Search

Abstract Background Measuring specific anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies has become one of the main epidemiological tools to survey the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but also vaccination response. The WHO made available a set of well-characterized samples derived from recovered individuals to allow normalization between different quantitative anti-Spike assays to defined Binding Antibody Units (BAU). Methods To assess sero-responses longitudinally, a cohort of ninety-nine SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR positive subjects was followed up together with forty-five vaccinees without previous infection but with two vaccinations. Sero-responses were evaluated using a total of six different assays: four measuring anti-Spike proteins (converted to BAU), one measuring anti-Nucleocapsid proteins and one SARS-CoV-2 surrogate virus neutralization. Both cohorts were evaluated using the Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA anti-S1 IgG and the Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 assay. Results In SARS-CoV-2-convalesce subjects, the BAU-sero-responses of Euroimmun Anti-SARS-CoV-2-ELISA anti-S1 IgG and Roche Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S1 peaked both at 47 (43–51) days, the first assay followed by a slow decay thereafter (> 208 days), while the second assay not presenting any decay within one year. Both assay values in BAUs are only equivalent a few months after infection, elsewhere correction factors up to 10 are necessary. In contrast, in infection-naive vaccinees the assays perform similarly. Conclusion The results of our study suggest that the establishment of a protective correlate or vaccination booster recommendation based on different assays, although BAU-standardised, is still challenging. At the moment the characteristics of the available assays used are not related, and the BAU-standardisation is unable to correct for that.

Abstract Background Population-based serological studies allow to estimate prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infections despite a substantial number of mild or asymptomatic disease courses. This became even more relevant for decision making after vaccination started. The KoCo19 cohort tracks the pandemic progress in the Munich general population for over two years, setting it apart in Europe. Methods Recruitment occurred during the initial pandemic wave, including 5313 participants above 13 years from private households in Munich. Four follow-ups were held at crucial times of the pandemic, with response rates of at least 70%. Participants filled questionnaires on socio-demographics and potential risk factors of infection. From Follow-up 2, information on SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was added. SARS-CoV-2 antibody status was measured using the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-N assay (indicating previous infection) and the Roche Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 anti-S assay (indicating previous infection and/or vaccination). This allowed us to distinguish between sources of acquired antibodies. Results The SARS-CoV-2 estimated cumulative sero-prevalence increased from 1.6% (1.1-2.1%) in May 2020 to 14.5% (12.7-16.2%) in November 2021. Underreporting with respect to official numbers fluctuated with testing policies and capacities, becoming a factor of more than two during the second half of 2021. Simultaneously, the vaccination campaign against the SARS-CoV-2 virus increased the percentage of the Munich population having antibodies, with 86.8% (85.5-87.9%) having developed anti-S and/or anti-N in November 2021. Incidence rates for infections after (BTI) and without previous vaccination (INS) differed (ratio INS/BTI of 2.1, 0.7-3.6). However, the prevalence of infections was higher in the non-vaccinated population than in the vaccinated one. Considering the whole follow-up time, being born outside Germany, working in a high-risk job and living area per inhabitant were identified as risk factors for infection, while other socio-demographic and health-related variables were not. Although we obtained significant within-household clustering of SARS-CoV-2 cases, no further geospatial clustering was found. Conclusions Vaccination increased the coverage of the Munich population presenting SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, but breakthrough infections contribute to community spread. As underreporting stays relevant over time, infections can go undetected, so non-pharmaceutical measures are crucial, particularly for highly contagious strains like Omicron.

Abstract Background In the 2nd year of the COVID-19 pandemic, knowledge about the dynamics of the infection in the general population is still limited. Such information is essential for health planners, as many of those infected show no or only mild symptoms and thus, escape the surveillance system. We therefore aimed to describe the course of the pandemic in the Munich general population living in private households from April 2020 to January 2021. Methods The KoCo19 baseline study took place from April to June 2020 including 5313 participants (age 14 years and above). From November 2020 to January 2021, we could again measure SARS-CoV-2 antibody status in 4433 of the baseline participants (response 83%). Participants were offered a self-sampling kit to take a capillary blood sample (dry blood spot; DBS). Blood was analysed using the Elecsys® Anti-SARS-CoV-2 assay (Roche). Questionnaire information on socio-demographics and potential risk factors assessed at baseline was available for all participants. In addition, follow-up information on health-risk taking behaviour and number of personal contacts outside the household (N = 2768) as well as leisure time activities (N = 1263) were collected in summer 2020. Results Weighted and adjusted (for specificity and sensitivity) SARS-CoV-2 sero-prevalence at follow-up was 3.6% (95% CI 2.9–4.3%) as compared to 1.8% (95% CI 1.3–3.4%) at baseline. 91% of those tested positive at baseline were also antibody-positive at follow-up. While sero-prevalence increased from early November 2020 to January 2021, no indication of geospatial clustering across the city of Munich was found, although cases clustered within households. Taking baseline result and time to follow-up into account, men and participants in the age group 20–34 years were at the highest risk of sero-positivity. In the sensitivity analyses, differences in health-risk taking behaviour, number of personal contacts and leisure time activities partly explained these differences. Conclusion The number of citizens in Munich with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was still below 5% during the 2nd wave of the pandemic. Antibodies remained present in the majority of SARS-CoV-2 sero-positive baseline participants. Besides age and sex, potentially confounded by differences in behaviour, no major risk factors could be identified. Non-pharmaceutical public health measures are thus still important.