Tingting Yan

Background: Many serological assays to detect SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Differences in the detection mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 serological assays limited the comparability of seroprevalence estimates for populations being tested. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of serological assays used in SARS-CoV-2 population seroprevalence surveys, searching for published articles, preprints, institutional sources, and grey literature between 1 January 2020, and 19 November 2021. We described features of all identified assays and mapped performance metrics by the manufacturers, third-party head-to-head, and independent group evaluations. We compared the reported assay performance by evaluation source with a mixed-effect beta regression model. A simulation was run to quantify how biased assay performance affects population seroprevalence estimates with test adjustment. Results: Among 1807 included serosurveys, 192 distinctive commercial assays and 380 self-developed assays were identified. According to manufacturers, 28.6% of all commercial assays met WHO criteria for emergency use (sensitivity [Sn.] >= 90.0%, specificity [Sp.] >= 97.0%). However, manufacturers overstated the absolute values of Sn. of commercial assays by 1.0% [0.1, 1.4%] and 3.3% [2.7, 3.4%], and Sp. by 0.9% [0.9, 0.9%] and 0.2% [−0.1, 0.4%] compared to third-party and independent evaluations, respectively. Reported performance data was not sufficient to support a similar analysis for self-developed assays. Simulations indicate that inaccurate Sn. and Sp. can bias seroprevalence estimates adjusted for assay performance; the error level changes with the background seroprevalence. Conclusions: The Sn. and Sp. of the serological assay are not fixed properties, but varying features depending on the testing population. To achieve precise population estimates and to ensure the comparability of seroprevalence, serosurveys should select assays with high performance validated not only by their manufacturers and adjust seroprevalence estimates based on assured performance data. More investigation should be directed to consolidating the performance of self-developed assays.

Background. As the world grapples with the COVID-19 pandemic, there is increasing global interest in the role of serological testing for population monitoring and to inform public policy. However, limitations in serological study designs and test standards raise concerns about the validity of seroprevalence estimates and their utility in decision-making. There is now a critical window of opportunity to learn from early SARS-CoV-2 serology studies. We aimed to synthesize the results of SARS-CoV-2 serosurveillance projects from around the world and provide recommendations to improve the coordination, strategy, and methodology of future serosurveillance efforts. Methods. This was a rapid systematic review of cross-sectional and cohort studies reporting seroprevalence outcomes for SARS-CoV 2. We included completed, ongoing, and proposed serosurveys. The search included electronic databases (PubMed, MedRXIV, BioRXIV, and WHO ICTPR); five medical journals (NEJM, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine); reports by governments, NGOs, and health systems; and media reports (Google News) from December 1, 2019 to May 1, 2020. We extracted data on study characteristics and critically appraised prevalence estimates using Joanna Briggs Institute criteria. Results. Seventy records met inclusion criteria, describing 73 studies. Of these, 23 reported prevalence estimates: eight preprints, 14 news articles, and one government report. These studies had a total sample size of 35,784 and reported 42 prevalence estimates. Seroprevalence estimates ranged from 0.4% to 59.3%. No estimates were found to have a low risk of bias (43% high risk, 21% moderate risk, 36% unclear). Fifty records reported characteristics of ongoing or proposed serosurveys. Overall, twenty countries have completed, ongoing, or proposed serosurveys. Discussion. Study design, quality, and prevalence estimates of early SARS-CoV2 serosurveys are heterogeneous, suggesting that the urgency to examine seroprevalence may have compromised methodological rigour. Based on the limitations of included studies, future serosurvey investigators and stakeholders should ensure that: i) serological tests used undergo high-quality independent evaluations that include cross-reactivity; ii) all reports of serosurvey results, including media, describe the test used, sample size, and sampling method; and iii) initiatives are coordinated to prevent test fatigue, minimize redundant efforts, and encourage better study methodology. Other. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. No third-party funding.