ABSTRACT
In the current COVID-19 pandemic, a better understanding of the relationship between merely binding and functionally neutralizing antibodies is necessary to characterize protective antiviral immunity following infection or vaccination. This study analyzes the level of correlation between the novel quantitative EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 QuantiVac ELISA (IgG) and a microneutralization assay. A panel of 123 plasma samples from a COVID-19 outbreak study population, preselected by semiquantitative anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG testing, was used to assess the relationship between the novel quantitative ELISA (IgG) and a microneutralization assay. Binding IgG targeting the S1 antigen was detected in 106 (86.2%) samples using the QuantiVac ELISA, while 89 (72.4%) samples showed neutralizing antibody activity. Spearman's correlation analysis demonstrated a strong positive relationship between anti-S1 IgG levels and neutralizing antibody titers (rs = 0.819, p < 0.0001). High and low anti-S1 IgG levels were associated with a positive predictive value of 72.0% for high-titer neutralizing antibodies and a negative predictive value of 90.8% for low-titer neutralizing antibodies, respectively. These results substantiate the implementation of the QuantiVac ELISA to assess protective immunity following infection or vaccination.
Subject(s)
Antibodies, Neutralizing/blood , Antibodies, Viral/blood , Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay/methods , Immunoglobulin G/blood , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19 Serological Testing/methods , Child , Child, Preschool , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Neutralization Tests/methods , Sensitivity and Specificity , Spike Glycoprotein, Coronavirus/immunology , Young AdultABSTRACT
A SARS-CoV2 super-spreading event occurred during carnival in a small town in Germany. Due to the rapidly imposed lockdown and its relatively closed community, this town was seen as an ideal model to investigate the infection fatality rate (IFR). Here, a 7-day seroepidemiological observational study was performed to collect information and biomaterials from a random, household-based study population. The number of infections was determined by IgG analyses and PCR testing. We found that of the 919 individuals with evaluable infection status, 15.5% (95% CI:[12.3%; 19.0%]) were infected. This is a fivefold higher rate than the reported cases for this community (3.1%). 22.2% of all infected individuals were asymptomatic. The estimated IFR was 0.36% (95% CI:[0.29%; 0.45%]) for the community and 0.35% [0.28%; 0.45%] when age-standardized to the population of the community. Participation in carnival increased both infection rate (21.3% versus 9.5%, p < 0.001) and number of symptoms (estimated relative mean increase 1.6, p = 0.007). While the infection rate here is not representative for Germany, the IFR is useful to estimate the consequences of the pandemic in places with similar healthcare systems and population characteristics. Whether the super-spreading event not only increases the infection rate but also affects the IFR requires further investigation.