Search

Purpose School closures have been used as part of lockdown strategies to contain the spread of SARS-CoV-2, adversely affecting children’s health and education. To ensure the accessibility of educational institutions without exposing society to the risk of increased transmissions, it is essential to establish SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies that are child-friendly, scalable and implementable in a daily school routine. Self-sampling using non-invasive saliva swabs combined with pooled RT-qPCR testing (Lolli-Method) has been proven to be a sensitive method for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Methods We conducted a pilot project in Cologne, Germany, designed to determine the feasibility of a large-scale rollout of the Lolli-Method for testing without any additional on-site medical staff in schools. Over a period of three weeks, students from 22 schools were sampled using the Lolli-Method. At the end of the project, teachers were asked to evaluate the overall acceptance of the project. Results We analyzed a total of 757 pooled RT-qPCRs obtained from 8,287 individual swabs and detected 7 SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. The Lolli-Method was shown to be a feasible and accepted testing strategy whose application is only slightly disruptive to the daily school routine. Conclusion Our observations suggest that the Lolli-Method in combination with pooled RT-qPCR can be implemented for SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in daily school routine, applicable on a large scale.

The rapid emergence of the omicron variant and its large number of mutations led to its classification as a variant of concern (VOC) by the WHO. Subsequently, omicron evolved into distinct sublineages (e.g. BA1 and BA2), which currently represent the majority of global infections. Initial studies of the neutralizing response towards BA1 in convalescent and vaccinated individuals showed a substantial reduction.We assessed antibody (IgG) binding, ACE2 (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2) binding inhibition, and IgG binding dynamics for the omicron BA1 and BA2 variants compared to a panel of VOC/VOIs, in a large cohort (n = 352) of convalescent, vaccinated, and infected and subsequently vaccinated individuals.While omicron was capable efficiently binding to ACE2, antibodies elicited by infection or immunization showed reduced binding capacities and ACE2 binding inhibition compared to WT. Whereas BA1 exhibited less IgG binding compared to BA2, BA2 showed reduced inhibition of ACE2 binding. Among vaccinated samples, antibody binding to omicron only improved after administration of a third dose.omicron BA1 and BA2 can still efficiently bind to ACE2, while vaccine/infection-derived antibodies can bind omicron. The extent of the mutations within both variants prevent a strong inhibitory binding response. As a result, both omicron variants are able to evade control by pre-existing antibodies.

The rapid emergence of the Omicron variant and its large number of mutations has led to its classification as a variant of concern (VOC) by the WHO(1). Initial studies on the neutralizing response towards this variant within convalescent and vaccinated individuals have identified substantial reductions(2-8). However many of these sample sets used in these studies were either small, uniform in nature, or were compared only to wild-type (WT) or, at most, a few other VOC. Here, we assessed IgG binding, (Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2) ACE2 binding inhibition, and antibody binding dynamics for the omicron variant compared to all other VOC and variants of interest (VOI)(9), in a large cohort of infected, vaccinated, and infected and then vaccinated individuals. While omicron was capable of binding to ACE2 efficiently, antibodies elicited by infection or immunization showed reduced IgG binding and ACE2 binding inhibition compared to WT and all VOC. Among vaccinated samples, antibody binding responses towards omicron were only improved following administration of a third dose. Overall, our results identify that omicron can still bind ACE2 while pre-existing antibodies can bind omicron. The extent of the mutations appear to inhibit the development of a neutralizing response, and as a result, omicron remains capable of evading immune control.

SARS-CoV-2 variants accumulating immune escape mutations provide a significant risk to vaccine-induced protection. The novel variant of concern (VoC) Omicron (B.1.1.529) has the largest number of amino acid alterations in its Spike protein to date. Thus, it may efficiently escape recognition by neutralizing antibodies, allowing breakthrough infections in convalescent and vaccinated individuals. We analyzed neutralization activity of sera from individuals after vaccination with all mRNA-, vector- or heterologous immunization schemes currently available in Europe by in vitro neutralization assay at peak response towards SARS-CoV-2 B.1, Omicron, Beta and Delta pseudotypes and also provide longitudinal follow-up data from BNT162b2 vaccinees. All vaccines apart from Ad26.CoV2.S showed high levels of responder rates (93-100%) towards SARS-CoV-2 wild-type, but some reductions in neutralizing Beta and Delta VoC pseudotypes. The novel Omicron variant had the biggest impact, both in terms of response rates and neutralization titers. Only mRNA-1273 showed a 100% response rate to Omicron and induced the highest level of neutralizing antibody titers, followed by heterologous prime-boost approaches. Homologous BNT162b2 vaccination or vector-based AZD1222 or Ad26.CoV2.S performed less well with peak responder rates of 33%, 50% and 9%, respectively. However, Omicron responder rates in BNT162b2 recipients were maintained in our six month longitudinal follow-up indicating that individuals with cross-protection against Omicron maintain it over time. Overall, our data strongly argues for urgent booster doses in individuals who were previously vaccinated with BNT162b2, or a vector-based immunization scheme.

BackgroundWhile SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations were successful in decreasing COVID-19 caseloads, recent increases in SARS-CoV-2 infections have led to questions about duration and quality of the subsequent immune response. While numerous studies have been published on immune responses triggered by vaccination, these often focused on the initial peak response generated in specific population subgroups (e.g. healthcare workers or immunocompromised individuals) and have often only examined the effects of one or two different immunisation schemes.Methods and FindingsWe analysed serum samples from participants of a large German seroprevalence study (MuSPAD) who had received all available vaccines and dose schedules (mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, AZD1222, Ad26.CoV2S.2 or a combination of AZD1222 plus either mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2). Antibody titers against various SARS-CoV-2 antigens and ACE2 binding inhibition against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and the Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta variants of concern were analysed using a previously published multiplex immunoassay MULTICOV-AB and an ACE2-RBD competition assay. Among the different vaccines and their dosing regimens, homologous mRNA-based or heterologous prime-boost vaccination produced significantly higher antibody responses than vector-based homologous vaccination. Ad26.CoV2S.2 performance was significantly reduced, even compared to AZD1222, with 91.67% of samples being considered non-responsive forACE2 binding inhibition. mRNA-based vaccination induced a higher ratio of RBD- and S1-targeting antibodies than vector-based vaccination, which resulted in an increased proportion of S2-targeting antibodies. Previously infected individuals had a robust immune response once vaccinated, regardless of which vaccine they received. When examining antibody kinetics post-vaccination after homologous immunisation regimens, both titers and ACE2 binding inhibition peaked approximately 28 days post-vaccination and then decreased as time increased.ConclusionsAs one of the first and largest population-based studies to examine vaccine responses for all currently available immunisation schemes in Germany, we found that homologous mRNA or heterologous vaccination elicited the highest immune responses. The high percentage of non-responders for Ad26.CoV2.S requires further investigation and suggests that a booster dose with an mRNA-based vaccine may be necessary. The high responses seen in recovered and vaccinated individuals could aid future dose allocation, should shortages arise for certain manufacturers. Given the role of RBD- and S1-specific antibodies in neutralising SARS-CoV-2, their relative over-representation after mRNA vaccination may explain why mRNA vaccines have an increased efficacy compared to vector-based formulations. Further investigation on these differences will be of particular interest for vaccine development and efficacy, especially for the next-generation of vector-based vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Until now, information on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections in Germany has been based mainly on data from the public health offices. It may be assumed that these data do not include many cases of asymptomatic and mild infection. METHODS: We determined seroprevalence over the course of the pandemic in a sequential, multilocal seroprevalence study (MuSPAD). Study participants were recruited at random in seven administrative districts (Kreise) in Germany from July 2020 onward; each participant was tested at two different times 3–5 months apart. Test findings on blood samples were used to determine the missed-case rate of reported infections, the infection fatality rate (IFR), and the association between seropositivity and demographic, socio-economic, and health-related factors, as well as to evaluate the self-reported results of PCR and antigenic tests. The registration number of this study is DRKS00022335. RESULTS: Among non-vaccinated persons, the seroprevalence from July to December 2020 was 1.3–2.8% and rose between February and May 2021 to 4.1–13.1%. In July 2021, 35% of tested persons in Chemnitz were not vaccinated, and the seroprevalence among these persons was 32.4% (07/2021). The surveillance detection ratio (SDR), i.e., the ratio between the true number of infections estimated from seroprevalence and the actual number or reported infections, varied among the districts included in the study from 2.2 to 5.1 up to December 2020 and from 1.3 to 2.9 up to June 2021, and subsequently declined. The IFR was in the range of 0.8% to 2.4% in all regions except Magdeburg, where a value of 0.3% was calculated for November 2020. A lower educational level was associated with a higher seropositivity rate, smoking with a lower seropositivity rate. On average, 1 person was infected for every 8.5 persons in quarantine. CONCLUSION: Seroprevalence was low after the first wave of the pandemic but rose markedly during the second and third waves. The missed-case rate trended downward over the course of the pandemic.

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is an essential indicator to guide measures. Few population-based estimates are available in Germany. We determine seroprevalence allowing comparison between regions, time points, socio-demographic and health-related factors.MuSPAD is a sequential multi-local seroprevalence study. We randomly recruited adults in five counties with differing cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence July 2020 - February 2021. Serostatus was determined using Spike S1-specific IgG ELISA. We determined county-wise proportions of seropositivity. We assessed underestimation of infections, county and age specific infection fatality risks, and association of seropositivity with demographic, socioeconomic and health factors.We found seroprevalence of 2.4 % (95%CI: 1.8-3.1%) for Reutlingen in June 2020 (stage 1) which increased to 2.9% (95%CI: 2.1-3.8%) in October (stage 2), Freiburg stage 1 1.5% (95% CI: 1.1-2.1%) vs. 2.5% (95%CI: 1.8-3.4%), Aachen stage 1 2.3% (95% CI: 1.7-3.1%) vs. 5.4% (95%CI: 4.4-6.6%), Osnabrück 1.3% (95% CI: 1.0-1.9%) and Magdeburg in Nov/Dec 2020. 2.4% (95%CI 1.9-3.1%). Number needed to quarantine to have one infected person quarantined was 8.2. The surveillance detection ratio (SDR) between number of infections based on our results and number reported to health authorities ranged from 2.5-4.5. Participants aged 80+ had lower SDR. Infection fatality estimates ranged from 0.2-2.4%. Lower education was associated with higher, smoking with lower seropositivity.Seroprevalence remained low until December 2020 with high underdetection. The second wave from November 2020 to February 2021 resulted in additional 2-5% of the population being infected. Detected age specific differences of SDR should be taken into account in modelling and forecasting COVID-19 morbidity.HighlightsEvidence before this studySeroepidemiological surveys on SARS-CoV-2 are a useful tool to track the transmission during the epidemic. We searched PubMed/the pre-print server medRxiv and included web-based reports from German health organizations using the keywords “seroprevalence”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “Germany” and similar other English and German terms in the period from January 1st, 2020 until March 2021. We identified 30 published studies in Germany which mostly report low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (Added value of this studyWe provide the first comprehensive, high-precision multi-region population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study with representative sampling following the WHO protocol in Germany. By measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG, we explore immunity at regional and national level over time. We also assess risk factors and sample each region twice, which permits to monitor seroprevalence progression throughout the epidemic in different exemplary German regions.Implications of all the available evidenceOur results show low seroprevalence (

Background The rapid emergence of the Omicron variant and its large number of mutations led to its classification as a variant of concern (VOC) by the World Health Organization. Subsequently, Omicron evolved into distinct sublineages (eg, BA.1 and BA.2), which currently represent the majority of global infections. Initial studies of the neutralizing response toward BA.1 in convalescent and vaccinated individuals showed a substantial reduction. Methods We assessed antibody (immunoglobulin G [IgG]) binding, ACE2 (angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) binding inhibition, and IgG binding dynamics for the Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 variants compared to a panel of VOCs/variants of interest, in a large cohort (N = 352) of convalescent, vaccinated, and infected and subsequently vaccinated individuals. Results While Omicron was capable of efficiently binding to ACE2, antibodies elicited by infection or immunization showed reduced binding capacities and ACE2 binding inhibition compared to wild type. Whereas BA.1 exhibited less IgG binding compared to BA.2, BA.2 showed reduced inhibition of ACE2 binding. Among vaccinated samples, antibody binding to Omicron only improved after administration of a third dose. Conclusions Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 can still efficiently bind to ACE2, while vaccine/infection-derived antibodies can bind to Omicron. The extent of the mutations within both variants prevents a strong inhibitory binding response. As a result, both Omicron variants are able to evade control by preexisting antibodies.

Recent increases in SARS-CoV-2 infections have led to questions about duration and quality of vaccine-induced immune protection. While numerous studies have been published on immune responses triggered by vaccination, these often focus on studying the impact of one or two immunisation schemes within subpopulations such as immunocompromised individuals or healthcare workers. To provide information on the duration and quality of vaccine-induced immune responses against SARS-CoV-2, we analyzed antibody titres against various SARS-CoV-2 antigens and ACE2 binding inhibition against SARS-CoV-2 wild-type and variants of concern in samples from a large German population-based seroprevalence study (MuSPAD) who had received all currently available immunisation schemes. We found that homologous mRNA-based or heterologous prime-boost vaccination produced significantly higher antibody responses than vector-based homologous vaccination. Ad26.CoV2S.2 performance was particularly concerning with reduced titres and 91.7% of samples classified as non-responsive for ACE2 binding inhibition, suggesting that recipients require a booster mRNA vaccination. While mRNA vaccination induced a higher ratio of RBD- and S1-targeting antibodies, vector-based vaccines resulted in an increased proportion of S2-targeting antibodies. Given the role of RBD- and S1-specific antibodies in neutralizing SARS-CoV-2, their relative over-representation after mRNA vaccination may explain why these vaccines have increased efficacy compared to vector-based formulations. Previously infected individuals had a robust immune response once vaccinated, regardless of which vaccine they received, which could aid future dose allocation should shortages arise for certain manufacturers. Overall, both titres and ACE2 binding inhibition peaked approximately 28 days post-second vaccination and then decreased.