This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

Objective Currently, little is known about the progression of an immune response against SARSCoV- 2 upon infection or sub-infection-exposure over time. We examined the serologic response in healthcare workers up to 12 weeks after a well-documented and contained outbreak and compared results with findings from earlier serologic testing in the same population. Methods This study followed 166 health care workers of the University Perinatal Care Center, Regensburg, Germany, for up to 12 weeks. 27 of the subjects had previously tested positive for the presence of SARS-CoV-2 by PCR testing and developed COVID-19. Serologic responses were tested with two independent commercially available test kits. Results 77.8 % of COVID-19 study subjects developed a specific IgG-response over the course of the 12-week study, while none of the COVID-19 contact groups had a detectable IgG response. Amongst most COVID-19 patients the values of detectable IgG-responses significantly increased over time as confirmed with both tests, while that of positive IgA responses decreased. Between the number of reported symptoms and antibody responses in COVID-19 patients no correlation was found and no new cases of seroconversion were identified in asymptomatic coworkers with negative PCR during the outbreak. Conclusions Immune response after COVID-19 increases significantly over time but still approximately 22 % of COVID-19 patients did not mount a measurable serologic immune response within 60 days. Exposed co-workers did not develop any relevant antibody levels at all. We conclude that immunity after infection increases over time, but the antibody response does not develop reliably in all infected people.

Background: Opening schools and keeping children safe from SARS-CoV-2 infections at the same time is urgently needed to protect children from direct and indirect consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve this goal, a safe, efficient, and cost-effective SARS-CoV-2 testing system for schools in addition to standard hygiene measures is necessary.Methods: We implemented the screening WICOVIR concept for schools in the southeast of Germany, which is based on gargling at home, pooling of samples in schools, and assessment of SARS-CoV-2 by pool rRT-PCR, performed decentralized in numerous participating laboratories. Depooling was performed if pools were positive, and results were transmitted with software specifically developed for the project within a day. Here, we report the results after the first 13 weeks in the project.Findings: We developed and implemented the proof-of-concept test system within a pilot phase of 7 weeks based on almost 17,000 participants. After 6 weeks in the main phase of the project, we performed >100,000 tests in total, analyzed in 7,896 pools, identifying 19 cases in >100 participating schools. On average, positive children showed an individual CT value of 31 when identified in the pools. Up to 30 samples were pooled (mean 13) in general, based on school classes and attached school staff. All three participating laboratories detected positive samples reliably with their previously established rRT-PCR standard protocols. When self-administered antigen tests were performed concomitantly in positive cases, only one of these eight tests was positive, and when antigen tests performed after positive pool rRT-PCR results were already known were included, 3 out of 11 truly positive tests were also identified by antigen testing. After 3 weeks of repetitive WICOVIR testing twice weekly, the detection rate of positive children in that cohort decreased significantly from 0.042 to 0.012 (p = 0.008).Interpretation: Repeated gargle pool rRT-PCR testing can be implemented quickly in schools. It is an effective, valid, and well-received test system for schools, superior to antigen tests in sensitivity, acceptance, and costs.

No abstract