SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Germany - a population based sequential study in five regions

Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies is an essential indicator to guide measures. Few population-based estimates are available in Germany. We determine seroprevalence allowing comparison between regions, time points, socio-demographic and health-related factors. MuSPAD is a sequential multi-local seroprevalence study. We randomly recruited adults in five counties with differing cumulative SARS-CoV-2 incidence July 2020 -February 2021. Serostatus was determined using Spike S1-specific IgG ELISA. We determined county-wise proportions of seropositivity. We assessed underestimation of infections, county and age specific infection fatality risks, and association of seropositivity with demographic, socioeconomic and health factors. We found seroprevalence of 2.4 % (95%CI: 1.8-3.1%) for Reutlingen in June 2020 (stage 1) which increased to 2.9% (95%CI: 2.1-3.8%) in October (stage 2), Freiburg stage 1 1.5% (95% CI: 1.1-2.1%) vs. 2.5% (95%CI: 1.8-3.4%), Aachen stage 1 2.3% (95% CI: 1.7-3.1%) vs. 5.4% (95%CI: 4.4-6.6%), Osnabruck 1.3% (95% CI: 1.0-1.9%) and Magdeburg in Nov/Dec 2020. 2.4% (95%CI 1.9-3.1%). Number needed to quarantine to prevent one infection was 8.2. The surveillance detection ratio (SDR) between number of infections based on our results and number reported to health authorities ranged from 2.5-4.5. Participants aged 80+ had lower SDR. Infection fatality estimates ranged from 0.2-2.4%. Lower education was associated with higher, smoking with lower seropositivity. Seroprevalence remained low until December 2020 with high underdetection. The second wave from November 2020 to February 2021 resulted in additional 2-5% of the population being infected. Detected age specific differences of SDR should be taken into account in modelling and forecasting COVID-19 morbidity. FundingThe Helmholtz Association, European Unions Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [grant number 101003480] and intramural funds of the Helmholtz Centre for infection (HZI). HighlightsO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSSeroepidemiological surveys on SARS-CoV-2 are a useful tool to track the transmission during the epidemic. We searched PubMed/the pre-print server medRxiv and included web-based reports from German health organizations using the keywords "seroprevalence", "SARS-CoV-2", "Germany" and similar other English and German terms in the period from January 1st, 2020 until March 2021. We identified 30 published studies in Germany which mostly report low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (<5%). Most of these surveys were so-called hotspot studies which assessed seroprevalence after localized outbreaks or examined seroprevalence of specific population groups such as e.g. medical staff. Few studies are either population-based or blood donor-based, but do not allow comparisons between regions. To date, we only consider the Corona sub-study of the Rhineland study similar to MuSPAD. It reports a low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (46/4755; 0.97%; 95% CI: 0.72-1.30). Based on this, almost the entire German population remained susceptible to a SARS-CoV-2 infection by the end of 2020. Added value of this studyWe provide the first comprehensive, high-precision multi-region population-based SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence study with representative sampling following the WHO protocol in Germany. By measuring SARS-CoV-2 IgG, we explore immunity at regional and national level over time. We also assess risk factors and sample each region twice, which permits to monitor seroprevalence progression throughout the epidemic in different exemplary German regions. Implications of all the available evidenceOur results show low seroprevalence (<3%) until Mid-December 2020 in all regions. While estimates in Reutlingen, Aachen, Freiburg and Osnabruck reflect low seroprevalence mostly after the first wave, the survey in Magdeburg cumulatively already represents the beginning of the second wave. The number needed to quarantine to prevent one infection was 8.2 in our study. We also show that for the first wave reported infections reflected overall around 25% of those actually infected rising to 40-50% in the second wave. A slightly raised infection risk could be shown for persons with lower education.