Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 8;19(10):e0311196. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311196. eCollection 2024.
During the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence (seroprevalence) was lower in older compared to younger adults. We studied age group differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, across ethnic groups, and assessed the explanatory value of factors that increase the exposure to the virus, and factors related to susceptibility, given the level of exposure.
We analysed cross-sectional data from 2,064 participants from the multi-ethnic HELIUS study (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at the second wave of infections was compared between age groups (<40, 40-54, and ≥55 years), within ethnic groups, using Poisson regression with robust standard errors. To determine whether age group differences were explained by differences in exposure and in susceptibility, we sequentially adjusted for exposure (job setting, occupation level, health literacy, household size, household member with suspected infection), education level, and susceptibility (vitamin D intake, BMI, systolic blood pressure, haemoglobin level, number of comorbidities).
SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence did not statistically differ across age groups (p>0.05), but age patterns varied across ethnic groups. Age group differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence were most pronounced in the Dutch majority group, with the highest prevalence ratio in the youngest group (2.55, 95%CI 0.93-6.97) and the lowest in the oldest group (0.53, 95%CI 0.16-1.74), compared to the middle-aged group. In ethnic minority groups, age group differences were smaller. In all groups, patterns did not substantially change after adjustments for exposure and susceptibility variables.
We found no evidence of age group differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, particularly for ethnic minority groups, even when accounting for exposure and susceptibility. While early prevention strategies particularly aimed at protecting older adults against SARS-CoV-2 infections, seroprevalence was similar across age groups in ethnic minority groups. Thus, older adults in ethnic minority groups may pose a target group for additional prevention strategies for future infectious disease outbreaks.
在 COVID-19 大流行的第一波期间，与年轻人相比，老年人的 SARS-CoV-2 抗体阳性率（血清阳性率）较低。我们研究了不同年龄组之间 SARS-CoV-2 血清阳性率的差异，跨越了种族群体，并评估了增加接触病毒的因素以及与易感性相关的因素的解释价值，鉴于接触程度。
我们分析了来自多民族 HELIUS 研究（荷兰阿姆斯特丹）的 2064 名参与者的横断面数据。使用泊松回归和稳健标准误差，在种族群体内比较了第二波感染中不同年龄组（<40、40-54 和≥55 岁）之间的 SARS-CoV-2 血清阳性率。为了确定年龄组差异是否由暴露和易感性的差异解释，我们依次调整了暴露（工作环境、职业水平、健康素养、家庭规模、疑似感染的家庭成员）、教育水平和易感性（维生素 D 摄入量、BMI、收缩压、血红蛋白水平、合并症数量）。
SARS-CoV-2 血清阳性率在不同年龄组之间没有统计学差异（p>0.05），但年龄模式在不同种族群体中有所不同。在荷兰多数群体中，SARS-CoV-2 血清阳性率的年龄组差异最为明显，最年轻组的最高患病率比（2.55，95%CI 0.93-6.97）和最年长组的最低患病率比（0.53，95%CI 0.16-1.74），与中年组相比。在少数民族群体中，年龄组差异较小。在所有群体中，调整暴露和易感性变量后，模式没有发生实质性变化。
我们没有发现 SARS-CoV-2 血清阳性率存在年龄组差异的证据，特别是对于少数民族群体，即使考虑到暴露和易感性因素也是如此。虽然早期的预防策略特别针对保护老年人免受 SARS-CoV-2 感染，但在少数民族群体中，不同年龄组的血清阳性率相似。因此，少数民族中的老年人可能成为未来传染病爆发时额外预防策略的目标人群。
