ABSTRACT
Background The EPICOVID19-RS study conducted 10 population-based surveys in Rio Grande do Sul (Southern Brazil), starting early in the epidemic. The sensitivity of the rapid point-of-care test used in the first eight surveys has been shown to decrease over time after some phases of the study were concluded. The 9th survey used both the rapid test and an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test, which has a higher and stable sensitivity.
Methods We provide a theoretical justification for a correction procedure of the rapid test estimates, assess its performance in a simulated dataset and apply it to empirical data from the EPICOVID19-RS study. COVID-19 deaths from official statistics were used as an indicator of the temporal distribution of the epidemic, under the assumption that fatality is constant over time. Both the indicator and results from the 9th survey were used to calibrate the temporal decay function of the rapid test’s sensitivity from a previous validation study, which was used to estimate the true sensitivity in each survey and adjust the rapid test estimates accordingly.
Results Simulations corroborated the procedure is valid. Corrected seroprevalence estimates were substantially larger than uncorrected estimates, which were substantially smaller than respective estimates from confirmed cases and therefore clearly underestimate the true infection prevalence.
Conclusion Correcting biased estimates requires a combination of data and modelling assumptions. This work illustrates the practical utility of analytical procedures, but also the critical need for good quality, populationally-representative data for tracking the progress of the epidemic and substantiate both projection models and policy making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
We acknowledge the support from Instituto Serrapilheira, Pastoral da Crianca, the Brazilian Collective Health Association (ABRASCO) and JBS's initiative 'Fazer o Bem Faz Bem'.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the Brazilian National Ethics Committee (process number 30415520.2.0000.5313), with written informed consent from all participants. A separate informed consent form was used to obtain permission from parents or legally authorized representatives for minors who were part of the study.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data and code is available upon reasonable request.
