Abstract
Background Estimates of seroprevalence to SARS-CoV-2 vary widely and may influence vaccination response. We ascertained IgG levels across a single US metropolitan site, Chicago, from June 2020 through December 2020.
Methods Participants (n=7935) were recruited through electronic advertising and received materials for a self-sampled dried blood spot assay through the mail or a minimal contact in person method. IgG to the receptor binding domain of SARS-CoV-2 was measured using an established highly sensitive and highly specific assay.
Results Overall seroprevalence was 17.9%, with no significant difference between method of contact. Only 2.5% of participants reported having had a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on virus detection, consistent with a 7-fold greater exposure to SARS-CoV-2 measured by serology than detected by viral testing. The range of IgG level observed in seropositive participants from this community survey overlapped with the range of IgG levels associated with COVID-19 cases having a documented positive PCR positive test. From a subset of those who participated in repeat testing, half of seropositive individuals retained detectable antibodies for 3-4 months.
Conclusions Quantitative IgG measurements with a highly specific and sensitive assay indicate more widespread exposure to SARS-CoV-2 than observed by viral testing. The range of IgG concentration produced from these asymptomatic exposures is similar to IgG levels occurring after documented non-hospitalized COVID-19, which is considerably lower than that produced from hospitalized COVID-19 cases. The differing ranges of IgG response, coupled with the rate of decay of antibodies, may influence response to subsequent viral exposure and vaccine.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Supported by NSF 2035114, NIH 3UL1TR001422-06S4, and a generous gift from Dr. Andrew Senyei and Noni Senyei. This work was supported by supplements to the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant UL1 TR001422 and UL1 TR002389 (JFH), the generous support of the Dixon Family Foundation (JFH), a supplement to the Northwestern University Cancer Center P30 CA060553 (JFH), and through a generous contribution from the Walder Foundations Chicago Coronavirus Assessment Network (JFH). The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or writing of the report.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
All research activities were implemented under protocols approved by the institutional review board at Northwestern University (#STU00206652, #STU00212371, #STU00212457, #STU00212472, and STU00212515).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I 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.
Yes
Footnotes
Role of funding source: The funders had no role in the design or analysis of the study.
Conflicts of Interest: Thomas McDade has a financial interest in EnMed Microanalytics, a company that specializes in laboratory testing of dried blood spot samples. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data Availability
Written requests for data should be made by qualified researchers trained in human subject confidentiality protocols to the corresponding author.
