BackgroundWe aimed to detect SARS-CoV-2 serum antibodies in the general population of the Netherlands and identify risk factors for seropositivity amidst the first COVID-19 epidemic wave.MethodsParticipants (n=3207, aged 2–90 years), enrolled from a previously established nationwide serosurveillance study, provided a self-collected fingerstick blood sample and completed a questionnaire (median inclusion date 3 April 2020). IgG antibodies targeted against the spike S1-protein of SARS-CoV-2 were quantified using a validated multiplex-immunoassay. Seroprevalence was estimated controlling for survey design, individual pre-pandemic concentration, and test performance. Random-effects logistic regression identified risk factors for seropositivity.ResultsOverall seroprevalence in the Netherlands was 2.8% (95% CI 2.1 to 3.7), with no differences between sexes or ethnic background, and regionally ranging between 1.3 and 4.0%. Estimates were highest among 18–39 year-olds (4.9%), and lowest in children 2–17 years (1.7%). Multivariable analysis revealed that persons taking immunosuppressants and those from the Orthodox-Reformed Protestant community had over four times higher odds of being seropositive compared to others. Anosmia/ageusia was the most discriminative symptom between seropositive (53%) and seronegative persons (4%, p<0.0001). Antibody concentrations in seropositive persons were significantly higher in those with fever or dyspnoea in contrast to those without (p=0.01 and p=0.04, respectively).ConclusionsIn the midst of the first epidemic wave, 2.8% of the Dutch population was estimated to be infected with SARS-CoV-2, that is, 30 times higher than reported. This study identified independent groups with increased odds for seropositivity that may require specific surveillance measures to guide future protective interventions internationally, including vaccination once available.

Background This paper outlines the methodology, study population and response rate of a third large Dutch population-based cross-sectional serosurvey carried-out in 2016/2017, primarily aiming to obtain insight into age-specific seroprevalence of vaccine-preventable diseases to evaluate the National Immunization Programme (NIP). In addition, Caribbean Netherlands (CN) was included, which enables additional research into tropical pathogens. Methods A two-stage cluster sampling technique was used to draw a sample of Dutch residents (0–89 years) (NS), including an oversampling of non-Western migrants, persons living in low vaccination coverage (LVC) areas, and an extra sample of persons born in Suriname, Aruba and the former Dutch Antilles (SAN). A separate sample was drawn for each Caribbean island. At the consultation hours, questionnaires, blood samples, oro- and nasopharyngeal swabs, faeces, − and only in the Netherlands (NL) saliva and a diary about contact patterns – were obtained from participants. Vaccination- and medical history was retrieved, and in CN anthropometric measurements were taken. Results In total, blood samples and questionnaires were collected from 9415 persons: 5745 (14.4%) in the NS (including the non-Western migrants), 1354 (19.8%) in LVC areas, 501 (6.9%) SAN, and 1815 (23.4%) in CN. Conclusions This study will give insight into protection of the population against infectious diseases included in the NIP. Research based on this large biobank will contribute to public health (policy) in NL and CN, e.g., regarding outbreak management and emerging pathogens. Further, we will be able to extend our knowledge on infectious diseases and its changing dynamics by linking serological data to results from additional materials collected, environmental- and pharmacological data. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12879-019-4019-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Households are important sites for transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and preventive measures are recommended. This study aimed to 1) investigate the impact of living with a person infected with SARS-CoV-2; 2) understand how household members implemented infection control recommendations in their home; and 3) identify the information and support needs of household members. Methods For this observational mixed-methods study, households with a person with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited via drive-through testing sites of Municipal Health Services, healthcare worker screening or hospital emergency visits in the University Medical Centre Utrecht, the Netherlands and via primary care physicians, hospital emergency visits or preoperative screening in the University Hospital of Antwerp, Belgium. We recorded household characteristics, including characteristics of all household members, together with their views on prevention measures. In a subset of households one adult household member was asked to participate in an interview investigating their views on preventive measures. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics and interview data by rapid framework analysis. A triangulation protocol was used to integrate findings. Results Thirty-four households (120 household members) were included in the quantitative survey. Twenty-two households were invited to be interviewed, of which 18 completed an interview (response 81.8%). Survey data showed that almost all households implemented some preventive measures, the use of face masks being least frequently reported. Measures taken depended on what was physically possible, the perceived severity of illness of the index patient and to what extent household members were willing to limit social interaction. Respondents did not believe in the effectiveness of wearing face masks within the house, and from the interviews this was explained by media coverage of face masks, impracticality and the stigma associated with wearing masks. Interviewees reported that quarantine had a high emotional burden and wished to have more information about the exact duration of quarantine, their own COVID-19 status, symptoms and when to seek medical help. Conclusion People were willing to implement prevention measures, however actual adherence depended on perceived severity of illness and the perceived risk of becoming infected. Homes are social environments and recommendations for infection prevention should account for this context. Incorporating our findings into policy making could provide households with more relevant and actionable advice.

Background: Household transmission studies are useful to obtain granular data on SARS-CoV-2 transmission dynamics and to gain insight into the main determinants. In this interim report we investigated secondary attack rates (SAR) by household and subject characteristics in the Netherlands and Belgium. Methods: Households with a real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 index case were enrolled <48 hours following report of the positive test result. Daily symptom follow-up, standardized nose-throat sampling at enrollment and at new-onset acute respiratory illness (ARI) and paired dried blood spots (DBS) were collected from each participant. Children 0-2 years of age were additionally requested to collect a stool sample 7 days after enrollment and at new-onset of ARI. Swabs and stool samples were tested by RT-PCR for virus detection and DBS by multiplex protein microarray for detection of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The SAR was calculated 1) per-household as the proportion of households with ≥1 secondary SARS-CoV-2 case and 2) per-person as the probability of infection in household members at risk. We explored differences in SARs by household and subject characteristics. Results: This analysis includes 117 households that completed follow-up between April-December 2020. Among 382 subjects, 74 secondary infections were detected, of which 13 (17.6%) were asymptomatic and 20 (27.0%) infections were detected by seroconversion only. Of cases detected by RT-PCR, 50 (67.6%) were found at enrollment. The household SAR was 44.4% (95%-CI: 35.4-53.9%) and was higher for index cases meeting the ARI case definition (52.3%; 95%-CI 41.4-62.9%) compared to mildly symptomatic (22.2%; 95%-CI: 9.4-42.7%) and asymptomatic index cases (0.0%; 95%-CI: 0.0-80.2%). The per-person SAR was 27.9% (95%-CI: 22.7-33.8%). Transmission was lowest from child to parent (9.1%; 95%-CI: 2.4-25.5%) and highest from parent to child (28.1%; 95%-CI: 19.7-38.4%) and in children 6-12 years (34.2%; 95%-CI: 20.1-51.4%). Among 141 subjects with RT-PCR confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, seroconversion was detected in 111 (78.7%). Conclusion: We found a high household SAR, with the large majority of transmissions detected early after identification of the index case. Our findings confirm differential SAR by symptom status of the index. In almost a quarter of RT-PCR positive cases, no antibodies were detected. Other factors influencing transmission will be further explored as more data accumulate.

Background and objectiveSince 2013, a biennial rotavirus pattern has emerged in the Netherlands with alternating high and low endemic years and a nearly 50% reduction in rotavirus hospitalization rates overall, while infant rotavirus vaccination has remained below 1% throughout. As the rotavirus vaccination cost-effectiveness and risk-benefit ratio in high-income settings is highly influenced by the total rotavirus disease burden, we re-evaluated two infant vaccination strategies, taking into account this recent change in rotavirus epidemiology.MethodsWe used updated rotavirus disease burden estimates derived from (active) surveillance to evaluate (1) a targeted strategy with selective vaccination of infants with medical risk conditions (prematurity, low birth weight, or congenital conditions) and (2) universal vaccination including all infants. In addition, we added herd protection as well as vaccine-induced intussusception risk to our previous cost-effectiveness model. An age- and risk-group structured, discrete-time event, stochastic multi-cohort model of the Dutch pediatric population was used to estimate the costs and effects of each vaccination strategy.ResultsThe targeted vaccination was cost-saving under all scenarios tested from both the healthcare payer and societal perspective at rotavirus vaccine market prices (€135/child). The cost-effectiveness ratio for universal vaccination was €51,277 at the assumed vaccine price of €75/child, using a societal perspective and 3% discount rates. Universal vaccination became cost-neutral at €32/child. At an assumed vaccine-induced intussusception rate of 1/50,000, an estimated 1707 hospitalizations and 21 fatal rotavirus cases were averted by targeted vaccination per vaccine-induced intussusception case. Applying universal vaccination, an additional 571 hospitalizations and <  1 additional rotavirus death were averted in healthy children per vaccine-induced intussusception case.ConclusionWhile universal infant rotavirus vaccination results in the highest reductions in the population burden of rotavirus, targeted vaccination should be considered as a cost-saving alternative with a favorable risk-benefit ratio for high-income settings where universal implementation is unfeasible because of budget restrictions, low rotavirus endemicity, and/or public acceptance.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1134-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.