World Health Organization Seroepidemiology Technical Working Group. ROSES-S: Statement from the World Health Organization on the reporting of seroepidemiologic studies for SARS-CoV-2

Adherence of SARS-CoV-2 Seroepidemiologic Studies to the ROSES-S Reporting Guideline During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Complete reporting of seroepidemiologic studies is critical to their utility in evidence synthesis and public health decision making. The Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S) guideline is a checklist that aims to improve reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies. Adherence to the ROSES-S guideline has not yet been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to evaluate the completeness of SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic study reporting by the ROSES-S guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic, determine whether guideline publication was associated with reporting completeness, and identify study characteristics associated with reporting completeness.

METHODS

A random sample from the SeroTracker living systematic review database was evaluated. For each reporting item in the guideline, the percentage of studies that were adherent was calculated, as well as median and interquartile range (IQR) adherence across all items and by item domain. Beta regression analyses were used to evaluate predictors of adherence to ROSES-S.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-nine studies were analyzed. Median adherence was 48.1% (IQR 40.0%-55.2%) per study, with overall adherence ranging from 8.8% to 72.7%. The laboratory methods domain had the lowest median adherence (33.3% [IQR 25.0%-41.7%]). The discussion domain had the highest median adherence (75.0% [IQR 50.0%-100.0%]). Reporting adherence to ROSES-S before and after guideline publication did not significantly change. Publication source (p < 0.001), study risk of bias (p = 0.001), and sampling method (p = 0.004) were significantly associated with adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Completeness of reporting in SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies was suboptimal. Publication of the ROSES-S guideline was not associated with changes in reporting practices. Authors should improve adherence to the ROSES-S guideline with support from stakeholders.

Risk factors for recognized and unrecognized SARS-CoV-2 infection: a seroepidemiologic analysis of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study

There are limited data on individual risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection (including unrecognized infection). In this seroepidemiologic substudy of an ongoing prospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults, participants were thoroughly characterized pre-pandemic. The SARS-CoV-2 infection was ascertained by serology. Among 8,719 participants from 11 high-, middle-, and low-income countries, 3,009 (35%) were seropositive for SARS-CoV-2. Characteristics independently associated with seropositivity were younger age (odds ratio, OR; 95% confidence interval, CI, per five-year increase: 0.95; 0.91-0.98) and body mass index >25 kg/m2 (OR, 95% CI: 1.16, 1.01-1.34). Smoking (as compared with never smoking, OR, 95% CI: 0.83, 0.70-0.97) and COVID-19 vaccination (OR, 95% CI: 0.70, 0.60-0.82) were associated with a reduced risk of seropositivity. Among seropositive participants, 83% were unaware of having been infected with SARS-CoV-2. Seropositivity and a lack of awareness of infection were more common in lower-income countries. The COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (including recognized and unrecognized infections). Overweight or obesity is an independent risk factor for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Infection and lack of infection awareness are more common in lower-income countries.IMPORTANCEIn this large, international study, evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection was obtained by testing blood specimens from 8,719 community-dwelling adults from 11 countries. The key findings are that (i) the large majority (83%) of community-dwelling adults from several high-, middle-, and low-income countries with blood test evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection were unaware of this infection-especially in lower-income countries; and (ii) overweight/obesity predisposes to SARS-CoV-2 infection, while COVID-19 vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. These observations are not attributable to other individual characteristics, highlighting the importance of the COVID-19 vaccination to prevent not only severe infection but possibly any infection. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which overweight/obesity might increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Using Regional Sero-Epidemiology SARS-CoV-2 Anti-S Antibodies in the Dominican Republic to Inform Targeted Public Health Response

Incidence of COVID-19 has been associated with sociodemographic factors. We investigated variations in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence at sub-national levels in the Dominican Republic and assessed potential factors influencing variation in regional-level seroprevalence. Data were collected in a three-stage cross-sectional national serosurvey from June to October 2021. Seroprevalence of antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (anti-S) was estimated and adjusted for selection probability, age, and sex. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of covariates on seropositivity for anti-S and correlates of 80% protection (PT80) against symptomatic infection for the ancestral and Delta strains. A total of 6683 participants from 134 clusters in all 10 regions were enrolled. Anti-S, PT80 for the ancestral and Delta strains odds ratio varied across regions, Enriquillo presented significant higher odds for all outcomes compared with Yuma. Compared to being unvaccinated, receiving ≥2 doses of COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a significantly higher odds of anti-S positivity (OR 85.94, [10.95-674.33]) and PT80 for the ancestral (OR 4.78, [2.15-10.62]) and Delta strains (OR 3.08, [1.57-9.65]) nationally and also for each region. Our results can help inform regional-level public health response, such as strategies to increase vaccination coverage in areas with low population immunity against currently circulating strains.

Household transmission investigation: Design, reporting and critical appraisal

Background

Household transmission investigations (HHTIs) contribute timely epidemiologic knowledge in response to emerging pathogens. HHTIs conducted in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020-21 reported variable methodological approaches, producing epidemiological estimates that vary in meaning, precision and accuracy. Because specific tools to assist with the optimal design and critical appraisal of HHTIs are not available, the aggregation and pooling of inferences from HHTIs to inform policy and interventions may be challenging.

Methods

In this manuscript, we discuss key aspects of the HHTI design, provide recommendations for the reporting of these studies and propose an appraisal tool that contributes to the optimal design and critical appraisal of HHTIs.

Results

The appraisal tool consists of 12 questions that explore 10 aspects of HHTIs and can be answered 'yes', 'no' or 'unclear'. We provide an example of the use of this tool in the context of a systematic review that aimed to quantify the household secondary attack rate from HHTIs.

Conclusion

We seek to fill a gap in the epidemiologic literature and contribute to standardised HHTI approaches across settings to achieve richer and more informative datasets.

A framework for seroepidemiologic investigations in future pandemics: insights from an evaluation of WHO's Unity Studies initiative

BACKGROUND

The WHO Unity Studies initiative supports countries, especially low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), in conducting seroepidemiologic studies for rapidly informing responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ten generic study protocols were developed which standardized epidemiologic and laboratory methods. WHO provided technical support, serological assays and funding for study implementation. An external evaluation was conducted to assess (1) the usefulness of study findings in guiding response strategies, (2) management and support to conduct studies and (3) capacity built from engagement with the initiative.

METHODS

The evaluation focused on the three most frequently used protocols, namely first few cases, household transmission and population-based serosurvey, 66% of 339 studies tracked by WHO. All 158 principal investigators (PIs) with contact information were invited to complete an online survey. A total of 19 PIs (randomly selected within WHO regions), 14 WHO Unity focal points at the country, regional and global levels, 12 WHO global-level stakeholders and eight external partners were invited to be interviewed. Interviews were coded in MAXQDA™, synthesized into findings and cross-verified by a second reviewer.

RESULTS

Among 69 (44%) survey respondents, 61 (88%) were from LMICs. Ninety-five percent gave positive feedback on technical support, 87% reported that findings contributed to COVID-19 understanding, 65% to guiding public health and social measures, and 58% to guiding vaccination policy. Survey and interview group responses showed that the main technical barriers to using study findings were study quality, variations in study methods (challenge for meta-analysis), completeness of reporting study details and clarity of communicating findings. Untimely study findings were another barrier, caused by delays in ethical clearance, receipt of serological assays and approval to share findings. There was strong agreement that the initiative created equitable research opportunities, connected expertise and facilitated study implementation. Around 90% of respondents agreed the initiative should continue in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

The Unity Studies initiative created a highly valued community of practice, contributed to study implementation and research equity, and serves as a valuable framework for future pandemics. To strengthen this platform, WHO should establish emergency-mode procedures to facilitate timeliness and continue to build capacity to rapidly conduct high-quality studies and communicate findings in a format friendly to decision-makers.

SeroTracker-RoB: A decision rule-based algorithm for reproducible risk of bias assessment of seroprevalence studies

Risk of bias (RoB) assessments are a core element of evidence synthesis but can be time consuming and subjective. We aimed to develop a decision rule-based algorithm for RoB assessment of seroprevalence studies. We developed the SeroTracker-RoB algorithm. The algorithm derives seven objective and two subjective critical appraisal items from the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Prevalence studies and implements decision rules that determine study risk of bias based on the items. Decision rules were validated using the SeroTracker seroprevalence study database, which included non-algorithmic RoB judgments from two reviewers. We quantified efficiency as the mean difference in time for the algorithmic and non-algorithmic assessments of 80 randomly selected articles, coverage as the proportion of studies where the decision rules yielded an assessment, and reliability using intraclass correlations comparing algorithmic and non-algorithmic assessments for 2070 articles. A set of decision rules with 61 branches was developed using responses to the nine critical appraisal items. The algorithmic approach was faster than non-algorithmic assessment (mean reduction 2.32 min [SD 1.09] per article), classified 100% (n = 2070) of studies, and had good reliability compared to non-algorithmic assessment (ICC 0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.80). We built the SeroTracker-RoB Excel Tool, which embeds this algorithm for use by other researchers. The SeroTracker-RoB decision-rule based algorithm was faster than non-algorithmic assessment with complete coverage and good reliability. This algorithm enabled rapid, transparent, and reproducible RoB evaluations of seroprevalence studies and may support evidence synthesis efforts during future disease outbreaks. This decision rule-based approach could be applied to other types of prevalence studies.

Limitations introduced by a low participation rate of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence data

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.

Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in standardised first few X cases and household transmission investigations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to estimate the household secondary infection attack rate (hSAR) of SARS-CoV-2 in investigations aligned with the WHO Unity Studies Household Transmission Investigations (HHTI) protocol. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and medRxiv/bioRxiv for "Unity-aligned" First Few X cases (FFX) and HHTIs published 1 December 2019 to 26 July 2021. Standardised early results were shared by WHO Unity Studies collaborators (to 1 October 2021). We used a bespoke tool to assess investigation methodological quality. Values for hSAR and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted or calculated from crude data. Heterogeneity was assessed by visually inspecting overlap of CIs on forest plots and quantified in meta-analyses. Of 9988 records retrieved, 80 articles (64 from databases; 16 provided by Unity Studies collaborators) were retained in the systematic review; 62 were included in the primary meta-analysis. hSAR point estimates ranged from 2% to 90% (95% prediction interval: 3%-71%; I 2 = 99.7%); I 2 values remained >99% in subgroup analyses, indicating high, unexplained heterogeneity and leading to a decision not to report pooled hSAR estimates. FFX and HHTI remain critical epidemiological tools for early and ongoing characterisation of novel infectious pathogens. The large, unexplained variance in hSAR estimates emphasises the need to further support standardisation in planning, conduct and analysis, and for clear and comprehensive reporting of FFX and HHTIs in time and place, to guide evidence-based pandemic preparedness and response efforts for SARS-CoV-2, influenza and future novel respiratory viruses.

U.S. CDC support to international SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys, May 2020-February 2022

SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys provide critical information to assess the burden of COVID-19, describe population immunity, and guide public health strategies. Early in the pandemic, most of these surveys were conducted within high-income countries, leaving significant knowledge gaps in low-and middle-income (LMI) countries. To address this gap, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is supporting serosurveys internationally. We conducted a descriptive analysis of international serosurveys supported by CDC during May 12, 2020-February 28, 2022, using an internal tracker including data on the type of assistance provided, study design, population surveyed, laboratory testing performed, and status of implementation. Since the beginning of the pandemic, CDC has supported 72 serosurveys (77 serosurvey rounds) in 35 LMI countries by providing technical assistance (TA) on epidemiologic, statistical, and laboratory methods, financial assistance (FA), or both. Among these serosurvey rounds, the majority (61%) received both TA and FA from CDC, 30% received TA only, 3% received only FA, and 5% were part of informal reviews. Fifty-four percent of these serosurveys target the general population, 13% sample pregnant women, 7% sample healthcare workers, 7% sample other special populations (internally displaced persons, patients, students, and people living with HIV), and 18% assess multiple or other populations. These studies are in different stages of implementation, ranging from protocol development to dissemination of results. They are conducted under the leadership of local governments, who have ownership over the data, in collaboration with international partners. Thirty-four surveys rounds have completed data collection. CDC TA and FA of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence surveys will enhance the knowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic in almost three dozen LMI countries. Support for these surveys should account for current limitations with interpreting results, focusing efforts on prospective cohorts, identifying, and forecasting disease patterns over time, and helping understand antibody kinetics and correlates of protection.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of standardised seroprevalence studies, from January 2020 to December 2021

INTRODUCTION

Estimating COVID-19 cumulative incidence in Africa remains problematic due to challenges in contact tracing, routine surveillance systems and laboratory testing capacities and strategies. We undertook a meta-analysis of population-based seroprevalence studies to estimate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in Africa to inform evidence-based decision making on public health and social measures (PHSM) and vaccine strategy.

METHODS

We searched for seroprevalence studies conducted in Africa published 1 January 2020-30 December 2021 in Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Europe PMC (preprints), grey literature, media releases and early results from WHO Unity studies. All studies were screened, extracted, assessed for risk of bias and evaluated for alignment with the WHO Unity seroprevalence protocol. We conducted descriptive analyses of seroprevalence and meta-analysed seroprevalence differences by demographic groups, place and time. We estimated the extent of undetected infections by comparing seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of confirmed cases reported to WHO.

PROSPERO

CRD42020183634.

RESULTS

We identified 56 full texts or early results, reporting 153 distinct seroprevalence studies in Africa. Of these, 97 (63%) were low/moderate risk of bias studies. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence rose from 3.0% (95% CI 1.0% to 9.2%) in April-June 2020 to 65.1% (95% CI 56.3% to 73.0%) in July-September 2021. The ratios of seroprevalence from infection to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases was large (overall: 100:1, ranging from 18:1 to 954:1) and steady over time. Seroprevalence was highly heterogeneous both within countries-urban versus rural (lower seroprevalence for rural geographic areas), children versus adults (children aged 0-9 years had the lowest seroprevalence)-and between countries and African subregions.

CONCLUSION

We report high seroprevalence in Africa suggesting greater population exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and potential protection against COVID-19 severe disease than indicated by surveillance data. As seroprevalence was heterogeneous, targeted PHSM and vaccination strategies need to be tailored to local epidemiological situations.

Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in India, March 2020 to August 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

India experienced 2 waves of COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 and reported the second highest caseload globally. Seroepidemiologic studies were done to track the course of the pandemic. We systematically reviewed and synthesized the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in the Indian population.

METHODS

We included studies reporting seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020 to August 11, 2021 and excluded studies done only among patients with COVID-19 and vaccinated individuals. We searched published databases, preprint servers, and government documents using a combination of keywords and medical subheading (MeSH) terms of "Seroprevalence AND SARS-CoV-2 AND India". We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, the appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool, and WHO's statement on the Reporting of Seroepidemiological Studies for SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S). We calculated pooled seroprevalence along with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) during the first (March 2020 to February 2021) and second wave (March to August 2021). We also estimated seroprevalence by selected demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 3821 studies and included 53 studies with 905379 participants after excluding duplicates, screening of titles and abstracts and full-text screening. Of the 53, 20 studies were of good quality. Some of the reviewed studies did not report adequate information on study methods (sampling = 24% (13/53); laboratory = 83% [44/53]). Studies of 'poor' quality had more than one of the following issues: unjustified sample size, nonrepresentative sample, nonclassification of nonrespondents, results unadjusted for demographics and methods insufficiently explained to enable replication. Overall pooled seroprevalence was 20.7% in the first (95% CI = 16.1 to 25.3) and 69.2% (95% CI = 64.5 to 73.8) in the second wave. Seroprevalence did not differ by age in first wave, whereas in the second, it increased with age. Seroprevalence was slightly higher among women in the second wave. In both the waves, the estimate was higher in urban than in rural areas.

CONCLUSION

Seroprevalence increased by 3-fold between the 2 waves of the pandemic in India. Our review highlights the need for designing and reporting studies using standard protocols.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity During the First and Second Viral Waves in 2020 and 2021 Among Canadian Adults

Importance

The incidence of infection during SARS-CoV-2 viral waves, the factors associated with infection, and the durability of antibody responses to infection among Canadian adults remain undocumented.

Objective

To assess the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 2 viral waves in Canada by measuring seropositivity among adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The Action to Beat Coronavirus study conducted 2 rounds of an online survey about COVID-19 experience and analyzed immunoglobulin G levels based on participant-collected dried blood spots (DBS) to assess the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first and second viral waves in Canada. A sample of 19 994 Canadian adults (aged ≥18 years) was recruited from established members of the Angus Reid Forum, a public polling organization. The study comprised 2 phases (phase 1 from May 1 to September 30, 2020, and phase 2 from December 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021) that generally corresponded to the first (April 1 to July 31, 2020) and second (October 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021) viral waves.

Main Outcomes and Measures

SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G seropositivity (using a chemiluminescence assay) by major geographic and demographic variables and correlation with COVID-19 symptom reporting.

Results

Among 19 994 adults who completed the online questionnaire in phase 1, the mean (SD) age was 50.9 (15.4) years, and 10 522 participants (51.9%) were female; 2948 participants (14.5%) had self-identified racial and ethnic minority group status, and 1578 participants (8.2%) were self-identified Indigenous Canadians. Among participants in phase 1, 8967 had DBS testing. In phase 2, 14 621 adults completed online questionnaires, and 7102 of those had DBS testing. Of 19 994 adults who completed the online survey in phase 1, fewer had an educational level of some college or less (4747 individuals [33.1%]) compared with the general population in Canada (45.0%). Survey respondents were otherwise representative of the general population, including in prevalence of known risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among unvaccinated adults increased from 1.9% in phase 1 to 6.5% in phase 2. The seropositivity pattern was demographically and geographically heterogeneous during phase 1 but more homogeneous by phase 2 (with a cumulative incidence ranging from 6.4% to 7.0% in most regions). The exception was the Atlantic region, in which cumulative incidence reached only 3.3% (odds ratio [OR] vs Ontario, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.02). A total of 47 of 188 adults (25.3%) reporting COVID-19 symptoms during phase 2 were seropositive, and the OR of seropositivity for COVID-19 symptoms was 6.15 (95% CI, 2.02-18.69). In phase 2, 94 of 444 seropositive adults (22.2%) reported having no symptoms. Of 134 seropositive adults in phase 1 who were retested in phase 2, 111 individuals (81.8%) remained seropositive. Participants who had a history of diabetes (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90) had lower odds of having detectable antibodies in phase 2.

Conclusions and Relevance

The Action to Beat Coronavirus study found that the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada was modest until March 2021, and this incidence was lower than the levels of population immunity required to substantially reduce transmission of the virus. Ongoing vaccination efforts remain central to reducing viral transmission and mortality. Assessment of future infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity is practicable through the use of serial online surveys and participant-collected DBS.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Seropositivity During the First and Second Viral Waves in 2020 and 2021 Among Canadian Adults

IMPORTANCE

The incidence of infection during SARS-CoV-2 viral waves, the factors associated with infection, and the durability of antibody responses to infection among Canadian adults remain undocumented.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 2 viral waves in Canada by measuring seropositivity among adults.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The Action to Beat Coronavirus study conducted 2 rounds of an online survey about COVID-19 experience and analyzed immunoglobulin G levels based on participant-collected dried blood spots (DBS) to assess the cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first and second viral waves in Canada. A sample of 19 994 Canadian adults (aged ≥18 years) was recruited from established members of the Angus Reid Forum, a public polling organization. The study comprised 2 phases (phase 1 from May 1 to September 30, 2020, and phase 2 from December 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021) that generally corresponded to the first (April 1 to July 31, 2020) and second (October 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021) viral waves.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G seropositivity (using a chemiluminescence assay) by major geographic and demographic variables and correlation with COVID-19 symptom reporting.

RESULTS

Among 19 994 adults who completed the online questionnaire in phase 1, the mean (SD) age was 50.9 (15.4) years, and 10 522 participants (51.9%) were female; 2948 participants (14.5%) had self-identified racial and ethnic minority group status, and 1578 participants (8.2%) were self-identified Indigenous Canadians. Among participants in phase 1, 8967 had DBS testing. In phase 2, 14 621 adults completed online questionnaires, and 7102 of those had DBS testing. Of 19 994 adults who completed the online survey in phase 1, fewer had an educational level of some college or less (4747 individuals [33.1%]) compared with the general population in Canada (45.0%). Survey respondents were otherwise representative of the general population, including in prevalence of known risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The cumulative incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among unvaccinated adults increased from 1.9% in phase 1 to 6.5% in phase 2. The seropositivity pattern was demographically and geographically heterogeneous during phase 1 but more homogeneous by phase 2 (with a cumulative incidence ranging from 6.4% to 7.0% in most regions). The exception was the Atlantic region, in which cumulative incidence reached only 3.3% (odds ratio [OR] vs Ontario, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-1.02). A total of 47 of 188 adults (25.3%) reporting COVID-19 symptoms during phase 2 were seropositive, and the OR of seropositivity for COVID-19 symptoms was 6.15 (95% CI, 2.02-18.69). In phase 2, 94 of 444 seropositive adults (22.2%) reported having no symptoms. Of 134 seropositive adults in phase 1 who were retested in phase 2, 111 individuals (81.8%) remained seropositive. Participants who had a history of diabetes (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-0.90) had lower odds of having detectable antibodies in phase 2.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The Action to Beat Coronavirus study found that the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Canada was modest until March 2021, and this incidence was lower than the levels of population immunity required to substantially reduce transmission of the virus. Ongoing vaccination efforts remain central to reducing viral transmission and mortality. Assessment of future infection-induced and vaccine-induced immunity is practicable through the use of serial online surveys and participant-collected DBS.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in a Large Cohort of Italian Police Officers

Certain professional categories are at a high occupational exposure to COVID-19. The aim of this survey was to quantify the seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among police officers in Italy and identify its correlates. In this cross-sectional study, a nationally representative sample of State police employees was tested for IgG and IgM before the start of the National vaccination campaign. A total of 10,535 subjects (approximately 10% of the total workforce) participated in the study. The overall seroprevalence was 4.8% (95% CI: 4.4-5.3%). However, seropositivity was unevenly distributed across the country with a clear (p < 0.001) North-South gradient. In particular, the seroprevalence was 5.6 times higher in northern regions than in southern regions (9.0% vs. 1.6%). Most (71.2%) seropositive subjects reported having no recent symptoms potentially attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Previous dysosmia, dysgeusia, and influenza-like illness symptoms were positive predictors of being seropositive. However, the prognostic value of dysosmia depended (p < 0.05) on both sex and prior influenza-like illness. The baseline seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 in police employees is considerable. A significant risk of occupational exposure, frequent asymptomatic cases and the progressive waning of neutralizing antibodies suggest that the police workers should be considered among the job categories prioritized for the booster COVID-19 vaccine dose.

ROSES-S: Statement from the World Health Organization on the reporting of seroepidemiologic studies for SARS-CoV-2

Well-designed population-based seroepidemiologic studies can be used to refine estimates of infection severity and transmission, and are therefore an important component of epidemic surveillance. However, the interpretation of the results of seroepidemiologic studies for SARS-CoV-2 has been hampered to date principally by heterogeneity in the quality of the reporting of the results of the study and a lack of standardized methods and reporting. We provide here the ROSES-S: Reporting of Seroepidemiologic studies-SARS-CoV-2. This is an updated checklist of 22 items that should be included in the reporting of all SARS-CoV-2 seroepidemiologic studies, irrespective of study design.