Prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity in Kazakhstan before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination ============================================================================================== * Irina Kadyrova * Sergey Yegorov * Baurzhan Negmetzhanov * Yevgeniya Kolesnikova * Svetlana Kolesnichenko * Ilya Korshukov * Dmitriy Vazenmiller * Yelena Stupina * Naylya Kabildina * Assem Ashimova * Aigul Raimbekova * Anar Turmukhambetova * Matthew S. Miller * Gonzalo Hortelano * Dmitriy Babenko ## Abstract **Background** COVID-19 exposure in Central Asia appears underestimated and SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data are urgently needed to inform ongoing vaccination efforts and other strategies to mitigate the regional pandemic. Here, we assessed the prevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody-mediated immunity in a heterogeneous cohort of public university employees in Karaganda, Kazakhstan. **Methods** Asymptomatic subjects (n=100) were recruited prior to their first COVID-19 vaccination. Questionnaires were administered to capture a range of demographic and clinical characteristics. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected for SARS-CoV-2 RT-qPCR testing. Serological assays were performed to detect spike (S)-reactive IgG and IgA and to assess virus neutralization. Pre-pandemic samples were used to validate the assay positivity thresholds. **Results** Anti-S IgG and IgA seropositivity rates among SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative participants (n=100) were 42% (95% CI [32.2-52.3]) and 59% (95% CI [48.8-69.0]), respectively, and 64% (95% CI [53.4-73.1]) of the cohort tested positive for at least one of the antibodies. Anti-S IgG titres correlated with virus neutralization activity, detectable in 49% of the tested subset with prior COVID-19 history. Serologically confirmed history of COVID-19 was associated with Kazakh ethnicity and self-reported history of respiratory illness since March 2020. **Conclusions** SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort is ∼15-fold higher compared to the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence. Continuous serological surveillance is critical for understanding the COVID-19 transmission dynamics and should be nationally implemented to better inform the public health response in Central Asia. Key words * COVID-19 * SARS-CoV-2 * serology * IgG * IgA * Central Asia * Kazakhstan ## INTRODUCTION COVID-19 remains a global public health concern and is especially pernicious in regions with limited public health infrastructure that suffer from inadequate epidemiologic surveillance and delayed implementation of pandemic countermeasures. In the Central Asian states, such as Kazakhstan, substantial underestimations (of ∼14-fold) of COVID-19 incidence and associated mortality 1–3 have led to public distrust and slow uptake of public health measures, including vaccination 4. To date, the extent of community exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Kazakhstan remains unclear. Thus, as of 7 August 2021, the officially reported number of all-time COVID-19 cases in Kazakhstan was 689,402 (626,402 of which were PCR-confirmed), representing a cumulative prevalence of ∼3.7% 5- a figure that appears low given the substantial excess of infections and mortality consistent with COVID-19 2,3. Disparities between reported cases and true infections occur due to a plethora of factors, including unreported asymptomatic and mild infections, limited access to timely clinical and laboratory confirmation of COVID-19 diagnosis, and false-negative laboratory test results 6. One way to estimate the proportion of the population with previous exposure to COVID-19 is by using serological surveillance 6, which has been under-utilized in Kazakhstan and other Central Asian states. Here, to gain insight into the true SARS-CoV-2 exposure rates in Kazakhstan, we assessed full-length SARS-CoV-2 Spike(S)-specific IgG and IgA titres in a public university-based cohort, consisting of instructors, administrative and laboratory staff, and healthcare practitioners -representing a diverse array of people with different risks of exposure to COVID-19. ## METHODS ### Study setting and participant recruitment This study was conducted in conjunction with screening for a clinical trial assessing immunogenicity of the Sputnik-V vaccine ([ClinicalTrials.gov](http://ClinicalTrials.gov) #[NCT04871841](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04871841&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F08%2F2021.09.03.21262885.atom)) based in Karaganda, the capital of Karaganda region situated in Central Kazakhstan. Since February 2020, the Karaganda region (population ∼1.3M) has had over 63,000 (∼5% of regional population) reported COVID-19 infections, placing it behind several other locales including the capital, Nur-Sultan (population ∼ 1.0M), which has had a reported all-time COVID-19 prevalence of >11% 7. Participant screening occurred in April-May 2021 at a COVID-19 vaccination clinic for university employees at the Karaganda Medical University. Consenting, asymptomatic adults, who had not previously received a COVID-19 vaccine, were invited to participate in the study. Exclusion criteria were presence of respiratory symptoms or laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis within two weeks prior to the study. Short questionnaires addressing the participants’ demographic background and recent history of COVID-19 exposure were administered. The pre-pandemic samples consisted of archived plasma samples (n=10, 3 men and 7 women, median age(IQR)=48(34.3-55.5) collected in 2016 as part of clinical studies of colorectal cancer and pertained to the cancer-free control group in the original study 8. ### Sample collection and processing Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected following the national guidelines into DNA/RNA shield media (Zymo Research, Irvine, US). Blood (5 ml) was collected by venipuncture into EDTA tubes (Improvacuter, Gel & EDTA.K2, Improve Medical Instruments, Guangzhou, China) both in the pandemic and pre-pandemic studies. Blood plasma was isolated by centrifugation at 2,000 × g for 10 minutes. All samples were stored at -80 °C prior to analyses. ### PCR screening for SARS-CoV-2 Total RNA was isolated from nasopharyngeal swabs by magnetic bead-based nucleic acid extraction (RealBest Sorbitus, Vector-Best, Novosibirsk, Russia) and used for SARS-CoV-2 real-time RT-PCR testing by the Real-Best RNA SARS-CoV-2 kit (Vector-Best, Novosibirsk, Russia) targeting the SARS-CoV-2 RdRp and N loci, following the manufacturer’s protocol. ### IgG and IgA assays Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S1 IgG and IgA ELISAs were performed using commercially available assays (Euroimmun Medizinische Labordiagnostika AG, Lübeck, Germany) on the Evolis 100 ELISA reader (Bio-Rad) according to the manufacturers’ protocols. Optical density (OD) ratios were calculated as ratio of the OD reading for each sample to the reading of the kit calibrator at 450 nm. In the initial analysis, we used the Euroimmun-recommended OD ratio cutoff values for both IgG and IgA, which are “<0.8” for Ig-negative samples, “0.8-1.1” for Ig-borderline samples, and “>=1.1” for Ig-positive samples. We noted that using the manufacturer’s cutoff values: of all IgG “borderline” participants (n=9), 7 (77.8%) were IgA+ (IgA OD ratio>=1.1), 1 (11.1%) was IgA borderline and 1 (11.1%) was IgA negative, while of all IgA “borderline” participants (n=6), 2 (30.0%) were IgG+ (IgG OD ratio>=1.1), 1 (20.0%) was IgG borderline, and 3 (50.0%) were IgG negative. The mean OD450 ratios of the pre-pandemic samples were 0.3 for both IgG and IgA. Therefore, we empirically assumed that ∼99.7% of IgG- and IgA-negative samples would fall within 3 standard deviations of the mean, i.e. within OD450 ratios of 0.45 and 0.51 for IgG and IgA, respectively. Thus, for both IgG and IgA assays, we used the manufacturer-recommended threshold (0.8), which is conservatively above our calculated empiric negative thresholds, and considered all samples with OD ratios <0.8 and >=0.8 as “negative” and “positive”, respectively. Using this in-house threshold, we defined the “No Prior COVID” subjects as negative for both IgG and IgA (IgG-, IgA-) and the “Prior COVID” subjects as positive for either or both IgG and/or IgA (IgG+/-, IgA+/-). ### SARS-CoV-2 Surrogate Virus Neutralization Assay A virus neutralizing assay was performed using a commercially available kit (cPass SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Antibody Detection Kit, #L00847-C, GenScript Biotech Co., Nanjing City, China) in a subset of 55 participants. The assay is designed to assess inhibition of the interaction between the recombinant SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain (RBD) fragment and the human ACE2 receptor protein (hACE2). Briefly, plasma samples and manufacturer-provided controls were pre-incubated with the horseradish peroxidase (HRP)-conjugated RBD at 37 °C for 30 min, and then added to the hACE-2 pre-coated plate for incubation at 37 °C for 15 min. After washing and incubation with the tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) substrate, the absorbance of the final solution was measured at 450 nm using the Evolis 100 ELISA reader (Bio-Rad). Quality control was done following the manufacturer’s recommendations, ensuring that the positive and negative controls had OD450 values of >1 and <0.3, respectively. Neutralization values were calculated by subtracting the negative control-normalized absorbance of the samples from 1 and multiplying it by 100%; a cut-off of 30% was used per the manufacturer’s recommendation for detectable SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibody activity. ### Statistical analysis We used the two-sided Mann-Whitney U, Pearson χ2, or Fisher’s exact tests to compare differences between groups, as appropriate and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the binomial “exact” method. Correlations among variables were explored using the Spearman rank test and lines of best fit were derived via linear regression. ### Role of the funding source The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and the lead authors (IK, SY, DB) had final responsibility for the decision to submit manuscript for publication. ### Ethics statement All study procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Board of Karaganda Medical University. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. ## RESULTS All 100 participants tested negative for SARS-CoV-2 by RT-qPCR at screening. Of 100 participants, 42 (42.0%; 95% CI [32.2-52.3]) were anti-S IgG+. Due to insufficient blood samples, we were unable to include two samples (one IgG+ and one IgG-) in IgA testing, thus out of 98 tested participants, 58 (59.2%; 95% CI [48.8-69.0]) were anti-S IgA+ (Fig 1a). None of the 2016 pre-pandemic samples was positive for S-reactive IgG or IgA (Fig 1a). ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/12/08/2021.09.03.21262885/F1.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/08/2021.09.03.21262885/F1) Figure 1: a) Distribution of optic density (OD) 450 ratios for blood SARS-CoV-2 Spike (S)-reactive IgG and IgA among the study participants recruited in Spring 2021 (n=100) compared to the pre-pandemic samples obtained in 2016 (n=10). b) Correlation plot of SARS-CoV-2 Spike-reactive IgG and IgA levels among the 2021 study participants (n=98). In a) and b) the red dotted lines represent the assay cut-off values at OD450 ratios=0.8 for positive samples for both IgG and IgA. c) The SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity of the 2021 study participant plasma samples measured using the surrogate virus neutralization test. N=25 in the No Prior COVID group, and N=30 in the Prior COVID group. The red dotted line represents the assay cut-off value at 30% for positive samples. d) Correlations between SARS-CoV-2 neutralization versus S-reactive IgG and IgA among the study participants with a serology-confirmed history of COVID-19 (the Prior COVID-19 group, N=30). When stratified by the presence/absence of both IgG and IgA, there were 37 (37.8%) IgG+/IgA+, 4 (4.1%) IgG+/IgA-, 21 (21.4%) IgG-/IgA+ and 36 (36.7%) IgG-/IgA-subjects (Fig 1b). Cumulatively there were 63.6% (63/99; 95% CI [53.4-73.1]) subjects positive for at least one of the antibodies; these subjects were defined as the “Prior COVID” group (Table 1). View this table: [Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/12/08/2021.09.03.21262885/T1) Table 1: Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study cohort. P-values were derived using the two-sided Mann-Whitney U, Pearson χ2, or Fisher’s exact tests to compare differences between groups, as appropriate. To further characterize the serologic features of the cohort, we compared the levels of SARS-CoV-2 binding antibodies and the capacity of participant plasma to neutralize SARS-CoV-2 RBD-hACE2 interaction *in vitro*. We found that IgG and IgA levels correlated strongly across the cohort (r=0.599, p<0.001, Fig 1b). The SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity was significantly higher in the Prior COVID group compared to the No Prior COVID group (p<0.001) and exceeded the positivity cut-off of 30% in 17 out of 35 tested samples (48.6%, Fig 1c), while significantly correlating with circulating S-reactive IgG in the Prior COVID group (Fig 1d). Lastly, we compared the clinical and demographic features of the cohort stratified by the serology-confirmed COVID-19 exposure. The Prior COVID group consisted of 25% more people self-identifying as ethnic Kazakhs (p=0.022), and more frequently self-reported having had a respiratory illness since March 2020 (p<0.001), compared to the No prior COVID group (Table 1). Only in a minority of cases (24%, 8/33) self-reported respiratory illness was confirmed as COVID-19 by PCR and/or serology at the time of sickness; most of the self-reported respiratory illness occurred in March-Aug 2020, and in two cases in February-March 2021. There were no other significant clinical or demographic differences between the Prior COVID and No prior COVID groups (Table 1). ## DISCUSSION Here we present anti-S IgG and IgA-based seroprevalence findings from a cohort of public university employees in Kazakhstan, who were invited to participate in the study prior to receiving their first dose of COVID-19 vaccine. The cohort seropositivity for anti-S IgG and IgA was 41% and 59%, respectively, while 64% of the subjects tested positive for at least one of the antibodies, thus approaching the 67% seroprevalence threshold thought to be required for establishing herd immunity 9,10. Consistent with studies of excess infection and death 2,3, the serologically assessed SARS-CoV-2 exposure in this cohort was 14-15-fold higher than the reported all-time national and regional COVID-19 prevalence. The substantial discrepancy between serology-derived and officially reported COVID-19 exposure estimates is not uncommon across the globe 6. However, what is most striking about our findings is the unusually high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence exceeding the estimates for many other countries 6, albeit on par with the recent estimates from the neighbouring St. Petersburg, Russia, where antibodies against the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike were detectable in ∼45% of randomly sampled adults 11. Similarly high SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rates have also been observed in the general populations of Brazil (>76% 12), Ecuador (∼45% 13), India and Pakistan (>52% 14,15), and in communities at risk, such as healthcare workers and nursing home residents, across the globe 6. In our cohort, serologically confirmed exposure to COVID-19 was associated with self-documented history of respiratory illness, most of which was dated by the participants to the peak of the first COVID-19 wave in the Spring-Summer of 2020 1, period during which the country’s healthcare system was overwhelmed and laboratory testing was limited 3. This timing of self-reported illness suggests that anti-S immunoglobulins remain detectable up to a year after symptomatic COVID-19, consistent with the established long-term persistence of SARS-CoV-2-reactive antibodies 16,17. COVID-19 exposure in this cohort was significantly associated with Kazakh ethnicity, consistent with our earlier finding that Kazakh people are more likely have a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis but are less likely to develop a severe disease compared to other ethnic groups in Kazakhstan 1. Somewhat unexpectedly, we did not see any association between the serologically confirmed exposure to COVID-19 and the participants’ professional occupation or any demographic factors. This may be because differences between sub-populations with different COVID-19 exposure risk are overwhelmed by the high seroprevalence in the general population. Alternatively, the risk of infection for healthcare workers may not be elevated relative to the general population because of the adequacy of infection control practices that are in place in healthcare facilities. Given the logistical difficulties with procuring biomedical reagents and limited technological capacity in the setting of Kazakhstan, our choice of the serologic assay in this study was dictated by both assay quality and logistic feasibility. Therefore, we used a commercially available, FDA-approved assay, validated by several research groups, and deployable in a basic clinical lab setting 18–21. Furthermore, we chose to use both IgG and IgA based on the evidence of distinct but overlapping temporal patterns seen for these antibodies in COVID-19 patients 16,22,23. Thus, both IgG and IgA appear as early as 2 weeks post-symptom onset (PSO), with IgA increasing up to third week PSO and then dropping, while IgG increases until fourth week PSO, remaining detectable up to 8 months PSO 16. Finally, we chose not to use IgM, since this antibody is more suitable for detecting acute infection, while in convalescent subjects IgA temporally overlaps IgM, resulting in higher positivity rates 22. We validated our findings in the current cohort by testing pre-pandemic samples and performing virus neutralization assays. Half of the Prior COVID participants exhibited virus neutralization correlating with S-reactive IgG titres. This finding is consistent with the evidence that SARS-CoV-2 neutralization declines rapidly after COVID-19 disease resolution and >40% of convalescent subjects show little neutralization activity 16,18,24. Recent studies indicate that people with prior history of COVID-19 have a stronger response to vaccination compared to COVID-19-naive subjects after one vaccine dose 25–27. Mass COVID-19 vaccination was launched in Kazakhstan in February 2021, and so far, ∼40% of Kazakhstan’s population has received at least one vaccine dose 7. Considering limited vaccine supply and low vaccination acceptance, our seroprevalence findings therefore could be extended to inform the ongoing vaccination efforts about the existing population-wide anti-SARS-CoV-2 immunity in Kazakhstan. For example, the second dose of COVID-19 immunisation could be reserved for people without prior natural exposure to SARS-CoV-2 but delayed for subjects with prior COVID-19 exposure. Given the small sample constrained to employees of one, albeit large (employing ∼3000 staff) organization, our findings should be seen as preliminary “pilot” data on SARS-CoV-2 prevalence in Kazakhstan. Importantly, our analysis was focused on S-reactive immunoglobulins and with increasing vaccination coverage other SARS-CoV-2 antigens should be incorporated into the future seroprevalence surveys across various demographic groups in the region. ### Conclusions Continuous epidemiologic surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 exposure is critical for understanding the COVID-19 transmission dynamics and for informing ongoing vaccination efforts and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies. Although constrained by a small sample size, our seroprevalence study for the first time documents an extremely high rate of SARS-CoV-2 exposure in Kazakhstan. These findings should pave way to larger seroprevalence surveys accounting for, among other factors, vaccine-induced immunity. ## Data Availability WE declare that data referred to the manuscript are availabile. ## CONTRIBUTORS Conceptualization, IK, SY, DB. Investigation and formal analysis, IK, SY, BN, YK, SK, IlK, DV, YS, NK, AA, AR, MSM, GH. Clinical and laboratory site supervision IK, LA, AT. Writing – original draft, IK, SY. Writing – review and editing, IK, SY, BN, YK, SK, IlK, DV, YS, NK, AA, LA, AT, M.S.M., GH, DB. Funding acquisition, IK, GH, DB. ## DECLARATION OF INTERESTS The authors declare that they have no competing interests. ## FUNDING The study was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan (AP09259123) and, in part, by the Nazarbayev University grant #280720FD1902 to GH. SY was supported, in part, by a M.G. DeGroote Postdoctoral Fellowship. ## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank all the study participants and the COVID-19 vaccination clinic staff. We acknowledge that an earlier draft of this manuscript appeared online as a medRxiv preprint 28. * Received September 3, 2021. * Revision received December 8, 2021. * Accepted December 8, 2021. * © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) ## REFERENCES 1. Yegorov S, Goremykina M, Ivanova R, et al. Epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and virologic features of COVID-19 patients in Kazakhstan: A nation-wide retrospective cohort study. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe 2021; 4. DOI:10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100096. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.lanepe.2021.100096&link_type=DOI) 2. Estimation of excess mortality due to COVID-19. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. 2021; published online April 22. [http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths](http://www.healthdata.org/special-analysis/estimation-excess-mortality-due-covid-19-and-scalars-reported-covid-19-deaths) (accessed Aug 9, 2021). 3. Gaipov A, Gusmanov A, Abbay A, et al. SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive and PCR-negative cases of pneumonia admitted to the hospital during the peak of COVID-19 pandemic: analysis of in-hospital and post-hospital mortality. BMC Infect Dis 2021; 21: 458. 4. The State of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Central Asia. [https://www.caspianpolicy.org/the-state-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-central-asia/](https://www.caspianpolicy.org/the-state-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-in-central-asia/) (accessed Aug 9, 2021). 5. Kazakhstan - COVID-19 Overview - Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center. [https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/kazakhstan](https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/kazakhstan) (accessed Aug 9, 2021). 6. Chen X, Chen Z, Azman AS, et al. Serological evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health 2021; 9: e598–609. 7. Official report on COVID-19 in Kazakhstan. [https://www.coronavirus2020.kz/ru](https://www.coronavirus2020.kz/ru) (accessed Aug 9, 2021). 8. Kolesnikova Y, Babenko D, Kadyrova I, et al. Association of four genetic variants with colorectal cancer in Kazakhstan population. Oncotarget 2021; 12: 2215–22. 9. Randolph HE, Barreiro LB. Herd Immunity: Understanding COVID-19. Immunity 2020; 52: 737–41. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.immuni.2020.04.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32433946&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F08%2F2021.09.03.21262885.atom) 10. McDermott A. Core Concept: Herd immunity is an important—and often misunderstood— public health phenomenon. PNAS 2021; 118. DOI:10.1073/pnas.2107692118. [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxODoiMTE4LzIxL2UyMTA3NjkyMTE4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMTIvMDgvMjAyMS4wOS4wMy4yMTI2Mjg4NS5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 11. Barchuk A, Skougarevskiy D, Kouprianov A, et al. COVID-19 pandemic in Saint Petersburg, Russia: combining surveillance and population-based serological study data in May, 2020 - April, 2021. medRxiv 2021; : 2021.07.31.21261428. 12. Buss LF, Prete CA, Abrahim CMM, et al. Three-quarters attack rate of SARS-CoV-2 in the Brazilian Amazon during a largely unmitigated epidemic. Science 2021; 371: 288–92. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzNzEvNjUyNi8yODgiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8xMi8wOC8yMDIxLjA5LjAzLjIxMjYyODg1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 13. Del Brutto OH, Costa AF, Mera RM, Recalde BY, Bustos JA, García HH. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality in a rural Latin American population. International Journal of Infectious Diseases 2020; 99: 226–8. 14. Malani A, Shah D, Kang G, et al. Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in slums versus non-slums in Mumbai, India. The Lancet Global Health 2021; 9: e110–1. 15. Ghose A, Bhattacharya S, Karthikeyan AS, et al. Community prevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 and correlates of protective immunity in an Indian metropolitan city. medRxiv 2020; : 2020.11.17.20228155. 16. Dan JM, Mateus J, Kato Y, et al. Immunological memory to SARS-CoV-2 assessed for up to 8 months after infection. Science 2021; 371. DOI:10.1126/science.abf4063. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE3OiIzNzEvNjUyOS9lYWJmNDA2MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIxLzEyLzA4LzIwMjEuMDkuMDMuMjEyNjI4ODUuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 17. Glück V, Grobecker S, Tydykov L, et al. SARS-CoV-2-directed antibodies persist for more than six months in a cohort with mild to moderate COVID-19. Infection 2021; 49: 739–46. 18. Okba NMA, Müller MA, Li W, et al. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2–Specific Antibody Responses in Coronavirus Disease Patients - Volume 26, Number 7— July 2020 - Emerging Infectious Diseases journal - CDC. DOI:10.3201/eid2607.200841. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3201/eid2607.200841&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32267220&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F08%2F2021.09.03.21262885.atom) 19. Gededzha MP, Mampeule N, Jugwanth S, et al. Performance of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies in South Africa. PLOS ONE 2021; 16: e0252317. 20. Beavis KG, Matushek SM, Abeleda APF, et al. Evaluation of the EUROIMMUN Anti-SARS-CoV-2 ELISA Assay for detection of IgA and IgG antibodies. J Clin Virol 2020; 129: 104468. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.jcv.2020.104468&link_type=DOI) 21. GeurtsvanKessel CH, Okba NMA, Igloi Z, et al. An evaluation of COVID-19 serological assays informs future diagnostics and exposure assessment. Nat Commun 2020; 11: 3436. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41467-020-17317-y&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32632160&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F08%2F2021.09.03.21262885.atom) 22. Sterlin D, Mathian A, Miyara M, et al. IgA dominates the early neutralizing antibody response to SARS-CoV-2. Science Translational Medicine 2021; 13. DOI:10.1126/scitranslmed.abd2223. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTE6InNjaXRyYW5zbWVkIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjE1OiIxMy81NzcvZWFiZDIyMjMiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8xMi8wOC8yMDIxLjA5LjAzLjIxMjYyODg1LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 23. Seow J, Graham C, Merrick B, et al. Longitudinal observation and decline of neutralizing antibody responses in the three months following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans. Nat Microbiol 2020; 5: 1598–607. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F08%2F2021.09.03.21262885.atom) 24. Prévost J, Gasser R, Beaudoin-Bussières G, et al. Cross-Sectional Evaluation of Humoral Responses against SARS-CoV-2 Spike. Cell Rep Med 2020; 1: 100126. 25. Manisty C, Otter AD, Treibel TA, et al. Antibody response to first BNT162b2 dose in previously SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals. Lancet 2021; 397: 1057–8. 26. Ebinger JE, Fert-Bober J, Printsev I, et al. Antibody responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine in individuals previously infected with SARS-CoV-2. Nat Med 2021; 27: 981–4. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33795870&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F12%2F08%2F2021.09.03.21262885.atom) 27. Rossi AH, Ojeda DS, Varese A, et al. Sputnik V vaccine elicits seroconversion and neutralizing capacity to SARS-CoV-2 after a single dose. Cell Rep Med 2021; 2: 100359. 28. Kadyrova I, Yegorov S, Negmetzhanov B, et al. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG and IgA antibodies before the launch of COVID-19 vaccination in Kazakhstan. 2021.