Back

Germany's low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence confirms effective containment in 2020: Results of the nationwide RKI-SOEP study

Neuhauser, H.; Schaffrath Rosario, A.; Butschalowsky, H.; Haller, S.; Hoebel, J.; Michel, J.; Nitsche, A.; Poethko-Mueller, C.; Pruetz, F.; Schlaud, M.; Steinhauer, H. W.; Wilking, H.; Wieler, L. H.; Schaade, L.; Liebig, S.; Goesswald, A.; Grabka, M. M.; Zinn, S.; Ziese, T.

2021-11-24 infectious diseases
10.1101/2021.11.22.21266711 medRxiv
Show abstract

Pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data from Germany are scarce outside hotspots, and socioeconomic disparities remained largely unexplored. The nationwide RKI-SOEP study with 15,122 adult participants investigated seroprevalence and testing in a supplementary wave of the Socio-Economic-Panel conducted predominantly in October-November 2020. Self-collected oral-nasal swabs were PCR-positive in 0.4% and Euroimmun anti-SARS-CoV-2-S1-IgG ELISA from dry capillary blood in 1.3% (95% CI 0.9-1.7%, population-weighted, corrected for sensitivity=0.811, specificity=0.997). Seroprevalence was 1.7% (95% CI 1.2-2.3%) when additionally adjusting for antibody decay. Overall infection prevalence including self-reports was 2.1%. We estimate 45% (95% CI 21-60%) undetected cases and analyses suggest lower detection in socioeconomically deprived districts. Prior SARS-CoV-2 testing was reported by 18% from the lower educational group compared to 25% and 26% from the medium and high educational group (p<0.0001). Symptom-triggered test frequency was similar across educational groups. However, routine testing was more common in low-educated adults, whereas travel-related testing and testing after contact with an infected person was more common in highly educated groups. In conclusion, pre-vaccine SARS-CoV-2-seroprevalence in Germany was very low. Notified cases appear to capture more than half of infections but may underestimate infections in lower socioeconomic groups. These data confirm the successful containment strategy of Germany until winter 2020.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 6%
18.4%
2
Eurosurveillance
80 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
3
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.2%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
6
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
7
BMJ
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.6%
8
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.0%
10
Infection
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
11
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Infectious Diseases
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
13
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
14
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.6%
15
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
16
The Lancet
16 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 49%
1.2%
18
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
19
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
20
Journal of Medical Virology
137 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
21
The Lancet Respiratory Medicine
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
22
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 19%
0.8%
23
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.7%
26
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
27
Infectious Diseases and Therapy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%