ABSTRACT
SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance is important to adapt infection control measures and estimate the degree of underreporting. Blood donor samples can be used as a proxy for the healthy adult population. In a repeated cross-sectional study from April 2020 to April 2021, September 2021, and April/May 2022, 13 blood establishments collected 134,510 anonymised specimens from blood donors in 28 study regions across Germany. These were tested for antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and nucleocapsid, including neutralising capacity. Seroprevalence was adjusted for test performance and sampling and weighted for demographic differences between the sample and the general population. Seroprevalence estimates were compared to notified COVID-19 cases. The overall adjusted SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence remained below 2% until December 2020 and increased to 18.1% in April 2021, 89.4% in September 2021, and to 100% in April/May 2022. Neutralising capacity was found in 74% of all positive specimens until April 2021 and in 98% in April/May 2022. Our serosurveillance allowed for repeated estimations of underreporting from the early stage of the pandemic onwards. Underreporting ranged between factors 5.1 and 1.1 in the first two waves of the pandemic and remained well below 2 afterwards, indicating an adequate test strategy and notification system in Germany.
ABSTRACT
Three months after a coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak in Kupferzell, Germany, a population-based study (n = 2,203) found no RT-PCR-positives. IgG-ELISA seropositivity with positive virus neutralisation tests was 7.7% (95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-9.1) and 4.3% with negative neutralisation tests. We estimate 12.0% (95% CI: 10.4-14.0%) infected adults (24.5% asymptomatic), six times more than notified. Full hotspot containment confirms the effectiveness of prompt protection measures. However, 88% naïve adults are still at high COVID-19 risk.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Nucleic Acid Testing , COVID-19 Serological Testing , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus/isolation & purification , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disease Outbreaks/prevention & control , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay , Female , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Immunoglobulin G , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Population Surveillance , SARS-CoV-2 , Seroepidemiologic Studies , Serologic TestsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence from China suggests that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is deadlier for infected men than women with a 2.8% fatality rate being reported in Chinese men versus 1.7% in women. Further, sex-disaggregated data for COVID-19 in several European countries show a similar number of cases between the sexes, but more severe outcomes in aged men. Case fatality is highest in men with pre-existing cardiovascular conditions. The mechanisms accounting for the reduced case fatality rate in women are currently unclear but may offer potential to develop novel risk stratification tools and therapeutic options for women and men. CONTENT: The present review summarizes latest clinical and epidemiological evidence for gender and sex differences in COVID-19 from Europe and China. We discuss potential sex-specific mechanisms modulating the course of disease, such as hormone-regulated expression of genes encoding for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) entry receptors angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptor and TMPRSS2 as well as sex hormone-driven innate and adaptive immune responses and immunoaging. Finally, we elucidate the impact of gender-specific lifestyle, health behavior, psychological stress, and socioeconomic conditions on COVID-19 and discuss sex specific aspects of antiviral therapies. CONCLUSION: The sex and gender disparities observed in COVID-19 vulnerability emphasize the need to better understand the impact of sex and gender on incidence and case fatality of the disease and to tailor treatment according to sex and gender. The ongoing and planned prophylactic and therapeutic treatment studies must include prospective sex- and gender-sensitive analyses.