Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence by Community Survey and Residual Specimens, Denver, Colorado, July–August 2020

Abstract

Objectives: The number of SARS-CoV-2 infections is underestimated in surveillance data. Various approaches to assess the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 have different resource requirements and generalizability. We estimated the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in Denver County, Colorado, via a cluster-sampled community survey. Methods: We estimated the overall seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 via a community seroprevalence survey in Denver County in July 2020, described patterns associated with seroprevalence, and compared results with cumulative COVID-19 incidence as reported to the health department during the same period. In addition, we compared seroprevalence as assessed with a temporally and geographically concordant convenience sample of residual clinical specimens from a commercial laboratory. Results: Based on 404 specimens collected through the community survey, 8.0% (95% CI, 3.9%-15.7%) of Denver County residents had antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, an infection rate of about 7 times that of the 1.1% cumulative reported COVID-19 incidence during this period. The estimated infection-to-reported case ratio was highest among children (34.7; 95% CI, 11.1-91.2) and males (10.8; 95% CI, 5.7-19.3). Seroprevalence was highest among males of Black race or Hispanic ethnicity and was associated with previous COVID-19–compatible illness, a previous positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and close contact with someone who had confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Testing of 1598 residual clinical specimens yielded a seroprevalence of 6.8% (95% CI, 5.0%-9.2%); the difference between the 2 estimates was 1.2 percentage points (95% CI, −3.6 to 12.2 percentage points). Conclusions: Testing residual clinical specimens provided a similar seroprevalence estimate yet yielded limited insight into the local epidemiology of COVID-19 and might be less representative of the source population than a cluster-sampled community survey. Awareness of the limitations of various sampling strategies is necessary when interpreting findings from seroprevalence assessments.