection was successful for >95% of participants. Delays in US mail with possible sample degradation and timing of DBS collection complicated the analysis. Conclusions: We found remote antibody testing during a global pandemic feasible although challenging. We identified an association between symptomatic COVID-19 and positive antibody results at a similar prevalence as other outpatient cohorts.

Indexed as

antibodyCOVID-19humoral immunitySARS-CoV-2serology

Identifiers

PMID35548171
PMCPMC8522439
OpenAlexW3207171216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.