Estimation of SARS-CoV-2 Infection Fatality Rate by Real-time Antibody Screening of Blood Donors

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS-CoV-2 epidemiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS-CoV-2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS-CoV-2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non-SARS-CoV-2 cases.

SEARCH METHODS

The COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) 'COVID-19: Living map of the evidence' and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health 'NIPH systematic and living map on COVID-19 evidence'. We did not apply language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT-PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS-CoV-2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS-CoV-2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT-PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre-pandemic samples).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta-analysis, we fitted univariate random-effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre-prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS-CoV-2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre-pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two-thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS-CoV-2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy-nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS-CoV-2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre-pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent-phase infection) and specific (pre-pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike-protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent-phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low-prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID-19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS-CoV-2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post-symptom onset or post-positive PCR) of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular- or antigen-based tests have failed to detect the SARS-CoV-2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero-epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination-induced antibodies is uncertain.

Catalysis on Nanostructured Indium Tin Oxide Surface for Fast and Inexpensive Probing of Antibodies during Pandemics

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has become a global threat to human health and the economy. Society needs inexpensive, fast, and accurate quantitative diagnostic tools. Here, we report a new approach using a solid-state biosensor to measure antibodies, which does not require functionalization, unlike conventional biosensors. A nanostructured semiconductor surface with catalytic properties was used as a transducer for rapid immobilization and measurement of the antibody. The transducer response was based on solid-state electronics properties. The changes on the surface of the semiconductor induced changes in the direct current (DC) surface resistivity. This was a result of a catalytic chemical reaction on that surface. This new low-cost approach reduced the response time of the measurement significantly, and it required only a very small amount of sample on the microliter scale.

Visualizing the invisible: The effect of asymptomatic transmission on the outbreak dynamics of COVID-19

Understanding the outbreak dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic has important implications for successful containment and mitigation strategies. Recent studies suggest that the population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, a proxy for the number of asymptomatic cases, could be an order of magnitude larger than expected from the number of reported symptomatic cases. Knowing the precise prevalence and contagiousness of asymptomatic transmission is critical to estimate the overall dimension and pandemic potential of COVID-19. However, at this stage, the effect of the asymptomatic population, its size, and its outbreak dynamics remain largely unknown. Here we use reported symptomatic case data in conjunction with antibody seroprevalence studies, a mathematical epidemiology model, and a Bayesian framework to infer the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19. Our model computes, in real time, the time-varying contact rate of the outbreak, and projects the temporal evolution and credible intervals of the effective reproduction number and the symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recovered populations. Our study quantifies the sensitivity of the outbreak dynamics of COVID-19 to three parameters: the effective reproduction number, the ratio between the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, and the infectious periods of both groups. For nine distinct locations, our model estimates the fraction of the population that has been infected and recovered by Jun 15, 2020 to 24.15% (95% CI: 20.48%-28.14%) for Heinsberg (NRW, Germany), 2.40% (95% CI: 2.09%-2.76%) for Ada County (ID, USA), 46.19% (95% CI: 45.81%-46.60%) for New York City (NY, USA), 11.26% (95% CI: 7.21%-16.03%) for Santa Clara County (CA, USA), 3.09% (95% CI: 2.27%-4.03%) for Denmark, 12.35% (95% CI: 10.03%-15.18%) for Geneva Canton (Switzerland), 5.24% (95% CI: 4.84%-5.70%) for the Netherlands, 1.53% (95% CI: 0.76%-2.62%) for Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), and 5.32% (95% CI: 4.77%-5.93%) for Belgium. Our method traces the initial outbreak date in Santa Clara County back to January 20, 2020 (95% CI: December 29, 2019-February 13, 2020). Our results could significantly change our understanding and management of the COVID-19 pandemic: A large asymptomatic population will make isolation, containment, and tracing of individual cases challenging. Instead, managing community transmission through increasing population awareness, promoting physical distancing, and encouraging behavioral changes could become more relevant.

Serological evidence of human infection with SARS-CoV-2: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

A rapidly increasing number of serological surveys for anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies have been reported worldwide. A synthesis of this large corpus of data is needed.

Purpose

To evaluate the quality of serological studies and provide a global picture of seroprevalence across demographic and occupational groups, and to provide guidance for conducting better serosurveys.

Data sources

We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and 4 pre-print servers for English-language papers published from December 1, 2019 to September 25, 2020.

Study selection

Serological studies evaluating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in humans.

Data extraction

Two investigators independently extracted data from studies.

Data Synthesis

Most of 230 serological studies, representing tests in >1,400,000 individuals, identified were of low quality based on a standardized study quality scale. In the 51 studies of higher quality, high-risk healthcare workers had higher seroprevalence of 17.1% (95% CI: 9.9-24.4%), compared to low-risk healthcare workers and general population of 5.4% (0.7-10.1%) and 5.3% (4.2-6.4%). Seroprevalence varied hugely across WHO regions, with lowest seroprevalence of general population in Western Pacific region (1.7%, 0.0-5.0%). Generally, the young (<20 years) and the old (≥65 years) were less likely to be seropositive compared to middle-aged (20-64 years) populations.Seroprevalence correlated with clinical COVID-19 reports, with pooled average of 7.7 (range: 2.0 to 23.1) serologically-detected-infections per confirmed COVID-19 case.

Limitations

Some heterogeneity cannot be well explained quantitatively.

Conclusions

The overall quality of seroprevalence studies examined was low. The relatively low seroprevalence among general populations suggest that in most settings, antibody-mediated herd immunity is far from being reached. Given the relatively narrow range of estimates of the ratio of serologically-detected infections to confirmed cases across different locales, reported case counts may help provide insights into the true proportion of the population infected.

Primary Funding source

National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (PROSPERO: CRD42020198253).

Severity of COVID-19 at elevated exposure to perfluorinated alkylates

Background

The course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) seems to be aggravated by air pollution, and some industrial chemicals, such as the perfluorinated alkylate substances (PFASs), are immunotoxic and may contribute as well.

Methods

From Danish biobanks, we obtained plasma samples from 323 subjects aged 30-70 years with known SARS-CoV-2 infection. The PFAS concentrations measured at the background exposures included five PFASs known to be immunotoxic. Register data was obtained to classify disease status, other health information, and demographic variables. We used ordinal and ordered logistic regression analyses to determine associations between PFAS concentrations and disease outcome.

Results

Plasma-PFAS concentrations were higher in males, in subjects with Western European background, and tended to increase with age, but were not associated with the presence of chronic disease. Of the study population, 108 (33%) had not been hospitalized, and of those hospitalized, 53 (16%) had been in intensive care or were deceased. Among the five PFASs considered, perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) showed an odds ratio (OR) of 2.19 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.39-3.46) for increasing severities of the disease, although the OR decreased to 1.77 (95% CI, 1.09, 2.87) after adjustment for age, sex, sampling site and interval between blood sampling and diagnosis.

Conclusions

Measures of individual exposures to immunotoxic PFASs included PFBA that accumulates in the lungs. Elevated plasma-PFBA concentrations were associated with an increased risk of more severe course of CIVID-19. Given the low background exposure levels in this study, the role of PFAS exposure in COVID-19 needs to be ascertained in populations with elevated exposures.

SARS-CoV-2 Infections in the World: An Estimation of the Infected Population and a Measure of How Higher Detection Rates Save Lives

This paper provides an estimation of the accumulated detection rates and the accumulated number of infected individuals by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Worldwide, on July 20, it has been estimated above 160 million individuals infected by SARS-CoV-2. Moreover, it is found that only about 1 out of 11 infected individuals are detected. In an information context in which population-based seroepidemiological studies are not frequently available, this study shows a parsimonious alternative to provide estimates of the number of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. By comparing our estimates with those provided by the population-based seroepidemiological ENE-COVID study in Spain, we confirm the utility of our approach. Then, using a cross-country regression, we investigated if differences in detection rates are associated with differences in the cumulative number of deaths. The hypothesis investigated in this study is that higher levels of detection of SARS-CoV-2 infections can reduce the risk exposure of the susceptible population with a relatively higher risk of death. Our results show that, on average, detecting 5 instead of 35 percent of the infections is associated with multiplying the number of deaths by a factor of about 6. Using this result, we estimated that 120 days after the pandemic outbreak, if the US would have tested with the same intensity as South Korea, about 85,000 out of their 126,000 reported deaths could have been avoided.

Visualizing the invisible: The effect of asymptomatic transmission on the outbreak dynamics of COVID-19

Understanding the outbreak dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic has important implications for successful containment and mitigation strategies. Recent studies suggest that the population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, a proxy for the number of asymptomatic cases, could be an order of magnitude larger than expected from the number of reported symptomatic cases. Knowing the precise prevalence and contagiousness of asymptomatic transmission is critical to estimate the overall dimension and pandemic potential of COVID-19. However, at this stage, the effect of the asymptomatic population, its size, and its outbreak dynamics remain largely unknown. Here we use reported symptomatic case data in conjunction with antibody seroprevalence studies, a mathematical epidemiology model, and a Bayesian framework to infer the epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19. Our model computes, in real time, the time-varying contact rate of the outbreak, and projects the temporal evolution and credible intervals of the effective reproduction number and the symptomatic, asymptomatic, and recovered populations. Our study quantifies the sensitivity of the outbreak dynamics of COVID-19 to three parameters: the effective reproduction number, the ratio between the symptomatic and asymptomatic populations, and the infectious periods of both groups For nine distinct locations, our model estimates the fraction of the population that has been infected and recovered by Jun 15, 2020 to 24.15% (95% CI: 20.48%-28.14%) for Heinsberg (NRW, Germany), 2.40% (95% CI: 2.09%-2.76%) for Ada County (ID, USA), 46.19% (95% CI: 45.81%-46.60%) for New York City (NY, USA), 11.26% (95% CI: 7.21%-16.03%) for Santa Clara County (CA, USA), 3.09% (95% CI: 2.27%-4.03%) for Denmark, 12.35% (95% CI: 10.03%-15.18%) for Geneva Canton (Switzerland), 5.24% (95% CI: 4.84%-5.70%) for the Netherlands, 1.53% (95% CI: 0.76%-2.62%) for Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), and 5.32% (95% CI: 4.77%-5.93%) for Belgium. Our method traces the initial outbreak date in Santa Clara County back to January 20, 2020 (95% CI: December 29, 2019 - February 13, 2020). Our results could significantly change our understanding and management of the COVID-19 pandemic: A large asymptomatic population will make isolation, containment, and tracing of individual cases challenging. Instead, managing community transmission through increasing population awareness, promoting physical distancing, and encouraging behavioral changes could become more relevant.

Common Pitfalls in the Interpretation of COVID-19 Data and Statistics

Policymakers, experts and the general public heavily rely on the data that are being reported in the context of the coronavirus pandemic. Daily data releases on confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths provide information on the course of the pandemic.