Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS coronavirus 2 in Belgium – a prospective cross-sectional nationwide study of residual samples

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) announced on 11 March 2020, that the SARS-CoV2 outbreak that started in December 2019 became a pandemic.¹ Clinical symptoms caused by the virus include loss of taste and smell, fever, malaise, dry cough, shortness of breath, and respiratory distress. Reported illnesses have ranged from very mild to severe (from progressive respiratory failure to death).² In addition, increasing age, male sex, smoking, and comorbidities such as cardiovascular diseases and diabetes have been identified as risk factors for developing severe illness.³ By mid July 2020, over 12 million confirmed cases in 216 countries were reported to be infected by SARS-CoV-2 causing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).⁴

Currently, there is no vaccine or effective cure available to protect against or treat COVID-19. Therefore, unprecedented measures such as physical distancing, large-scale isolation and closure of borders, schools and workplaces were considered in many countries to mitigate the spread of the disease and to reduce the corresponding pressure on the respective healthcare systems.

In Belgium, the first confirmed case was reported on 4 February 2020, an asymptomatic person repatriated from Wuhan.⁵ The first locally transmitted cases were confirmed on 2 March 2020. Thereafter, the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases rapidly increased. The Belgian Scientific Institute for Public Health, Sciensano, reported that as of 9 July 2020, 62210 cases were confirmed (0·5% of the Belgian population; 6·6% of the tested individuals) and 9778 died. The majority of the reported Belgian cases are in the age category of 80-89 years (19·0%; 11805/62210).⁶ Knowledge on and quantification of the age-specific susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, and its evolution over time, related to control measures that have been taken, is tremendously important to guide policy makers aiming to control the epidemic wave and potential future waves as a result of an insufficient herd immunity level in the population. These needs were translated into the following research objectives: (1) to constitute a national serum bank on a periodic basis (cross-sectional study design) in order to estimate the seroprevalence and seroincidence in Belgium and to follow-up trends herein over time and (2) to estimate the age-specific prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in order to identify age groups that have been infected versus those that are still susceptible as a function of time. The current nationwide study presents background seropositivity (overall, by age category, sex) in the Belgian population using serial serological survey data from five collection periods (March 30^th – July 5^th), which covers: (a) the implementation of the lockdown during the start of the epidemic, (b) the full lockdown period (13 March – 4 May 2020), and (c) the period when confinement measures eased (4 May onwards).

Methods

Results

A total of 16532 serum samples were collected over five 1 week periods in –March 30^th-July 5^th to measure the anti-SARS-Cov2 IgG sero-status. The regional, age, and sex distribution of these samples are shown in Table 1; deviations from the population distribution were taken into account in the estimation of the weighted seroprevalences. Figure 1 shows exemplary for the collection periods 1, 2, and 5 that the origin of the samples was nicely distributed throughout Belgium (panel A-C) and that positive samples were spread over municipalities across Belgium (panel D-F); Figure S1 (appendix) shows all collection periods. The proportion of samples that had been taken to diagnose SARS-COV2 infection was 2-3% in 1^st and 2^nd collection and afterwards 10-11%.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Map of Belgium at municipality level, collection period 1, 2, and 5; panel A-C: number of samples tested in each municipality, panel D-F: presence of IgG-positive (red) versus exclusively IgG-negative (green) samples in each municipality.

At the start, the seroprevalence estimates per age category ranged between 1·4% (20-30 years) and 5·9% (0-10 years) in collection period 1. The weighted overall seroprevalence showed a significant increase between collection period 1 and 2, i.e. from 2·9% (95% CI 2·3 to 3·6) to 6·0% (95% CI 5·1 to 7·1) over a period of 3 weeks (Figure 2, panel A) which is also shown by the overall seroincidence estimate of 3·1% (95% CI 1·9 to 4·3) (Figure 2, panel D). This significant increase in seroprevalence is reflected in the age categories 20-30, 80-90, and ≥ 90 as indicated by the seroincidence estimates (Figure 2, panel B+E) and within each sex (Figure 2, panel C+F). Among age categories in collection period 2, the seroprevalence of the oldest category (≥ 90 years) significantly differed from the seroprevalences in age categories 10-20, 30-40, 60-70, and 70-80 years.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Weighted seroprevalence (A, B, C) and seroincidence (D, E, F) estimates in Belgium overall (panel A+D), by 10-year age bands (panel B+E), by sex (panel C+F).

In comparison with period 2, the overall seroprevalence stabilized thereafter to 6·9% (95% CI 5·9-8·0), 5·5% (95% CI 4·7-6·5) and 4·5 (95% CI 3·7-5·4) as shown in Figure 2 (panel A), however, a significant decrease is observed when comparing the 3^rd and 5^th period with a seroincidence of −2·4% (95% CI −1·0 to −3·7). This decrease was also observed for two subgroups: age category 40-50, and females. No significant differences between males and females in seroincidence or in seroprevalence were identified in any of the periods.

Discussion

This study reports seroprevalence and seroincidence estimates of IgG antibodies against S1 proteins of SARS-CoV-2 in Belgium based on 16532 residual sera periodically collected from 30 March – 4 July 2020. The results indicate the state of the COVID-19 epidemic in Belgium, showing that only 2·9% (95% CI 2·3-3·6) of the Belgian population had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 at the start of lockdown, which doubled to 6·0% (95% CI 5·1-7·1) three weeks later but stabilized thereafter to 6·9% (95% CI 5·9-8·0), 5·5% (95% CI 4·7-6·5) and even decreased to 4·5% (95% CI 3·7-5·4). Seropositive cases were spread over the country from the beginning. These results indicate that although Belgium was heavily affected by the COVID-19 pandemic¹⁴, at the end of the study period only about 7 in hundred people had (recently) been in contact with the virus.

Because little is known about the medical history of subjects of whom residual samples are collected, any potential bias is difficult to identify and control for when estimating seroprevalences. In this study, the potential for selection bias was reduced by enrolling multiple large laboratories in Belgium that collect samples from ambulatory patients throughout Belgium visiting their doctor (mainly general practitioners) for any reason including check-up, follow-up of pathology, allergy. Samples originating from hospitals were excluded from the study to avoid disproportionate selection of subjects with acute and/or severe illness including COVID-19. The majority of analyzed samples originated from two private routine laboratories in Flanders (AML) and Wallonia (laboratoire Luc OLIVIER), each with a large geographical network. These laboratories received 8000-23000 samples weekly for a variety of purposes (biochemistry, immunochemistry, hematology, etc.). For example, among the randomly selected female samples in fertile age (15-45), 11·8% had been taken for pregnancy testing, which does not suggest overselection of pregnant females. From the total of 11000-33000 samples that were weekly received by both labs, a fraction (1/3 to 1/11) samples were randomly selected according to the stratification by age category and provinces and analyzed in this study. Residual sera have previously been used in serosurveillance studies in numerous countries, including Belgium⁷, and can provide valuable and representative information on immunity against infectious diseases for the general population.¹⁵

Stringent containment measures were enforced in Belgium as of 13 March 2020. These included travel bans, closures of schools, shops, factories and social gatherings in an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19 and decrease its burden on public health. These intervention measures slowed down the number of COVID-19 patients that were hospitalized daily. In the first two weeks of the lockdown (up to 25 March 2020), over 500 cases were hospitalized daily, and this growth rate halved 4 weeks later.⁶ By 26 April 2020, 0·1% of the Belgian population had been hospitalized for COVID-19 (14639/11·46×10⁶) and 0·4% of the Belgian population had tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (46134/11·46×10⁶) on a total of 345047 screened patients.⁶ The estimated seroprevalence in the week of 20-26 April 2020 (6·0%, 95% CI 5·1 to 7·1) indicates that far more people had generated antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 and thus had been in contact with the virus than what was expected from the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases reported in Belgium on 26 April 2020 (0·4%). Clearly, the reported numbers of COVID-19 confirmed cases represent an underestimation and were influenced by the testing policy as testing was initially focused on the most severe cases, presenting to hospitals. Asymptomatic and mild cases were less likely reported and at different stages of the first epidemic wave, varying proportions of symptomatic cases presented to primary care, and varying proportions of these cases were tested. By end of June, the number of daily hospital admissions in Belgium dropped below 20 and the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases stabilized at a lower level than the estimated seroprevalence in Belgium (see Table 2). The current seroprevalence study in the general population thus allows in combination with the reported confirmed COVID-19 cases, to estimate the total number of recently acquired SARS-CoV-2 infections in Belgium.

From the above it is clear that determination of the extent of spread of SARS-CoV-2 is a challenge as typically symptomatic patients are more likely to be diagnosed. In contrast, mainly asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic subjects were included in the current study suggesting an underestimation of the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the population. Moreover, the sensitivity of the serological test used depends on the time since the onset of symptoms,⁸ thereby preventing a fraction of the infected subjects to test seropositive if not infected long enough or too long prior to testing. By day 14 after symptom onset, IgG against SARS-CoV-2 are detectable in serum of the majority of patients.² Possibly, recent SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects may have been included in the current seroprevalence study of whom antibodies were not yet detectable in blood. SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects with mild or no symptoms of whom it is reported that they may develop low or no antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, may have been included in this study as well.¹⁶ Moreover, recently it has been reported that IgG levels start to decrease within 2-3 months after infection with SARS-CoV-2^17–19, potentially explaining the observed decline in the 5^th collection round. As a result, both pauci-symptomatic subjects as well as subjects that suffered from a SARS-CoV-2 infection more than 2-3 months ago may have been falsely seronegative, and thus also cause underestimation of the incidence of infection.

Male sex has been identified as a risk factor for severe COVID-19 disease. However, SARS-CoV-2 susceptibility is similar for males and females and thus no difference in seroprevalence is to be expected based on sex.²⁰ Nevertheless, one could argue that symptomatology goes hand-in-hand with the initiation and extent of a humoral response. Since probably no severe symptomatic cases were included in this study, any effect of disease severity and concomitant extent in humoral response in males is not detectable.

The uneven infection rate of SARS-CoV-2 hampers the comparison of seroprevalence between countries. A meta-analysis by Levesque et al.²¹ reported a seroprevalence of 14% in Gangelt (Germany, 30 March – 10 April 2020, lockdown by 22 March, 100 households). A Swiss study (Geneva, 6 April – 9 May 2020, physical distancing measures by 20 March, 1339 households) estimated an increasing seroprevalence, from 4·8% (95% CI 2 ·4-8·0, n=341) to 8·5% (5·9-11.4, n=469), to 10.9% (7·9-14·4, n=577), to 6·6% (4·3-9·4, n=604), and 10·8% (8·2-13·9, n=775) in five subsequent weeks.²² A weekly serological study in Sweden (country in ‘low-scale’ lockdown) showed a seroprevalence of 7·3% (n=1104) in Stockholm in the week of 27 April 2020.²³ In Spain (start lockdown 14 March 2020), a national seroprevalence of 5% (4·7-5·4, n=61075) was reported in the period from 27 April – 11 May 2020.²⁴ Other preliminary serological surveys from EU Member States and USA reported that 1·0 - 3·4% of asymptomatic adult blood donors had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 virus in the period 20 March – 12 April 2020 (i.e. first month in lockdown in reported countries).²⁵ In London (UK, start lockdown 23 March 2020), adjusted seroprevalence estimates increased from 1·5% (end of March), to 15·4% (18 – 24 May 2020) and remained stable at 14·9% (8 – 14 June 2020). In the rest of the UK, seroprevalences are more consistent with other reports, indicating between 6·3% and 6·9% (8 – 14 June 2020).²⁶ These seroprevalence estimates, as well as the ones obtained in the current study provide a consistent picture and increasing incidence of infections across Europe in spring 2020.

The plateauing of seroprevalences in this study is in accordance with findings from the UK²⁶ and Spain²⁴, and can be attributed to the waning of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2^17–19 in the absence of large new exposure since the start of the epidemic in Belgium. It implies that seroprevalence studies on SARS-CoV-2 would only be able to give information on the past 2-3 months. To which extent these recovered seronegative subjects are prone to reinfection is not known yet, as it depends, among others, on eventual T-cell dependent immunity induced by the virus.²⁷ On the other hand, if presence of the antibodies we measured would correlate to some extent with immunity, levels of seropositivity observed during this study and their rapid decline suggest that we are still far away from natural herd immunity. Based on the estimated basic reproduction number (R0 ranges from 1·4 to 3·9),²⁸ 50 – 75 % of a population would need to have protective immunity (humoral or cellular) in order to achieve herd immunity mitigating subsequent waves of COVID-19.²⁹ Currently, it seems likely that natural exposure during this pandemic might not soon deliver the required level of herd immunity and there will be a substantial need for mass vaccination programmes to save time and lives.³⁰

Conclusion

Serial seroprevalence monitoring indicates that in Belgium, a densely populated country in the center of Western Europe, SARS-COV-2 virus was introduced all over the country from start and the proportion of the population infected doubled within 3 weeks’ time from 3% to 6% during the start of a lockdown to mitigate the epidemic. In line with reported confirmed cases and COVID19 deaths, seroprevalence plateaued and seroincidence decreased thereafter. However, by the end of the 3-month study period a decay of the proportion seropositives was observed corroborating recent reports of quick antibody waning after mild or asymptomatic infection.^17–19 Serial seroprevalence monitoring is a useful tool to estimate the proportion of the population recently infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and helps to understand the extend of pauci- or asymptomatic infections. The findings were extremely valuable to calibrate the Belgian response to the epidemic’s first wave and to guide policy makers to control the potential future waves. The latter is still a challenge as the low reported seroprevalences (2.9-6.9%) are far from required herd immunity levels. Moreover, more research is needed to confirm if seropositivity correlates to protective immunity against the virus.

Data sharing

The authors are willing to share original data on request.

Contributors

SH, JDB and IW interpreted study results and drafted and revised the manuscript. SH also contributed to the study design and planned and performed statistical analysis. SA contributed to the study design, planned statistical analysis, interpreted study results and revised the manuscript. EE contributed to drafting the manuscript. LP and AC contributed to the study design, sample analysis and interpreted the study results and revised the manuscript. SDS contributed to sample analysis and revised the manuscript. PB, PVD, NH and HT contributed to the study design, interpreted the study results and revised the manuscript. PVD and HT also conceived the study. NH also planned the conduct of statistical analysis. All authors had access to all of the data and take full responsibility for the integrity of the data, the accuracy of the data analysis, and the finished article. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Declaration of interest

All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form available at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support to the university from research grants from GSK Biologicals, Pfizer, SANOFI, Merck, Themis, Osivax, J&J and Abbott and grants from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH, Flemish Government and European Union, outside the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.