Antibodies, Immunity, and COVID-19 | Coronavirus (COVID-19) | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Invited Commentary
November 24, 2020

Antibodies, Immunity, and COVID-19

Author Affiliations
  • 1Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center, Los Angeles
  • 2Department of Public Health Sciences, Parkinson School of Health Sciences and Public Health, Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Illinois
  • 3Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(4):460-462. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7986

Widespread availability of commercial assays that detect anti–severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies has enabled researchers to examine naturally acquired immunity to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the population level. Several studies have found that the SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence (the percentage of the population with serum containing antibodies that recognize the virus) has remained below 20% even in the most adversely affected areas globally, such as Spain and Italy.1-3 In this issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, Bajema et al4 contribute new information on the shifting nature of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the US. The study uses national data to expand on an earlier US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study of seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 US sites.3

Using serum samples from commercial clinical laboratories, the investigators found the highest level of seroprevalence in New York, which surged from 6.9%3 in March to a peak of approximately 25% before mid-August 2020.4 For all but a few states, seroprevalence remained below 10% throughout the study period; New York was the only state where seroprevalence increased above 20%. In several states, seroprevalence stayed below 1%. Seroprevalence tended to wane over time, although in a few states, such as Georgia and Minnesota, rates increased over the study period. Thus, the primary takeaway from this study is that despite the pandemic raging across the US, most people do not have evidence of prior COVID-19 infection by antibodies to SARS-CoV-2.

A major strength of the study is its reliance on residual serum that had been sent to national commercial laboratories for routine clinical testing, rather than from patients suspected of having COVID-19. This approach enabled a less biased population sampling than in other studies. The samples were not enriched for people suspected of having infection, and thus the study provides a more accurate read of seroprevalence across disparate populations. However, a limitation of this approach is that the people most likely to have positive results for antibodies (those with clinical concern for prior infection) were excluded, which could result in an underestimate of true population-based seroprevalence. Another strength of the study is the testing of more than 130 000 samples from all 50 US states plus Washington, DC and Puerto Rico. By evaluating seroprevalence over time in each geographical area, the investigators imparted a spatiotemporal dynamic to the results.

The unifying hope for ending the global COVID-19 pandemic is the development of adequate population-level herd immunity to halt the continuing cycles of infection and disease. Although no data exist to define the exact threshold necessary to achieve herd immunity against COVID-19, modeling and extrapolation from similar diseases suggest that more than 60%, and perhaps up to 80%, of the population may need immunity for the viral replication rate to drop below 1, enabling a modest level of disease control.5 Such immunity may be achieved via recovery of many individuals from widespread infection, or preferably via the availability of safe and effective vaccines.

Unfortunately, history has shown that although herd immunity resulting from infection can curb pandemics, it does not eradicate diseases. The historical precedent that most closely approximates, and was substantially worse than, the current COVID-19 pandemic is the 1918 H1N1 influenza pandemic. After more than 2 years, 500 million infections, and 50 million deaths worldwide, sufficient levels of population-based herd immunity finally halted the continued spread of the virus, and society began to recover. Nevertheless, variants of that influenza virus are still present, such that resurgence of this H1N1 subtype remains a persistent concern.

Similarly, measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and smallpox are respiratory tract viruses that once killed or maimed millions of people annually across the globe, despite inducing long-term protective immunity against reinfection following natural infection. In the prevaccine era, immunity following natural infection allowed people to coexist with these viruses, but never eradicated them. On their advent, vaccines reduced the disease burden of these viruses by more than 99%.6 Indeed, smallpox remains the only disease in human history to have been eradicated, an achievement of vaccination, not natural immunity.

And yet, until safe and effective vaccines are available, natural immunity and public health measures are the primary approaches to managing pandemics. Unfortunately, it is not yet known if detection of anti–SARS-CoV-2 antibodies by commercial clinical laboratory assays is associated with protective immunity. It is possible that protection requires achieving a specific quantity of a specific subtype of antibody. It is also possible that to achieve protection, antibodies must bind to specific epitopes on the virus, which may differ from the epitopes that are targeted in the commercial assays. Thus, we simply do not know if the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 that are detected by commercial assays will ultimately translate into protective herd immunity as the virus continues to spread.

Conversely, it is possible that people exposed to SARS-CoV-2 are protected against future infection regardless of whether they have measurable antibody titers or not. The role of T cells in protective immunity against COVID-19, and the association between immunity based on antibodies and memory T cells, remains undefined. Indeed, there are reasons to be optimistic that prior exposure to the virus does lead to protective immunity. Nearly a year into the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been more than 30 million confirmed infections, but extremely few documented cases of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 throughout the world.7 If natural infection did not lead to a high degree of protection, many more reinfections would be expected. Furthermore, analysis of convalescent plasma reveals that most individuals with symptomatic COVID-19 mount neutralizing antibody responses to SARS-CoV-2.8 Based on immunological experience with other viruses, the presence of neutralizing antibodies is likely associated with protection. Thus, until more data become available, it is reasonable to assume that natural infection with SARS-CoV-2 may lead to protective immunity and prior infection may be closely associated with protection. Furthermore, protection from natural infection suggests that vaccines should induce protective immunity.

The decline over time of the seroprevalence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in the study by Bajema et al4 is neither unexpected nor alarming. For all infectious diseases, the waning of antibody titers is normal and does not necessarily indicate the loss of protective long-term immunity. Immunoglobulin G titers rise during the weeks following infection as active plasma cells secrete antibody into systemic circulation. Those titers then wane as the plasma cells actively secreting the antibodies senesce, whereas resting memory B and T lymphocytes continue to circulate for years to decades.9 These memory lymphocytes can mediate long-term immunity to infection even in the face of waning antibody titers.9 Thus, at present, no conclusions can be drawn from seroprevalence studies about the duration of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Experience with other respiratory tract viruses suggests that immunity to specific viral serotypes lasts for many years. This was the case with the H1N1 virus that caused the 1918 influenza pandemic, in which adolescent survivors experienced protection from reinfection into the tenth decade of their lives.10

In summary, a robust and well-designed seroprevalence study using residual serum samples from across the US has found that herd immunity to SARS-Cov-2 is nowhere in sight, even as the COVID-19 pandemic has raged on for a year. The good news is that the limited number of reinfections of SARS-CoV-2 to date, and the experience with natural infections with other viruses, suggests that protective immunity to COVID-19 should result, a harbinger for the success of vaccines. The bad news is that, like the 1918 influenza pandemic, achieving herd immunity through natural infections will take years of painful sacrifice that are tallied in numerous deaths, severe long-term health sequelae, and widespread economic disruption and hardship. Let us hope that safe and effective vaccines help avoid the consequences of naturally developing herd immunity to COVID-19, as they have reliably done for so many other respiratory viruses.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Brad Spellberg, MD, 2051 Marengo Street, Los Angeles, CA 90033 (bspellberg@dhs.lacounty.gov).

Published Online: November 24, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7986

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Spellberg reported personal fees from IQVIA and service on multiple data safety monitoring boards for therapeutics for COVID-19, with no financial interest in the sponsors, products, or outcomes of the trials during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

References
1.
Percivalle  E, Cambiè  G, Cassaniti  I,  et al.  Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 specific neutralising antibodies in blood donors from the Lodi Red Zone in Lombardy, Italy, as at 06 April 2020.   Euro Surveill. 2020;25(24):2001031.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Pollán  M, Pérez-Gómez  B, Pastor-Barriuso  R,  et al; ENE-COVID Study Group.  Prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in Spain (ENE-COVID): a nationwide, population-based seroepidemiological study.   Lancet. 2020;396(10250):535-544. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Havers  FP, Reed  C, Lim  T,  et al.  Seroprevalence of Antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 in 10 Sites in the United States, March 23-May 12, 2020.   JAMA Intern Med. 2020. Published online July 21, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4130PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Bajema  KL, Wiegand  RE, Cuffe  K,  et al.  Estimated SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the United States as of September 2020.   JAMA Intern Med. Published online November 24, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7976Google Scholar
5.
Fontanet  A, Cauchemez  S.  COVID-19 herd immunity: where are we?   Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20(10):583-584. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
US Centers for Disease and Prevention. Epidemiology and prevention of vaccine-preventable diseases. Accessed November 1, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/index.html
7.
Tillett  RL, Sevinsky  JR, Hartley  PD,  et al.  Genomic evidence for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: a case study.   Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;S1473-3099(20)30764-7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
Klein  SL, Pekosz  A, Park  HS,  et al.  Sex, age, and hospitalization drive antibody responses in a COVID-19 convalescent plasma donor population.   J Clin Invest. 2020;130(11):6141-6150. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Dörner  T, Radbruch  A.  Antibodies and B cell memory in viral immunity.   Immunity. 2007;27(3):384-392. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Yu  X, Tsibane  T, McGraw  PA,  et al.  Neutralizing antibodies derived from the B cells of 1918 influenza pandemic survivors.   Nature. 2008;455(7212):532-536. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    4 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    COVID-19: Immunity and Vaccination
    Gary Ordog, MD, DABMT, DABEM. | County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Services, Physician Specialist (Ret.)
    Thank you for the  very insightful commentary. From your discussion and others, it appears that herd immunity may neither completely control nor eradicate this virus. It may be possible, with a tremendous vaccine initiative, to actually consider eradication at the point, not just control. Unlike H1N1 in 1918, which is still prevalent, a massive small pox like vaccine initiative could lead to eradication. 
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    Herd Immunity and COVID-19
    Michael McAleer, PhD(Econometrics),Queen's | Asia University, Taiwan
    The detailed commentary by experts on antibodies and naturally acquired immunity for populations in the COVID-19 era begs the question as to whether herd immunity to control the spread of the virus and disease is possible.

    The research study examines updated information on SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the USA, with recognition of serum containing antibodies that recognize the virus at below 20% in Spain and Italy.

    The latest information as of 28 November 2020 ranks India, Brazil, Russia and France ahead of Spain, with the UK between Spain and Italy (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/).

    A striking finding is that there
    is little evidence in the USA of prior COVID-19 infection by antibodies to SARS-CoV-2, with the seroprevalence of antibodies declining over time.

    The primary goal of herd immunity involves inducing long-term protective natural immunity against reinfection following natural infection, although eradication of a disease requires a safe, effective, and durable vaccine that induces protective immunity.

    Modelling and extrapolated empirical analysis from related diseases, as distinct from laboratory clinical trials, would seem to suggest that a threshold of 60% - 80% is required to develop adequate herd immunity at the population level to halt the continuing cycles of infection and disease, as distinct from eliminating the disease.

    Although Sweden is not mentioned, the attempted herd immunity in the country has sadly been a failed experiment, with an estimated threshold of less than 20% in Stockholm, the largest city with around 22% of the population.

    A vaccine may mitigate the spread of the virus and disease through protective immunity, but herd immunity is a Plan B that will likely lead to disastrous outcomes.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    COVID 19: the role of natural immunity
    Fabrizio Presicce, MD, PhD | Department of Urology - San Filippo Neri Hospital Roma
    As well reported by the authors, little is known about the natural immunity induced by the infection.1 We still do not know its duration, its mechanisms of action, in particular the respective contribution of neutralizing antibodies and the cell-mediated immune response.1 However, some empirical data appear encouraging. More than 60 million people in the world have yet contracted the infection and official reinfection cases are so rare and anecdotal that they always make the front page in newspapers and scientific articles.2 Furthermore Bergamo and Brescia – the Italian provinces most affected during the first wave3 - are those with one of the lowest incidences during the second wave in Italy.4
    Having made these necessary premises, the questions I would like to ask are the following:

    • Why if we trust so much in the immunity conferred by a vaccine, we don't do the same with an immunity induced by previous exposure to the virus and subsequent recovery?

    • The serological tests over the months have gained reliability and now with greater accuracy to ascertain who has developed neutralizing antibodies.5 From studies on vaccines it would appear that after vaccination there is a high correlation between the presence of neutralizing antibodies against the spike protein and the ability of the vaccinated serum to neutralize the virus.5

    Why not subject those recovered from the infection to periodic serological monitoring and allow someone with neutralizing antibodies to return to a "normal" life, without any restrictive measures? How much would this measure allow for savings in terms of PPE and productivity? And if it is not considered prudent to adopt this measure on a large scale, why not start with a group of volunteers - previously infected and recovered from the infection - to monitor periodically to learn more information about the susceptibility of a previously infected subject?

    In conclusion, it seems to me an immunological short-circuit to trust in the efficacy of a vaccine for a given infection without believing equally vehemently in immunity for an infected and cured subject, equipped with neutralizing antibodies.



    REFERENCES
    1. Spellberg B, Nielsen TB, Casadevall A. Antibodies, Immunity, and COVID-19. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Nov 24. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7986. Online ahead of print.
    2. Tillett RL, Sevinsky JR, Hartley PD, et al. Genomic evidence for reinfection with SARS-CoV-2: a case study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Oct 12:S1473-3099(20)30764-7.
    3. Perico L, Tomasoni S, Peracchi T, et al. COVID-19 and lombardy: TESTing the impact of the first wave of the pandemic. EBioMedicine. 2020 Nov;61:103069.
    4. https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/sars-cov-2-dashboard
    5. Ramasamy MN, Minassian AM, Ewer KJ, et al. Safety and immunogenicity of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine administered in a prime-boost regimen in young and old adults (COV002): a single-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial. Lancet. 2020 Nov 18:S0140-6736(20)32466-1.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Convalesent Plasma Donation
    Ernest Ciambarella, MD | Retired
    In Reply to Dr. Presicce. I was infected with Covid-19 in March and since then I have enrolled in a study looking at the effectiveness of convalescent plasma. I donate monthly and one of the main reasons why I do this is that my neutralizing antibodies are checked each time. I still take all the precautions but I consider myself immune. I presume that this type of data will be collected and reported on.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    ×