Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in an entirely PCR-sampled and quarantined community after a COVID-19 outbreak - the CoNAN study

Study design and enrollment

The CoNAN study (Covid-19 outbreak in Neustadt-am-Rennsteig) is an ongoing exploratory population-based cohort study. We here report the baseline characteristics of the participants at the time of the outbreak/quarantine initiation and at study initiation. Follow-up assessments are planned after 6 and 12 months relative to baseline assessment. All households in the community of Neustadt-am-Rennsteig were informed by mail prior to study initiation about the aims of study. Study participation is voluntary and can be withdrawn at any time, refusal to participate has no consequences. Participants were enrolled from May 12^th to 16^th 2020 at a central study site that was set-up in the villages’ town hall and additional until May 22^nd by home visits. After informed consent, questionnaires, blood samples and pharyngeal washes were directly taken at the study site. Pediatricians were part of the study team to adequately involve under-aged participants and to ensure their appropriate sampling as well. At the study site, plasma was directly centrifuged at 4°C/2,000 g for 10 minutes and stored at 8°C. Pharyngeal washes were obtained after a short mouth wash with non-sparkling water under direct supervision of a study team member to ensure appropriate quality. Samples were transported twice a day to the Jena University Hospital allowing a timely further processing at the participating research institutes. Participants who could not come to the study site were enrolled by the local primary care physician at their respective homes until the 22^nd of May.

Ethics review, data protection and data management

The study was conducted according to the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the institutional ethics committees of the Jena University Hospital and the respective data protection commissioner (approval number 2020-1776) and the ethics committee of the Thuringian chamber of physicians. All data were collected with unique pseudonyms on paper case report forms. These identifiers were later used to merge the questionnaire information with the laboratory information in an electronic study database. Study registrations was applied at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00022416.

Inclusion Criteria

All inhabitants of the community of Neustadt-am-Rennsteig regardless of age, gender or infections status were eligible for participation. Informed consent was provided by the participants or the parents/legal representatives.

Exclusion Criteria

Individuals that do not reside in Neustadt-am-Rennsteig or that live in the adjacent community of Kahlert were not eligible for inclusion.

Objectives and outcomes

The primary objective was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 antibody status (sero-conversion rate) of the population of Neustadt-am-Rennsteig with a defined distance to the end of the quarantine period. SARS-CoV-2 antibody status was defined as “positive” if participants had a positive test result in ≥ 2 of the six antibody tests (details below); otherwise participants were classified as “negative”. The secondary objectives of the study were: i.) to determine the rate of seroconversion in children; ii.) to determine potential risk factors for symptomatic vs. asymptomatic Covid19 courses; iii.) to investigate the rate of virus persistence (as part of future follow-up assessments).

Questionnaire

Participants completed a pseudonymized questionnaire directly at the study site. Clusters were reconstructed using the family name, address and information of household members as provided in the questionnaire. After re-assessing the original paper case report forms, obvious errors were corrected, and duplicated entries were deleted. Plausibility checks of demographic data were performed. Symptoms were noted if reported. Strength and duration of symptoms was not weighted in the analysis of this manuscript. Self-reported information on a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test at the time point of the outbreak/quarantine initiation was double-checked with the information by the health department of the Ilm-district if the participants gave their permission on the consent form.

SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in pharyngeal wash samples was performed by RT-PCR amplification of SARS-CoV-2 E-gene and S-gene fragments. 200 µL of the pharyngeal washes were first processed for RNA extraction in the InnuPure C16 using the innuPREP virus DNA/RNA kit (both: Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany). Subsequently, the detection of E- and S-gene of SARS-CoV-2 was performed by using the RealStar SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR kit 1.0 (altona Diagnostics, Hamburg, Germany) on a Rotor-Gene Q real-time PCR cycler (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). The amplification protocol consisted of a reverse transcription step at 55°C for 20 minutes, a denaturation step at 95°C for 2 minutes and subsequent 45 cycles at 95°C/55°C/72°C for 15/45/15 seconds, respectively. A positive result was defined as amplification of E- and S-gene in a sample with each cycle threshold value (ct) less than 37. Results from apparently inhibited samples with insufficient internal controls (ct > 37) were verified by using a second RT-PCR test. For these samples, RNA was once again extracted from the original pharyngeal wash specimens via QIASymphony using the QIAsymphony DSP Virus/Pathogen MiniKit (Qiagen) according to manufacturer’s instructions. Subsequently, the RT-PCR step was performed on a LightCycler 480 II (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland) using the LightMix Modular Sarbecovirus E-gene kit (TIB MOLBIOL, Berlin, Germany). All steps were performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was performed with six different quantification methods, of which two were enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) and four were chemiluminescence-based immunoassays (CLIA/CMIA). In addition, a lateral flow assay (combined IgG/IgM), one IgA (ELISA) and two IgM immunoassays (ELISA and CLIA) were performed that in this setting cannot be directly compared to the IgG immunoassays and will therefore not be reported in this manuscript. All tests were carried out according to manufacturers’ instructions. For detailed information on assay characteristics and instruments used see Supplementary Table 1. Sensitivities and specificities are shown as provided by the manufacturer. The following assays were used; EDI Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA kit (Epitope Diagnostics Inc., San Diego, USA), SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA kit (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany), SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG CLIA kit (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy), 2019-nCoV IgG kit (Snibe Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China), SARS-CoV-2 IgG CMIA kit (Abbott, Chicago, USA) and Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 kit (Roche, Basel Switzerland).

Statistical Analysis

Data analysis

All statistical analyses were performed in the analysis population sometime stratified by age (adults/children and adolescents) and sero-status from the serological tests. Descriptive analyses included the calculation of mean with standard deviation (SD) and medians with minimum and maximum values for continuous variables, and absolute counts (n, with percentages) for categorical variables. Owing to the great data completeness, we performed no data imputations. As inferential statistics, we applied logistic regression models exploring the associations between the participant-reported symptoms, the SARS-CoV-2 PCR-results of the initial mass testing and the binary serostatus outcome. To adjust estimates for cluster effects between participants living in the same household (derived from their address information) we applied generalized estimation equations (GEE) with exchangeable correlation structure and logistic link function. In addition, we adjusted some of the models for sex and age (linear). Results of logistic GEE models are presented as odds ratio (OR) point and interval estimates. Results are presented such that OR>1 indicate increasing odds for a sero-positive finding with increasing exposures. All confidence intervals (CI) were calculated with 95% coverage. CIs are Wald CIs that are not adjusted for multiple comparisons. Similarly, all reported p-values are unadjusted and two-sided. Due to the explorative nature of the study, we avoided “statistical significance testing”. We used the R Language for Statistical Computing (version 4.0.2; R Core Team 2019: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) for all analyses.

Participant characteristics

A total of 626 of the 883 inhabitants (71%) participated in the study. Pharyngeal washes were obtained from 617 (98·6 %) participants at the time of the inclusion. All PCR tests were negative. Plasma samples were obtained from a total of 620 (99%) participants who define the analyzed sample cohort. Of those 620 analyzed participants, 58 (9%) were adolescents and children (<18 years of age at inclusion) and 36 (6%) of these were 12 years of age or younger. Figure 1 shows a flow-chart of the CoNAN study. Characteristics of the participants are given in Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1. In four participants the results of the initial PCR-testing during the outbreak could not be revealed. None of these had anti-SARS-CoV2 antibodies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Flow chart of the CoNAN study. * PCR from pharyngeal washes obtained during the CoNAN study in May 2020.

All six serological tests were performed in 600 (96%) participants. In the remaining 20 individuals (4%), five tests were used for final analysis because, either there was limited material available or the results were inconclusive in one out of the six tests. A comparative performance of the tests is shown in Figure 2. In 610 participants, pharyngeal washes and serological test were performed. Upset Plot showing the comparison of test performance between the six serological IgG tests used to evaluate the antibody response in the CoNAN study

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Upset Plot showing the comparison of test performance between the six serological IgG tests used to evaluate the antibody response in the CoNAN study.

Abbreviations: DS..SARS-CoV-2 S1/S2 IgG CLIA kit (DiaSorin, Saluggia, Italy); ED..EDI Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 IgG ELISA kit (Epitope Diagnostics Inc., San Diego, USA); EU..SARS-COV-2 IgG ELISA kit (Euroimmun, Lübeck, Germany); SN.2019-nCoV IgG kit (Snibe Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, China).

Antibody tests

We found that 52/620 (8·4%) participants had anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies of which 20 had been test positive by PCR during the prior sampling at the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak (Figure 3A; Table 1,2). Among the antibody-positive participants, there was one child. Therefore, approximately six weeks after proven SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibodies were only detectable in 38·5% participants. Twelve participants with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had no symptoms consistent with a respiratory infection or sickness during the last two months, while 180 PCR-negative participants and 168 antibody-negative participants reported respiratory symptoms during the same period, potentially reflecting common respiratory infections in springtime (Figure 3B). Thirteen of the 52 seropositive participants (25%) did not report any symptoms of the SARS-CoV-2 infection (Figure 3C). Interestingly, two of them; a 55-year old male and a 73-year old male had been tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. In 26 participants, only one out of six serologic tests returned positive. These patients were judged to reflect uncertain cases and assessed as sero-negative for the comparison shown in Figure 3. Three of these had previously been tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Cross tables of A) antibody status vs. SARS-CoV-2 PCR-results (initial mass testing); B) symptoms vs. SARS-CoV-2 PCR-results (initial mass testing); C) symptoms vs. antibody status. The estimated odds ratios for antibody status (A), any symptoms (B, C) are derived from a logistic GEE model adjusted for sex and age (linear). Note that A) and B) are limited to those 610 participants with an available initial mass-testing PCR-result. Abbreviations: CI..confidence interval, OR..odds ratio.

Antibody tests and self-reported symptoms

Figures 3B,C display a summary of the self-reported symptoms that basically summarizes any of the 14 questions related to symptoms into one variable, Figure 4 is a more detailed depiction at individual symptoms in all participants (Figure 4A) or stratified by the initial SARS-CoV-2 PCR-results (Figure 4B,C). Loss of smell and taste were the best predictors of later seropositivity irrespective of stratification with odds ratios point estimates ≥ 10. Interestingly, in individuals that knew they were initially PCR negative, perceived muscle and joint pain, sweats and chills, shortness of breath or fatigue turned out to be predictors of later seropositivity as well. All three investigated variables were strongly associated with OR of 17·37 (95-%CI 8·10-37·24) for PCR vs. antibody status, an OR of 6·33 (95%-CI 2·84-14·11) for PCR vs. any reported symptom and an OR of 8·71 (95%-CI 4·02-18·89) for antibody status vs. any reported symptom, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Associations for reported clinical symptoms and positive antibody status for A) all participants, B) previously SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive and C) previously SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Odds ratio and corresponding 95% confidence interval are derived from the logistic GEE model adjusted for household clustering and sex and age (linear); the plots display the complete cases.

Limitations

Our study has several limitations: i.) our study was a population-based cohort study. We were able to recruit 71% of the community population. However, 29% of the population did not participate for unknown reasons which could introduce a bias in the assessment; ii.) the study was carried out six weeks after the end of the 14-day quarantine. This could have missed a number of participants that had a rapidly waning antibody response and iii.) there was no baseline of the antibody status before the quarantine as some participants might have been exposed earlier during the pandemic.