IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pntd00/0009551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in acute infection and convalescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Helen R Savage
  • Victor S Santos
  • Thomas Edwards
  • Emanuele Giorgi
  • Sanjeev Krishna
  • Timothy D Planche
  • Henry M Staines
  • Joseph R A Fitchett
  • Daniela E Kirwan
  • Ana I Cubas Atienzar
  • David J Clark
  • Emily R Adams
  • Luis E Cuevas

Abstract

Background: Individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop neutralising antibodies. We investigated the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how this proportion varies with selected covariates. Methodology/Principal findings: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how these proportions vary with selected covariates. Three models using the maximum likelihood method assessed these proportions by study group, covariates and individually extracted data (protocol CRD42020208913). A total of 983 reports were identified and 27 were included. The pooled (95%CI) proportion of individuals with neutralising antibodies was 85.3% (83.5–86.9) using the titre cut off >1:20 and 83.9% (82.2–85.6), 70.2% (68.1–72.5) and 54.2% (52.0–56.5) with titres >1:40, >1:80 and >1:160, respectively. These proportions were higher among patients with severe COVID-19 (e.g., titres >1:80, 84.8% [80.0–89.2], >1:160, 74.4% [67.5–79.7]) than those with mild presentation (56.7% [49.9–62.9] and 44.1% [37.3–50.6], respectively) and lowest among asymptomatic infections (28.6% [17.9–39.2] and 10.0% [3.7–20.1], respectively). IgG and neutralising antibody levels correlated poorly. Conclusions/Significance: 85% of individuals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion varied with disease severity, study setting, time since infection and the method used to measure antibodies. Author summary: Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) elicits adaptive immunological responses, including immunoglobulins A, M, and G and neutralising antibodies. Neutralising antibodies are considered markers of functional immunity and protection. However, not all individuals with proven infections have detectable neutralising antibodies. In this systematic review, we investigated the proportion of individuals with former SARS-CoV-2 infections who develop neutralising antibodies, whether their titres vary with disease severity, and their correlation with Immunoglobulin G. We found that approximately 85% of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection have detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion was higher among patients with severe Coronavirus Disease 19 and lower in asymptomatic infections. The variation across studies reflected the wide range of methods used to measure both immunoglobulins and neutralising antibodies, and highlight the need for an international reference standard to measure SARS-CoV-2 antibodies.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen R Savage & Victor S Santos & Thomas Edwards & Emanuele Giorgi & Sanjeev Krishna & Timothy D Planche & Henry M Staines & Joseph R A Fitchett & Daniela E Kirwan & Ana I Cubas Atienzar & David J Cl, 2021. "Prevalence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in acute infection and convalescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-17, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0009551
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009551
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009551
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0009551&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pntd.0009551?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pntd00:0009551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosntds (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.