Anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies in adolescent students and their teachers in Saxony, Germany (SchoolCoviDD19): very low seropraevalence and transmission rates

Introduction

Since the identification of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) as the cause of COVID-19 in December 2019 ¹, the virus spread rapidly around the world, leading to the declaration of a pandemic by the World Health Organization on March 12^th 2020. By March 18^th 2020, 126 countries—including Germany—had implemented school closures as part of their pandemic control measures, with the number of countries peaking at 194 on April 10^th 2020 and more than 90% of the world’s student population being affected at this point².

These actions were mainly based on the assumption that children play a similar role in transmitting SARS-CoV-2 as they do in transmitting influenza during outbreaks, for which evidence exists that school closures reduce the peak of the outbreak³. However, there is reason to believe that children play a less significant role in SARS-CoV-2 transmission compared to influenza, making control measures focused on this age group less effective: Most countries—including Germany—report a much lower proportion of cases in children compared to their population size^4–6. In addition a recent report from Australia could only identify a very limited spread of COVID-19 in primary schools, with no evidence of children infecting teachers ⁷.

However, currently available data is insufficient to rule out that children are as likely as adults to be infected by and to transmit SARS-CoV-2, but simply show little to no symptoms of the disease.

We therefore aimed to quantify the proportion of adolescent schoolchildren and teachers in Saxony, one of the eastern Federal States of Germany, that already have developed antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. In Saxony, the infection rates were comparatively low with 139 laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections per 100,000 inhabitants as of 13 July 2020.

Methods

Results

A total of 1538 students and 507 teachers from 13 different schools participated in this study. Demographic data is shown in Table 1.

The number of participants ranged from 21 to 573 per individual school. Twelve participants—11 students and one teacher—had detectable antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in at least two different assays and were considered seropositive. In 7/13 schools, seropositive participants could be identified, with four seropositive participants in one school as the maximum. The seroprevalence ranged from 0 to 2.2 per individual school.

Of all participants with a personal history of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, 4/5 were seropositive, with one participant showing only an equivocal test result in one of the assays. Of all participants with a household history of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, 23/24 were seronegative, with 22/24 showing negative results in all three assays and one showing an equivocal result in only one assay. All assay result combinations and the resulting serostatus of each individual participant are listed in Table 3.

Discussion

The findings from this unique study in older students and their teachers indicate that the prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 remains extremely low after the first wave of the corona pandemic in Germany. While this finding is consistent with local surveillance data⁸ that shows a prevalence of PCR-confirmed cases of 0,15%, it clearly indicates that schools did not develop into silent hotspots of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during this first wave of the pandemic. In fact, 5 of the 12 participants with antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 had a personal or household history of COVID-19, yielding a ratio of unidentified to identified cases of 2.4, which is much smaller than that previously assumed by some authors⁹. We could not detect a single cluster of infections in the participating schools, even though at least three schools did have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases before the March 13^th lockdown in Saxony. This is consistent with findings from the 2003 SARS outbreak ^10,11, and calls the effectiveness of transmission control measures focused mainly on the student population into question. This is especially relevant since there are clearly described adverse effects of school closures, as loss of education, loss of social contacts and social control, nutritional problems in children who rely on school meals, increases in harm to child welfare in vulnerable populations, as well as economic harm caused by loss to productivity due to parents being forced from work to childcare^12,13. Additionally, even with school closures in place, social contacts continue as informal child care and non-school gatherings¹⁴, thereby reducing the potential benefit of school closures further. Our data support this finding this finding since an overwhelming majority of not less than 80% of the participating students in our study reported to have regular social contacts outside their household or classroom.

Close contact with COVID-19 patients—especially in the same household—has been shown to increase viral transmission¹⁵. However, in our study, only one out of 24 participants with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in the same household became indeed infected as measured by antibody production. This suggests that either the transmissibility of the virus is lower than previously assumed or that there are certain quarantine and separation measures than can effectively reduce the probability of viral transmission even in close contact situations.

Currently no gold standard serological testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2 exists. Even though immunoassays yield better performance than rapid point-of-care tests¹⁵ and the targeted SARS-CoV-2 S protein and nucleoprotein show a similarity of less than 30% to endemic betacoronaviruses¹⁶, false positive results are still a concern, especially in low-prevalence populations and when interpreting results on a personal rather than a population-based level. By using a combination of three different immunoassays and only regarding participants with at least two positive results as seropositive for SARS-CoV-2, we could exclude ten participants with a positive and six with an equivocal initial test by negative confirmatory testing. In our population a positive predictive value of 42.9% could be observed which was nearby an expected PPV of 45.3% for a prevalence of 0.59% population and the given test characteristics (sensitivity 97.6%, specificity 99.3%). By using this approach, we could reliably identify patients with confirmed seropositivity against SARS-CoV-2 in a low-prevalence population.

Conclusion

As for now, students and teacher do not seem to play a crucial role in driving the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany. Transmission in families appears to occur very infrequently, and the number of unreported cases obviously is low in this age group. Therefore, social distancing strategies such as the reduction of students of different classes mixing at school paired with symptom-based screening strategies, contact tracing and quarantine measures for identified cases are likely as effective as full school closures, with less adverse effects on the student population.

For serological testing, a combination of different immunoassays seems to be effective to increase the number of true positive test results.

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the state of Saxony