SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence in a Rural and Urban Household Cohort during First and Second Waves of Infections, South Africa, July 2020–March 2021

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background SARS-CoV-2 infections may be underestimated due to limited testing access, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. South Africa experienced two SARS-CoV-2 waves, the second associated with emergence of variant 501Y.V2. In this study, we report longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in cohorts in two communities in South Africa. Methods We measured SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence two monthly in randomly selected household cohorts in a rural and an urban community (July 2020-March 2021). We compared seroprevalence to laboratory-confirmed infections, hospitalisations and deaths reported in the districts to calculate infection-case (ICR), infection-hospitalisation (IHR) and infection-fatality ratio (IFR) in the two waves of infection. Findings Seroprevalence after the second wave ranged from 18% (95%CrI 10-26%) and 28% (95%CrI 17-41%) in children <5 years to 37% (95%CrI 28-47%) in adults aged 19-34 years and 59% (95%CrI 49-68%) in adults aged 35-59 years in the rural and urban community respectively. Individuals infected in the second wave were more likely to be from the rural site (aOR 4.7, 95%CI 2.9-7.6), and 5-12 years (aOR 2.1, 95%CI 1.1-4.2) or ≥60 years (aOR 2.8, 95%CI 1.1-7.0), compared to 35-59 years. The in-hospital IFR in the urban site was significantly increased in the second wave 0.36% (95%CI 0.28-0.57%) compared to the first wave 0.17% (95%CI 0.15-0.20%). ICR ranged from 3.69% (95%CI 2.59-6.40%) in second wave at urban community, to 5.55% (95%CI 3.40-11.23%) in first wave in rural community. Interpretation The second wave was associated with a shift in age distribution of cases from individuals aged to 35-59 to individuals at the extremes of age, higher attack rates in the rural community and a higher IFR in the urban community. Approximately 95% of SARS-CoV-2 infections in these two communities were not reported to the national surveillance system, which has implications for contact tracing and infection containment. Funding US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Research in context Evidence before this study Seroprevalence studies provide better estimates of SARS-CoV-2 burden than laboratory-confirmed cases because many infections may be missed due to restricted access to care and testing, or differences in disease severity and health-care seeking behaviour. This underestimation may be amplified in African countries, where testing access may be limited. Seroprevalence data from sub-Saharan Africa are limited, and comparing seroprevalence estimates between countries can be challenging because populations studied and timing of the study relative to country-specific epidemics differs. During the first wave of infections in each country, seroprevalence was estimated at 4% in Kenya and 11% in Zambia. Seroprevalence estimates in South African blood donors is estimated to range between 32% to 63%. South Africa has experienced two waves of infection, with the emergence of the B.1.351/501Y.V2 variant of concern after the first wave. Reported SARS-CoV-2 cases may not be a true reflection of SARS-CoV-2 burden and specifically the differential impact of the first and second waves of infection. Added value of this study We collected longitudinal blood samples from prospectively followed rural and urban communities, randomly selected, household cohorts in South Africa between July 2020 and March 2021. From 668 and 598 individuals included from the rural and urban communities, respectively, seroprevalence was found to be 7% (95%CrI 5-9%) and 27% (95%CrI 23-31%), after the first wave of infection, and 26% (95%CrI 22-29%) and 41% (95%CrI 37-45%) after the second wave, in rural and urban study districts, respectively. After standardising for age, we estimated that only 5% of SARS-CoV-2 infections were laboratory-confirmed and reported. Infection-hospitalisation ratios in the urban community were higher in the first (2.01%, 95%CI 1.57-2.57%) and second (2.29%, 95%CI 1.63-3.94%) wave than the rural community where there was a 0.75% (95%CI 0.49-1.41%) and 0.66% (95%CI 0.50-0.98%) infection-hospitalisation ratio in the first and second wave, respectively. When comparing the infection fatality ratios for the first and second SARS-CoV-2 waves, at the urban site, the ratios for both in-hospital and excess deaths to cases were significantly higher in the second wave (0.36%, 95%CI 0.28-0.57% in-hospital and 0.51%, 95%CI 0.34-0.93% excess deaths), compared to the first wave in-hospital (0.17%, 95%CI 0.15-0.20%) and excess (0.13%, 95%CI 0.10-0.17%) fatality ratios, p<0.001 and p<0.001, respectively). In the rural community, the point estimates for infection-fatality ratios also increased in the second wave compared to the first wave for in-hospital deaths, 0.13% (95%CI 0.10-0.23%) first wave vs 0.20% (95%CI 0.13%-0.28%) second wave, and excess deaths (0.51%, 95%CI 0.30-1.06% vs 0.70%, 95%CI 0.49-1.12%), although neither change was statistically significant. Implications of all the available evidence In Sout