Search

Background: Many studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. Results: We identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4–8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6% in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64–4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96–3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01–32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60–2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18–64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11–1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28–3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9–38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames. Discussion: Most of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been a large influx of COVID-19 seroprevalence studies, but comparability between the seroprevalence estimates has been an issue because of heterogeneities in testing platforms and study methodology. One potential source of heterogeneity is the response or participation rate.Methods: We conducted a review of participation rates (PR) in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies collected by SeroTracker and examined their effect on the validity of study conclusions. PR was calculated as the count of participants for whom the investigators had collected a valid sample, divided by the number of people invited to participate in the study. A multivariable beta generalized linear model with logit link was fitted to determine if the PR of international household and community-based seroprevalence studies was associated with the factors of interest, from 1 December 2019 to 10 March 2021.Results: We identified 90 papers based on screening and were able to calculate the PR for 35 out of 90 papers (39%), with a median PR of 70% and an interquartile range of 40.92; 61% of the studies did not report PR.Conclusions: Many SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies do not report PR. It is unclear what the median PR rate would be had a larger portion not had limitations in reporting. Low participation rates indicate limited representativeness of results. Non-probabilistic sampling frames were associated with higher participation rates but may be less representative. Standardized definitions of participation rate and data reporting necessary for the PR calculations are essential for understanding the representativeness of seroprevalence estimates in the population of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]