RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS coronavirus 2 in Belgium – a serial prospective cross-sectional nationwide study of residual samples
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2020.06.08.20125179
DO 10.1101/2020.06.08.20125179
A1 Herzog, Sereina
A1 De Bie, Jessie
A1 Abrams, Steven
A1 Wouters, Ine
A1 Ekinci, Esra
A1 Patteet, Lisbeth
A1 Coppens, Astrid
A1 De Spiegeleer, Sandy
A1 Beutels, Philippe
A1 Van Damme, Pierre
A1 Hens, Niel
A1 Theeten, Heidi
YR 2020
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/01/2020.06.08.20125179.abstract
AB Importance In light of the COVID-19 epidemic in Belgium, knowledge on the 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.Objective To assess the evolving seroprevalence and seroincidence with regards to a national lock-down in Belgium.Design, setting and participants In this prospective serial cross-sectional nationwide seroprevalence study, stratified by age, sex and region, 3000-4000 residual samples were collected in each of five collection periods during and after national lockdown between 30 March and 5 July 2020. Residual sera from outside hospitals were randomly selected by diagnostic laboratories and analyzed for IgG antibodies against S1 proteins of SARS-CoV-2 with a semi-quantitative commercial ELISA. Seropositivity (overall, by age category and sex) and seroincidence over 3 to 4 week periods were estimated for the Belgian population.Exposure Recent exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was estimated in the Belgian population.Main outcomes and measures The primary study outcomes were the weighted seroprevalence and seroincidence against SARS-CoV-2 in the Belgian population during five consecutive periods in Belgium.Results The weighted overall seroprevalence initially increased from 2.9% (95% CI 2.3 to 3.6) to 6.0% (95% CI 5.1 to 7.1), implying a seroincidence of 3.1% (95% CI 1.9 to 4.3) between the 1st and 2nd collection period. Thereafter, seroprevalence stabilized and decreased from the 3rd to 5th period from 6.9% (95% CI 5.9 to 8.0) to 4.5% (95% CI 3.7 to 5.4).Conclusions and relevance During lockdown, an initial small but increasing fraction of the Belgian population showed serologically detectable signs of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, which did not further increase when confinement measures eased and full lockdown was lifted. In combination with the reported COVID-19 cases in Belgium, the estimated seroprevalences reported in this study may have helped to calibrate the Belgian response to the epidemic’s first wave and to guide policy makers to control for potential future waves. Seroprevalence estimates indicate that we are far from herd-immunity. Moreover, more research is needed to confirm if seropositivity correlates to protective immunity against the virus.Question What is the seroprevalence, i.e. prevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in blood serum, and seroincidence in Belgium during the first epidemic wave?Findings This prospective serial cross-sectional nationwide seroprevalence study using residual samples indicated that SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence doubled within 3 weeks’ time from 3% to 6% during the initial phase of the lockdown period. Estimated seroprevalence plateaued and seroincidence decreased thereafter.Meaning During lockdown, an initial small but increasing fraction of the Belgian population showed serologically detectable signs of exposure to SARS-CoV-2, which did not further increase when confinement measures eased and full lockdown was lifted.Competing Interest StatementProf. Dr. Beutels reported the University of Antwerp received funding from Pfizer outside the submitted work. Prof. Dr. Hens reported the University of Antwerp and Hasselt University received grants from GSK Biologicals, Pfizer, J&J, Flemish Government, and European Union outside the submitted work. Prof. Dr. Van Damme reported the University of Antwerp received research grants from GSK Biologicals, Pfizer, SANOFI, Merck, Themis, Osivax, J&J and Abbott., The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, PATH, Flemish Government, and European Union outside the submitted work. All declared support is 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.Funding StatementThis work received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program - project EpiPose (No 101003688), the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement 682540 TransMID), the Flemish Research Fund (FWO 1150017N) and from The Antwerp University Fund; which is a community of donors who contribute to research and education with their personal commitment through a donation, gift, bequest or through academic chairs. The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing or submitting of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Antwerp-University of Antwerp on March 30, 2020 (ref 20/13/158; Belgian Number B3002020000047) and agreed with inclusion without informed consent, on the condition of the samples being collected unlinked and anonymously.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors are willing to share original data on request.