Abstract
Background Our understanding of the global scale of SARS-CoV-2 infection remains incomplete: routine surveillance data underestimates infection and cannot infer on population immunity, there is a predominance of asymptomatic infections, and uneven access to diagnostics. We meta-analyzed SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies, standardized to those described in WHO’s Unity protocol for general population seroepidemiological studies, two years into the pandemic, to estimate the extent of population infection and remaining susceptibility.
Methods and Findings We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, preprints, and grey literature for SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence published between 2020-01-01 and 2022-05-20. The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO, (CRD42020183634). We included general population cross-sectional and cohort studies meeting an assay quality threshold (90% sensitivity, 97% specificity; exceptions for humanitarian settings). We excluded studies with an unclear or closed population sample frame. Eligible studies - those aligned with the WHO Unity protocol - were extracted and critically appraised in duplicate, with Risk of Bias evaluated using a modified Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. We meta-analyzed seroprevalence by country and month, pooling to estimate regional and global seroprevalence over time; compared seroprevalence from infection to confirmed cases to estimate under-ascertainment; meta-analyzed differences in seroprevalence between demographic subgroups such as age and sex; and identified national factors associated with seroprevalence using meta-regression. The main limitations of our methodology include that some estimates were driven by certain countries or populations being over-represented. We identified 513 full texts reporting 965 distinct seroprevalence studies (41% LMIC) sampling 5,346,069 participants between January 2020 and April 2022, including 459 low/moderate risk of bias studies with national/sub-national scope in further analysis. By September 2021, global SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence from infection or vaccination was 59.2%, 95% CI [56.1-62.2%]. Overall seroprevalence rose steeply in 2021 due to infection in some regions (e.g., 26.6% [24.6-28.8] to 86.7% [84.6-88.5%] in Africa in December 2021) and vaccination and infection in others (e.g., 9.6% [8.3-11.0%] to 95.9% [92.6-97.8%] in Europe high-income countries in December 2021). After the emergence of Omicron, infection-induced seroprevalence rose to 47.9% [41.0-54.9%] in EUR HIC and 33.7% [31.6-36.0%] in AMR HIC in March 2022. In 2021 Quarter Three (July to September), median seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios ranged from around 2:1 in the Americas and Europe HICs to over 100:1 in Africa (LMICs). Children 0-9 years and adults 60+ were at lower risk of seropositivity than adults 20-29 (p<0.0001 and p=0.005, respectively). In a multivariable model using pre-vaccination data, stringent public health and social measures were associated with lower seroprevalence (p=0.02).
Conclusions In this study, we observed that global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time and with regional variation, however around 40 % of the global population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported COVID-19 cases. Quality and standardized seroprevalence studies are essential to inform COVID-19 response, particularly in resource-limited regions.
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, continues to severely impact population health and health care systems. The 394 million cases and 5.7 million deaths reported as of 7 February 2022 [1]. underestimate the global burden of this pandemic, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with limited capacity for contact tracing, diagnostic testing, and surveillance [2].
Seroprevalence studies estimate the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. These studies are crucial to understand the true extent of infection overall, by demographic group, and by geographic area, as well as to estimate case under-ascertainment. As anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are highly predictive of immune protection [3,4], seroprevalence studies are also indicative of population levels of humoral immunity, and therefore important to inform scenario modeling, public health planning, and national policies in response to the pandemic. Although seroprevalence provides crucial information on population-level infection dynamics, it is important to note that it does not imply protection against infection and therefore is not an appropriate measure to gauge progress towards herd immunity.
During 2021, many regions have experienced third and fourth waves of SARS-CoV-2 infection [1]; concurrently, some countries have vaccinated most residents, while others remain unable to achieve high vaccine coverage due to challenges with supply and uptake [5]. A new wave of well-conducted seroprevalence studies, including many in LMICs, provides robust estimates of seroprevalence in late 2020 and into 2021 [6–8]. Synthesizing these studies is crucial to understand the shifting global dynamics and true extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection, humoral immunity, and population susceptibility. While previous global systematic reviews of seroprevalence have been conducted [9–12], these have included only studies that sampled participants in 2020 and pooled seroprevalence across all time points. These meta-analyses also highlight the importance of improved standardization and study quality to enable more robust analysis [9–11].
Estimates of seroprevalence can be difficult to compare systematically across different settings due to variations in design aspects including sampled populations, testing and analytical methods, timing in relation to waves of infection, and study quality and reporting. The World Health Organization’s Unity Initiative (henceforth “WHO Unity”) aims to help produce harmonized and representative seroprevalence study results in accordance with global equity principles [2]. The WHO Unity population-based, age-stratified seroepidemiological investigation protocol (the SEROPREV protocol) [2] provides a standard study design and laboratory approach to general population seroprevalence studies. WHO Unity and its partners have supported the implementation of SEROPREV by providing financial and technical resources, including a well-performing serologic assay. SEROPREV has been implemented in 74 countries globally and in 51 LMICs as of September 2021 [2]. Synthesizing results aligned with the standard SEROPREV protocol improves study comparability, enabling further analysis of these comparable studies to answer key questions about the progress of the pandemic globally.
This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized seroprevalence studies worldwide aligned with the SEROPREV protocol, regardless of whether the study received support from WHO. Our objectives were to: (i) estimate changes in global and regional seroprevalence over time by WHO region and country income level; (ii) assess the level of undetected infection, by global and regional case ascertainment over time by calculating the ratio of seroprevalence to cumulative incidence of confirmed cases; and (iii) identify factors associated with seropositivity including demographic differences by 10-year age band and sex through meta-analysis, and study design and country-level differences through meta-regression.
Methods
Search strategy and study selection
We conducted a systematic review of seroprevalence studies (hereafter “studies”) published from 1 January 2020 to 20 May 2022. We designed a primary search strategy in consultation with a health sciences librarian in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Europe PMC using key terms such as SARS-COV-2, COVID-19, seroprevalence, and serology. We attempted to mitigate possible publication bias by including both published articles and unpublished literature such as grey literature, preprints, institutional reports, and media reports (full strategy in Supplementary file S.3.1). For our secondary search and article capture strategy, we invited submissions to our database through the open-access SeroTracker platform and recommendations from international experts, including literature compiled through the WHO Unity studies initiative. In order to access timely evidence and mitigate challenges with publication delay, we also contacted WHO Unity study collaborators that had not yet made results available to the general public prior to our inclusion dates, to upload their aggregate results to the open access Zenodo research data repository [13]. We accepted these templates up to May 20th 2022 in line with our primary search strategy, and screened them according to the same criteria as other sources captured in our primary search. This systematic review and meta-analysis protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020183634) prior to the conduct of the review (Supplement S6) [14], reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline [15] (S1 Checklists), and searches and extractions conducted per the previously established SeroTracker protocol [16].
Studies were screened, data extracted, and critically appraised in duplicate, with these tasks shared by a team of 13 study authors (listed in Research Contributions section under data curation). We have study team members proficient in English, French, Portuguese, Spanish, and Cyrillic languages - articles in all other languages were translated using Google Translate where possible. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Inclusion and exclusion criteria aligned with the SEROPREV standardized protocol for general population seroprevalence to minimize possible bias introduced by inter-study heterogeneity and other measures of study quality such as poor assay performance and/or sampling methods (full protocol criteria described in Supplementary File S2.2 and S2.3). We included cross-sectional or longitudinal cohort studies with the objective of estimating SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in the general population. Restricting inclusion to direct population samples such as household surveys would have led to very little data in some regions and times, as these studies are expensive and difficult to conduct. Thus, household and community samples were included, as well as studies where a robust sampling frame was described that approximates to a wider population, such as individuals attending medical services (blood donors, pregnant mothers, primary care attendees) or residual sera taken from patients for a variety of other investigations. Finally, we also included people residing in slum dwellings, and some patient populations in humanitarian settings where the patient population in question was extensive enough to be considered a proxy sample frame (evaluated on a case-by-case basis). Both random and non-random (i.e., convenience, sequential, quota) sampling methods were included. Convenience samples must have a clear and defined sampling frame, i.e., studies recruiting volunteers were not included.
Studies had to use serological assays with at least 90% sensitivity and 97% specificity as reported by the manufacturer or study authors through an independent evaluation of the test used (Supplementary file S2.1), unless conducted in vulnerable countries as defined in the Global Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) [17] We employed exception criteria for HRP countries by including all assays despite those with sometimes lower performance as sometimes rapid diagnostic tests were the only operationally possible option due to ongoing humanitarian emergencies. Studies employing dried blood spots as a specimen type must meet this threshold as determined through study author-conducted sensitivity and specificity validation using dried blood spots. Multi-assay testing algorithms were included if the combined sensitivity and specificity met these performance thresholds, using standard formulas for parallel and serial testing [18]. Complex multiple testing strategies (3+ tests used) were reviewed on a case-by-case basis by two study members. To accommodate these limitations and ensure study inclusion equity, we included all assay types from HRP countries regardless of their reported performance values, as long as the authors reported an assay that was independently validated from either an in-house evaluation or a WHO-approved head-to-head evaluation [19-21]. Finally, algorithms employing a commercial or author-designed binding assay followed by confirmatory testing by virus neutralization assay were included as they constitute the gold standard in serological evaluation [22].
We excluded studies sampling specific closed populations (such as prisons, care homes, or other single-institution populations), recruiting participants without a clear sampling frame approximating the target population or testing strategy, and studies that excluded people previously diagnosed with or vaccinated against COVID-19 after initial sampling.
Data extraction, synthesis, and analysis
From each study, we extracted seroprevalence estimates for the overall sample, and stratified by age, sex, vaccination status, and timing of specimen collection according to the prespecified protocol. We extracted information on study population, laboratory assay used, any corrections made in estimating seroprevalence (e.g., for population or assay performance), seroprevalence, and denominator. Standardized results uploaded to Zenodo by Unity study collaborators additionally included information on the proportion of asymptomatic seropositive individuals.
Our procedure for the standardized, aggregate early data results submitted by Unity collaborators was to direct study authors to input their results into a formulated standard Excel template designed to match the same data extracted during routine published study extraction. A blank version of the Excel template is available for reference [23]. These templates were uploaded directly into R for analysis in tandem with other studies included in the meta-analysis. Templates were verified by two independent reviewers and we conducted follow-up to complete information with study investigators where needed. In instances where data from early reporting templates we had received were published prior to May 20th 2022 or a partial dataset was previously published, we ensured to de-duplicate this data for analysis. We evaluated cases of duplicated results on a case-by-case basis, prioritizing the authors published version by default but made exceptions where data was more complete, robust, or up-to-date in the submitted templates. Once authors published or preprinted their results, a link to the full source was added to the Zenodo repository.
We critically appraised all studies using a modified version of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklist for prevalence studies [24]. To assess risk of bias, a decision rule assigned a rating of low, moderate, or high risk of bias based on the specific combination of JBI checklist ratings for that study [25]. This decision rule was developed based on guidance on estimating disease prevalence [26,27] and was validated against overall risk of bias assessments derived manually by two independent reviewers for previously collected seroprevalence studies in the SeroTracker database, showing good agreement with manual review (intraclass correlation 0.77, 95% CI 0.74-0.80; n = 2070 studies) [25]. Early results from templates were screened and evaluated for risk of bias using the same criteria as studies captured through routine screening processes.
We classified seroprevalence studies by geographical scope (local [i.e. cities, counties], sub-national [i.e. provinces or states], or national), sample frame, sampling method, and type of serological assay (Supplement S2.1 Table S1, Table 5). Where an article or source material contains multiple, methodologically distinct serosurveys we split the article into multiple ‘studies’ - for the purpose of this review ‘study’ means a distinct estimate. Where multiple summary estimates were available per study, we prioritized estimates based on estimate adjustment, antibody isotypes measured, test type used, and antibody targets measured (full details: Supplement S3.1). We included multiple estimates per study when broken down by time frame in our analysis over time.
Countries were classified according to WHO region [28], vulnerability via HRP status [17], and World Bank income level [29].
We anchored each estimate to the date halfway between sampling start and end (“sampling midpoint date”) to best reflect the time period of the study. To select the most representative and high quality studies for analysis, we used only sub-national or national studies rated low or moderate risk of bias to estimate seroprevalence in the general population over time and identify factors associated with seroprevalence (sub-dataset 1). We used only national studies rated low or moderate risk of bias to estimate case ascertainment (sub-dataset 2).
To explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results, we constructed a Poisson generalized linear mixed-effects model with log link function using the glmer function from the lme4 package in R [30–32]. Independent predictors were defined a priori as WHO region, income group, geographic scope, sample frame, pandemic timing, age, cumulative confirmed cases, and average public health and social measure (PHSM) stringency index [33]. To focus on factors associated with seroprevalence from infection, we included studies where less than 5% of the national population was vaccinated two weeks before the sampling midpoint date. We included all a priori predictors in the final model, and to evaluate the importance of each relevant predictor, we compared the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) of the final model to all models dropping a single predictor at a time (full details on the model and predictor definitions: Supplement S3.2).
To estimate seroprevalence in the general population, we first produced monthly country-level estimates by meta-analyzing seroprevalence in each country, grouping studies in a 12-week rolling window considering the infrequent availability of seroprevalence studies in most countries (rma.glmm from R package metafor)[34,35]. We then produced monthly regional estimates by taking weighted averages of country estimates by population, ensuring that country contributions to these estimates are proportional to country population. We stratified these estimates by the expected key sources of heterogeneity among study results: region, income class, and time. We pooled HIC and LMIC together in the Eastern Mediterranean (EMR) and Western Pacific regions (WPR) due to the lower number of studies, and in the Africa (AFR) and South-East Asia regions (SEAR) (the only two HIC in these regions had no studies).
We produced monthly global estimates where estimates were available for a majority of regions, calculating global estimates as a population-weighted average of regional estimates to ensure regional representation (full details: Supplement S3.2). We produced 95% confidence intervals for the mean seroprevalence estimate, reflecting uncertainty in the summary effect size [36], and 95% prediction intervals to give a range for the predicted parameter value in a new study. All numerical results presented are from this stage. To visualize the trend in regional and global estimates over time, we fit a smooth curve to these estimates using non-parametric regression (gam from R package mgcv) [37]. We also summarized the relevant variant genome frequency in each region shared via the GISAID initiative [38].
We also estimated to what extent laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases [39] underestimated the full extent of infections based on seroprevalence. For studies that sampled participants in 2021, we used national seroprevalence estimates and vaccination rates [40] to calculate seroprevalence attributable to infection only. In countries administering only vaccines using Spike (S) protein antigens (e.g., mRNA), we calculated the ascertainment ratio using only studies that detected anti-nucleocapsid (N) seroprevalence. In countries administering inactivated vaccines that may generate both anti-S and anti-N responses, we adjusted the reported seroprevalence using a standard formula [41]. We then produced regional and global estimates of seroprevalence using the two-stage process described above, and computed the ratio to the corresponding cumulative incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the region or globally. We stratified by HIC vs. LMIC in all regions.
Aggregated results shared by Unity collaborators reported the proportion of seropositives that were symptomatic at some time point prior to sampling, summarized using the median and interquartile range, and tested for differences in distribution across age and sex groups using analysis of variance (ANOVA).
To quantify population differences in SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence, we identified studies with seroprevalence estimates for sex and age subgroups. We calculated the ratio in seroprevalence between groups within each study, comparing each age group to adults 20-29 and males to females. We then aggregated the ratios across studies using inverse variance-weighted random-effects meta-analysis. The amount of variation attributable to between-study heterogeneity vs. within-study variance was quantified using the I2 statistic.
Our main analysis used seroprevalence estimates uncorrected for test characteristics. As a sensitivity analysis, we also produced global and regional estimates adjusting for test characteristics through Bayesian measurement error models, with binomial sensitivity and specificity distributions. The sensitivity and specificity values for correction were prioritized from the WHO SARS-CoV-2 Test Kit Comparative Study conducted at the NRL Australia [19], followed by a multicentre evaluation of 47 commercial SARS-CoV-2 immunoassays by 41 Dutch laboratories [42], and from independent evaluations by study authors where author-designed assays were used.
Data was analyzed using R statistical software version 4.1.2.[32]
Results
Study characteristics
We identified 173,430 titles and abstracts in our search spanning from 2020-01-01 to 2022-20-05 (Figure 1). Of these, 5,281 full text articles were included in full text screening. 513 seroprevalence data sources containing studies aligned with the SEROPREV protocol were identified, 480 published (94%) and 33 aggregated results from collaborators (6%), of which 12 sources were not in one of our main languages and translated via Google. The 513 sources contained a total of 965 unique seroprevalence studies (detailed references and information available in Supplement, S4.1-S4.3, S5). Over 1,500 full-text articles were excluded due to not containing studies compatible with the SEROPREV protocol; the main reasons for articles’ exclusion at this stage was having an incorrect sample frame for this analyses’ scope (i.e., we focussed on seroprevalence in the general population and therefore excluded 1,073 articles of exclusively health care workers, close contacts of confirmed cases, or other specific closed populations) or not meeting our pre-defined assay quality performance threshold (374 articles).
A total of 52% (100/194) of WHO Member States (MS) and four WHO Countries, areas and territories, across all 6 WHO regions, were represented among the seroprevalence studies included in the descriptive analysis (Figure S1). Twenty three of 47 MS were represented in AFR; 11 of 21 MS and one territory in EMR; 13 of 35 MS and one territory in AMR; 39 of 53 MS and two territories in EUR; 6 of 11 MS in SEAR; and 8 of 27 MS in WPR (Figure S1). Data from 61 of 134 LMICs and from 36 of 63 vulnerable HRP countries were included. A large proportion of studies included in the descriptive analysis were conducted in LMIC (397/965, 41%) and in vulnerable HRP countries (206/965, 21%) (Table 1). Of studies included in the meta-analysis and meta-regression, these proportions were 30% (137/459) and 14% (66/459), respectively. 20 of the 66 (30%) meta-analyzed studies in HRP countries had test performance values below 90% sensitivity or 97% specificity and were included due to exception criteria.
Among the 965 studies included in the descriptive analysis, 42% (402/965) reported results at a local level, 36% (345/965) at a national level, and 23% (218/965) at a sub-national level. The most common sampling frame and method was household and communities (52%, 500/965) and probability sampling (53%, 515/965), respectively. Within household-based samples, only 86/500 studies (17.2%) used convenience sampling. Among the testing strategies used to measure seroprevalence, most studies used ELISA (37%, 360/965) or CLIA assays (37%, 355/965) and few studies used a lateral flow immunoassay (9.4%, 91/965) or multiple assay testing algorithm (7.4%, 72/965). The majority of studies (734/965, 76%) had no vaccination at the sampling midpoint date in the country of the study (Table 1). Very few studies (14/965, 1.5%) in 4 countries (Canada, Japan, United Kingdom, United States of America) sampled participants during 2022.
Most (50%, 483/965) studies were rated moderate risk of bias. A summary of overall risk of bias ratings and breakdown of each risk of bias indicator for all studies is available (Figure S2 and Table S8, respectively). Sub-national and national studies at low or moderate risk were included in the subsequent results.
Meta-regression
In the multivariable meta-regression, 329 studies remained after applying our inclusion criteria for pre-vaccination studies. The full model is reported here (model comparison and diagnostics: Table S11). Sub-national studies reported higher seroprevalence estimates compared to national studies (PR 1.27 [1.02-1.59], p=0.03). Compared to HIC, higher seroprevalence estimates were reported by low income (PR 7.33 [3.49-15.41], p<0.0001), lower-middle income (PR 7.33 [3.49-15.41], p<0.0001), and upper middle income countries (PR 3.97 [2.88-5.49], p<0.0001). Higher cumulative incidence of reported cases was associated with higher seroprevalence (PR 1.39 [1.30-1.49], p<0.0001), while more stringent PHSM measures up to the sampling midpoint date, continuous from 0 to 10, were associated with lower seroprevalence (PR 0.89 [0.81-0.98], p=0.02). Much of the heterogeneity in effect sizes was explained by WHO region, income class, and cumulative confirmed cases. By contrast, sample frame was the least important predictor based on the AIC criterion (Table S11) and compared to studies that sampled households and communities, there were no differences between seroprevalence in studies that sampled blood donors (PR 1.04 [0.77-1.40], p=0.79) nor residual sera (PR 1.08 [0.83-1.41], p=0.55).
Overall and infection-induced seroprevalence by month, region, and income class
We estimated weighted seroprevalence in a series of separate meta-analyses each month and found in September 2021, global seroprevalence from infection or vaccination (overall seroprevalence) was 59.2%, [95% CI 56.1-62.2%, 95% prediction interval 51.2-66.7%] - an 6.6 fold increase since the June 2020 estimate of 7.7% [CI 5.7-10.3%, prediction interval 4.2-13.8] (Table S9). In September 2021, global seroprevalence attributable to infection was 35.9% [CI 29.5-42.7%, prediction interval 22.8-51.4%] (Figure 3, Table S9).
Regional analyses began in January 2020 and ended in February 2021-March 2022 depending on when seroprevalence studies in each region sampled participants. Overall seroprevalence in February 2021 was 42.7% [37.6-48.0%] in EMR (1.3x since June 2020). In April 2021, overall seroprevalence was 20.0% [18.8-21.2%] in AMR LMIC (2.3x since June 2020). In June 2021, overall seroprevalence was 48.7% [47.7-49.7%] in EUR LMIC, a 2.2x increase since July 2020. In September 2021, overall seroprevalence was 82.2% [75.9-87.2%] in SEAR (8.9x since June 2020). In December 2021, overall seroprevalence was 86.7% [84.6-88.5%] in AFR (25x since June 2020) and 30.3% [25.3-35.9%] in WPR (135x since June 2020). Finally, in March 2022, overall seroprevalence was 95.9% [92.3-97.8%] in EUR HIC (22x since June 2020), and 99.8% [99.7-99.9%] in AMR (HIC) (27x since June 2020). (Figure 3, middle panel and Table S9). Infection-induced seroprevalence is reported in Table S9; for example, 47.9% [41.0-54.9%] of the population in EUR HIC (United Kingdom studies only) and 33.7% [31.6-36.0%] of the population in AMR HIC (Canada studies only) had infection-induced antibodies in March 2022. In the meta-analyses by country with at least 2 studies, 75% (188/250) showed considerable heterogeneity from 75% to 100%.(36)
Ratios of seroprevalence to cumulative incidence
Snapshots of seroprevalence to confirmed case ratios, based on estimated weighted seroprevalence using national studies, are shown in Table 2. Globally, the median ratio was 51.3:1 in 2020 Quarter Three and 10.5:1 in 2021 Quarter Three. In 2020 Quarter Three, the median ratio ranged from 3.4:1 in AMR (HIC) to 219.6:1 in EMR. In 2021 Quarter Three, this ranged from 1.8:1 in AMR (HIC) to 176.7:1 in AFR (Table 2).
Subgroup analysis
Asymptomatic seroprevalence by age and sex subgroups for studies reporting subgroups on symptoms are shown in Supplementary Figure S3. Median asymptomatic prevalence was similar across age groups (ANOVA p = 0.28). Median asymptomatic prevalence in males was 64.6% compared to 58.6% in females (ANOVA p = 0.47).
Within studies, compared to the reference category of 20-29 years old, seroprevalence was significantly lower for children 0-9 years (prevalence ratio 0.75, 95% CI [0.67-0.84], p<0.0001) and adults 60+ years (0.87 [0.80-0.96], p=0.005). There were no differences between other age groups nor between males and females. (Full results: Figure 4)
Sensitivity analysis
Regional and global estimates of seroprevalence accounting for serological test performance from independent test kit evaluations showed no qualitative differences from the primary results (Table S10). For example, overall global seroprevalence in September 2021 using corrected estimates was 61.5% [56.7-66.1%], compared to 59.2% [56.1-62.2%] using uncorrected estimates.
Discussion
Summary
We synthesized data from over 900 seroprevalence studies worldwide (43% from LMICs) published up to December 2021 (search dates: 2020-01-01 to 2022-20-05), providing global and regional estimates of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence over time with substantial representation of regions with limited available seroprevalence data. We estimate that approximately 59.2% of the global population had antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in September 2021 with 35.9% of the global population attributable to infection (when excluding vaccination). Global seroprevalence has risen considerably over time, from 7.7% more than a year before, in June 2020.
Results in context
Our findings provide evidence of regional and temporal variation in the overall seroprevalence, over 80% in SEAR and AFR in late 2021 and over 90% in AMR HIC and EUR HIC in early 2022. In WPR, there was a paucity of high-quality population-based studies in 2021 and estimated seroprevalence was as low as 30.3% in December 2021, though one study in Japan suggests this has increased to over 90% in February 2022 [43]. Regional variation is driven by differences in the extent of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination. This is exemplified by our monthly timeline of seroprevalence by region, 2020-2021, which provides estimates of evolving temporal changes of the global pandemic. We observed increases in seroprevalence following the emergence of variants in regions with available data (e.g., 6% (July 2020) to 41% (April 2021) in AFR following the Beta variant and 12% (February 2021) to 75% (August 2021) in SEAR following the Delta variant), demonstrating the substantial number of infections caused by more transmissible variants. In HIC regions, the increases in overall seroprevalence were driven by increased vaccine coverage in early 2021 (e.g., 6% (January 2021) to 95% (August 2021) in AMR HIC and 7% (January 2021) to 72% (August 2021) in EUR HIC), while we also observed increases in infection-induced seroprevalence following the Omicron variant (e.g., 7% (December 2021) to 34% (March 2022) in AMR HIC and 18% (October 2021) to 48% (March 2022) in EUR HIC). Another possibility for regional variation is the potential cross-reactivity of antibodies against P. falciparum or other common cold coronaviruses which has been remarked upon in the literature [44–46], which may impact seroprevalence estimates in areas of Africa or elsewhere with a high incidence of malaria. Our results add global representation and principled estimation of changes in seroprevalence over time as compared to previous evidence syntheses [9,11,12]. These estimates are similar to estimates of true infections by global epidemiological models. For example, our global estimate of seroprevalence attributable to infection (35.9%) is similar to the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation cumulative infection incidence estimate of 42.8% on 15 September 2021 [47]. Our analysis provides an orthogonal estimate based solely on robust seroprevalence data, using a method that has the added value of being easily interpretable and with fewer assumed parameters.
Our results provide evidence of considerable case under-ascertainment, indicating that many cases of SARS-CoV-2, including subclinical cases, are not captured by surveillance systems which in many countries are based on testing of symptomatic patients, have varying sensitivity in their definitions of positive cases, or simply have limited access to testing [48]. There was wide variation in under-ascertainment (as estimated through seroprevalence-case ratios) in all regions, income groups and over time, with higher ratios consistently observed in LMICs compared to HICs. Our ratios of seroprevalence to reported cases in late 2020 were comparable to other studies for AMR, EUR, and SEAR [9–12]. Our estimates of seroprevalence to cumulative incidence ratios for AFR, WPR, and EMR are novel, with no other analyses we found having systematically estimated ascertainment through seroprevalence in these regions; moreover, estimates of true infections from epidemiological models suggest the high levels of under-ascertainment suggested by this study are plausible [47].
We also provide more granular evidence of significant variation in infection by age by 10-year band. Children aged <10 years, but not children aged 10-19, were less likely to be seropositive compared to adults aged 20-29 years; similarly, adults aged >60 years, but not those aged 30-39, 40-49, or 50-59, were less likely to be seropositive than adults 20-29. These findings add nuance and granularity to differences in seroprevalence by age observed by other studies [10]. Lower seroprevalence in adults 60+ could be explained by immunosenescence that can lead to quicker seroreversion [49] higher mortality and hence a lower proportion of individuals with evidence of past infection, gaps in vaccine access, or more cautious behaviour resulting in fewer infections in this age group. There are several possible explanations for lower seroprevalence in children: milder infections, which are generally associated with lower antibody titers [50] school closures; and ineligibility for vaccination.
Our multivariable model suggests higher seroprevalence estimates were reported by low and lower-middle income countries compared to high-income countries, with the highest seroprevalence in lower-middle income countries (pre-vaccination). Potential explanations for this result are multifaceted and include weaker health system functionality and performance, lower capacity to isolate, and less stringent use of and ability to effectively implement PHSM. This is also consistent with findings by Rostami et al. [11] Our results suggest that an increase in overall PHSM stringency was associated with lower seroprevalence. This and other work has shown that the use of PHSM was associated with reduced SARS-CoV-2 infections, especially when implemented early and limiting population mobility [51–53]. Our model also found that sub-national studies have higher estimates than national studies; one hypothesis for this is that sub-national studies are often concentrated on cities or areas with denser populations, which may contribute to increased transmission of the virus. Further research is needed to validate this hypothesis. Finally, our results suggest that blood donors and residual sera studies may be good proxies for the general population, as there was no statistical difference between seroprevalence estimates in these sample frames compared to household and community samples.
In line with the equity principles of the Unity initiative, our dataset had global coverage, including a broad range of LMICs (one third of studies included in our dataset 1, n=177) and vulnerable HRP countries (14% of included studies). Related other global meta-analyses of seroprevalence had 23% and 35% LMIC coverage respectively [9,11]. Unity study collaborators shared timely evidence by uploading their aggregated and standardized early results to an open data repository, enabling geographic coverage and reducing publication bias.
Strengths and limitations
Our regional and global meta-analysis estimates are timely, robust and geographically diverse with estimates from all WHO regions. The laboratory and epidemiological standardization enabled by the Unity Studies framework, as well as the analysis of only studies assessed to have low or moderate risk of bias using a validated risk of bias tool [25], enabled high-quality and comparable data. Despite this effort, there are still methodological differences between the meta-analyzed studies that may reduce their comparability. For example, 14% of studies in our analysis dataset (66/459, 18 of which were household-based) were convenience samples, which are less representative than population-based probability samples. To limit this bias, we required Unity-Aligned convenience samples to have a clearly defined sample frame (i.e., sampling of volunteers excluded). Our risk of bias evaluation also included subjective review of the demographic breakdown in the study, coverage of subgroup estimates, and author comments on representativeness of the sample, such that the most non-representative studies were rated high risk of bias and excluded from analysis.
A few limitations should be described. First, although we conducted meta-regression to explore heterogeneity of the included studies, there remained some residual heterogeneity that could not be explained quantitatively — likely driven by differences in disease transmission in the different countries and time points that serosurveys were conducted. Second, we did not account for waning of population immunity, so the present work likely underestimates the extent of past infection and case ascertainment. Thirdly, seroprevalence studies are cumulative, meaning that results reflect all COVID-19 countermeasures implemented up to the time of participant sampling and, thus, we cannot isolate the contributions of particular PHSM. Fourthly, while we screened study eligibility based on high assay performance criteria, different serological assays may yield varying results which should be taken into account when interpreting seroprevalence data. Some argue against combining studies using different assays, because assay performances can vary considerably leading to potential bias in the results. With the moderate seroprevalence values generally observed in our results (roughly 20% to 80%), we expect limited bias to be introduced by the different assays. Nevertheless, we conducted a sensitivity analysis adjusting estimates from individual studies with assay performance whenever available, and found that global and regional estimates remained similar. Finally, at certain points in time, our meta-analysis estimates were driven by studies from specific countries — either very populous countries (i.e. SEAR: India, AMR HIC: USA, AMR LMIC: Brazil, WPR: China), or countries in regions with scarce data during the time in question (e.g. EMR: 2 countries in early 2021). We also could not produce global estimates for late 2021/early 2022 due to the delays between when studies conducted their sampling (we extracted from the ‘sampling midpoint’), and when these results were later published or released within our search dates.
Implications and next steps
Population-based seroprevalence studies primarily give a reliable estimate of the exposure to infection. In cases where antibodies can be measured quantitatively, it may also be possible to use them to assess the level of protection in a population, although there is currently no consensus on antibody-based correlates of protection for SARS-CoV-2 [4]. While antibodies persist in most infected individuals for up to a year (with early evidence pointing at up to 18 months) [54–57] the reinfection risk with the immune-escaping Omicron variant, is reported to be much higher than in previous VOCs in both vaccinated and previously infected individuals, indicating that the presence of antibodies is less indicative of a level of protection against infection. However, seroprevalence estimates remain indicative of protection against severe disease and death, as cellular immunity is unlikely to be disrupted even with an immune escaping VOCs.
Seroprevalence studies have been invaluable throughout the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the true extent and dynamics over time of SARS-CoV-2 infection and, to some extent, immunity. Serosurveillance provides key epidemiologic information that crucially supplements other routine data sources in populations. In populations with reported high vaccine coverage, seroprevalence studies provide a supplement to vaccine coverage data and are an important tool for the evaluation of vaccination programs. In populations with low vaccine coverage, it provides an estimate of cumulative incidence of past SARS-CoV-2 infection (including asymptomatic and mild disease), true case fatality ratio, and avoid many of the limitations of passive disease reporting systems which can be unreliable due to under-diagnosis and under-notification. Seroprevalence data can be used to compare seroprevalence between different groups (e.g. age, sex geography, etc.) to identify susceptible populations and thus inform decisions regarding the implementation of counter measures such as vaccination programs and PHSM [58]. A key challenge in implementing serosurveillance has been timeliness of study implementation, data analysis and reporting - as such, it will be important for public health decision makers to prioritize investment and establish emergency-mode procedures to facilitate timely study implementation early on in future outbreak or variant emergence responses as part of overall surveillance strategy [59,60]. There is also a need to continue to build national capacity with WHO and other partners to rapidly enable high quality study implementation and communication of findings in a format friendly to decision makers. The pandemic persists in large because of inequitable access to countermeasures tools such as vaccines; emphasizing the importance of equitable vaccine deployment globally, the strengthening of health systems and of tailored PHSM to mitigate disease transmission until high population protection is achieved. Globally standardized and quality seroprevalence studies continue to be essential to inform health policy decision-making around COVID-19 control measures, particularly in capacity-limited regions with low testing capacity and vaccination rates.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our results show that seroprevalence has increased considerably over time, particularly in past months, due to infection in some regions and vaccination in others. Nevertheless, there is regional variation and 40 % of the global population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2. As our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 develops, the role of seroprevalence studies may change including the adaptation of study objectives and methodology to the situation. Currently, our global estimates of infections based on seroprevalence far exceed reported cases captured by surveillance systems. As we enter the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic, implementation of a global system for targeted, continuous, multi-pathogen, and standardized quality serosurveillance [59,60] is a crucial next step to monitor the COVID-19 pandemic and contribute to readiness for other emerging respiratory pathogens.
Data Availability
Standardized results uploaded to Zenodo by UNITY study collaborators supporting the findings of this study are available at this community and DOIs for each included Zenodo study are cited in the Supplementary File (S5) https://zenodo.org/communities/unity-sero-2021?page=1&size=20. Detailed information on each study is available in Supplement S4. Other relevant data are available in a data repository (doi:10.5281/zenodo.5773152) and/or available from the Zenodo community upon reasonable request.
Supplementary material
Supplementary material file is attached.
Contributors
Conceptualization: IB, LS, TN, MVK, RKA, NB.
Data curation: HCL, AnV, LA, JO, TA, LL, AiV, MW, XM, ZL, NB, HW, CC, MYL, ML, MS, GRD, NI, CZ, SP, HPR, TY, KCN, DK, SAA, ND, CD, NAD, EL, RKI, ASB, ELB, AS, JC.
Formal analysis: HW, RKA, DB, JP, MPC.
Funding acquisition: IB, MVK, RKA, NB, TY.
Investigation: IB, LS, HCL, AN, MV, BC, AnV, LA, AR, JO,TA, PW, LL, AiV, PM, KV, EB, SM, OMK, LS, CZ, EC, KKS, OAN, SEQ, JDN, SO, DB, PCM, MS, AFM, TMW, SN, BC, ED, TSD, SAA, LF, AC, TK, RS, AZM, SAS, MO, DAM, RKI, TS, VT, ML, AR, ITT, ASB, NT, SI, JCK, ASB, EAI, RAA, SB, TGH, PJL, HM, AC.
Methodology: HW, RKA, DB, NB, ML, HQ, CPY, TW, ND, CD, TE.
Project administration: IB, MVK, MW, NB, RKA, TY, PM, HQ, OMK, EC, OAN, IYR, EAA, SO, AB, MS, PC, SAA, ZN, AR, GSF, RKI, TS, FI, AR, ECB, ASB, BLH.
Resources: LS, BC, HCL, AnV, LA, AR, JO, TA, LL, AiV.
Supervision: IB, AnV, LA, AR, JO, TA, PRW, LL, RP, MVK, DB, MPC, JP, RKA, NB, TY.
Writing – original draft: IB, LS, HCL, AN, MW, HW, RKA.
Writing – review & editing: all authors.
All authors debated, discussed, edited, and approved the final manuscript. All authors had full access to the full data in the study and accepted responsibility to submit for publication.
Declaration of interests
Competing interests
The corresponding authors had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. Authors were not precluded from accessing data in the study, and they accept responsibility to submit for publication.
The authors have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: RKA, MW, HW, ZL, XM, CC, MYL, DB, JP, MPC, ML, MS, GRD, NI, CZ, SP, HPR, TY, KCN, DK, SAA, ND, CD, NAD, EL, RKI, ASB, ELB, AS, JC and NB report grants from Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force through the Public Health Agency of Canada, and the Canadian Medical Association Joule Innovation Fund. RKA, MW, HW, ZL, CC, MYL, NB also report grants from the World Health Organization and the Robert Koch Institute. RKA reports personal fees from the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Strategic Investment Fund, as well as equity in Alethea Medical (Outside the submitted work). MPC reports grants from McGill Interdisciplinary Initiative in Infection and Immunity and Canadian Institute of Health Research, and personal fees from GEn1E Lifesciences (Outside the submitted work), nplex biosciences (Outside the submitted work), Kanvas biosciences (Outside the submitted work). JP reports grants from MedImmune (Outside the submitted work) and Sanofi-Pasteur (Outside the submitted work), grants and personal fees from Merck (Outside the submitted work) and AbbVie (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from AstraZeneca (Outside the submitted work). DB reports grants from the World Health Organization, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (Outside the submitted work), Institute national d’excellence en santé et service sociaux (Outside the submitted work), and personal fees from McGill University Health Centre (Outside the submitted work) and Public Health Agency of Canada (Outside the submitted work). CC reports funding from Sanofi Pasteur (Outside of the submitted work). TY reports working for Health Canada as a part-time Senior Policy Analyst with the COVID-19 Testing and Screening Expert Panel, from Nov 2020-Jun 2021 (Outside of the submitted work).
Data availability
Standardized results uploaded to Zenodo by Unity study collaborators supporting the findings of this study are available at this community and DOIs for each included Zenodo study are cited in the Supplementary File (S5) https://zenodo.org/communities/unity-sero-2021?page=1&size=20 (13). Detailed information on each study is available in Supplement S4. All relevant data are available in a public data repository (doi:10.5281/zenodo.5773152) and/or available from the Zenodo community.
Unity Studies Collaborator Group
**Unity Studies Collaborator Group: Ximena Aguilera19, Sheikh Al-Shoteri20, Eman A Aly8, Mauricio Apablaza21, Rosemary A Audu22, Amal Barakat8,23, Abdulla S Bin-Ghouth24, Enyew Birru25, Dejan Bokonjic26, Shelly Bolotin27,28, Henry K Bosa29,30, Emily L Boucher31, Elma Catovic-Baralija32, Alexei Ceban33, Annie Chauma-Mwale34, Judy Chen35, Battogtokh Chimeddorj36, Pui Shan Chung10, Cheryl Cohen37, Tienhan S Dabakuyo-Yonli38, Gabriel R Deveaux31, Boly Diop39, Titus H Divala40, Emily K Dokubo41, Irene O Donkor42, Claire Donnici31, Nathan Duarte43, Natalie A Duarte44, Timothy G Evans7, 14, Lee Fairlie45, Ousmane Faye46, Gudrun S Freidl11, Claudia González19, Tiffany G Harris47,48, Belinda L Herring3, Sopon Iamsirithaworn49, Gloria Icaza50, Rhoda Ila51, Natasha Ilincic44, Elsie A Ilori52, Francis Y Inbanathan9, Vicki Indenbaum53, John Kaldor54, Dayoung Kim31, Olatunji M Kolawole55, Jambo C Kondwani56,57, Tatiana Kuchuk58, Pritesh J Lalwani59, Moses Laman60, Evelyn Lavu60‡, Juliana Leite12, Michael Liu61, Emma Loeschnik62, Kristine Macartney63, Dorothy A Machalek54,64, Sheila Makiala-Mandanda65,66, Henri-Pierre Mallet67, Alexandre Manirakiza68, Pilly Mapira51, Pinyi N Mawien69, Puneet Misra70, Sanjin Musa71,72, Portia C Mutevedzi73,74, Osama A Najjar75, Sutthichai Nakphook49, Kim C Noel16, Zuridin Nurmatov76, Maria Ome-Kaius60, Eric M Osoro77, 78, Krishna P Paudel79, Sara Perlman-Arrow7, Sharif E Qaddomi8,80, Hude Quan81, Alissar Rady82, Hannah P Rahim83, Muriel Ramírez-Santana84, Izzat Y Rayyan8,80, Angel Rodriguez12, Karampreet Sachathep85,86, Mitchell Segal13, Anabel Selemon31, Tahmina Shirin87, Kristen A Stafford88,89, Laura Steinhardt41, Vanessa Tran27,90, Isidore T Traore91,92, Pablo Vial93, Tri Yunis M Wahyono94, Tyler Williamson2,81, Cedric P Yansouni95,96, Caseng Zhang97, Chong Zhuo Lin98 Didier Koumavii99
19Centro de Epidemiología y Políticas de Salud, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
20Aden University, Yemen
21Facultad de Gobierno, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
22Nigerian Institute of Medical Research, Nigeria
23Infectious Hazard Preparedness, WHO Health Emergencies Programme
24Hadhramout University, Al Mukalla, Yemen
25Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
26University of East Sarajevo Faculty of Medicine Foča, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Republic of Srpska)
27Public Health Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
28Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
29Ministry of Health, Uganda
30Kellogg College, University of Oxford, England
31Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
32Department for Blood Transmissible Disease Testing, Institute of Transfusion Medicine of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (Federation)
33World Health Organization, Country Office in the Republic of Moldova
34Public Health Institute of Malawi, Ministry of Health, Malawi
35Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
36Department of Microbiology and Infection Prevention Control, School of Biomedicine, Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
37Center for Respiratory Disease and Meningitis, National Institute for Communicable Diseases, Johanessburg, South Africa 38Epidemiology and Quality of Life Research Unit, INSERM U1231, Georges François Leclerc Centre – UNICANCER, Dijon, France 39Surveillance Division, Prevention Directorate, Ministry of Health and Social Action, Dakar, Senegal
40Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, University in Blantyre, Malawi
41U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, United States of America
42Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research, Accra, Ghana
43Faculty of Engineering, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
44University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
45WITS Reproductive Health and HIV Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa
46Virology Department, Institut Pasteur de Dakar, Dakar, Senegal
47The International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs (ICAP), Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, United States of America
48Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University
49Department of Disease Control, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand
50Instituto de Matemáticas, Universidad de Talca, Chile
51School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Papua New Guinea
52Nigeria Centre for Disease Control, Nigeria
53Central Virology Laboratory and Sheba Medical Center, Ministry of Health, Tel-Hashomer, Israel
54The Kirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Kensington, Australia
55Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria
56Malawi-Liverpool-Wellcome Clinical Research Programme
57Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
58Research and Production Center “Preventive Medicine” of the Ministry of Health of the Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyzstan
59Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane (ILMD), Fiocruz Amazônia, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil
60Papua New Guinea Institute of Medical Research, Goroka, Papua New Guinea
61Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
62Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, Ontario, Canada
63National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, Sydney, Australia
64Centre for Women’s Infectious Diseases, The Royal Women’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia
65Institut National de Recherche Biomédicale, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo
66Université de Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo
67Agence de Régulation de l’Action Sanitaire et Sociale de Polynésie française
68Institut Pasteur of Bangui, Central African Republic
69Preventive Health Services, Ministry of Health, Juba, South Sudan
70All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
71Department of Epidemiology, Institute for Public Health of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnia and Herzegovina
72Sarajevo Medical School, University Sarajevo School of Science and Technology, Bosnia and Herzegovina
73South African Medical Research Council Vaccines and Infectious Diseases Analytics Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
74School of Pathology, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
75Palestinian National Ministry of Health, Occupied Palestine Territory
76Scientific and Production Association for Preventive Medicine, Ministry of Health of the Kyrgyz Republic, Kyrgyzstan
77Washington State University, Global Health Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
78Paul G. Allen School of Global Health, Washington State University, United States of America
79Epidemiology and Disease Control Division, Ministry of Health and Population, Nepal
80The Palestinian National Institute for Public Health, Ramallah, Occupied Palestine Territory
81Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
82World Health Organization, Country Office Beirut, Lebanon
83Boston Consulting Group
84Public Health Department, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad Católica del Norte, Coquimbo, Chile
85The International Center for AIDS Care and Treatment Programs (ICAP), Columbia University, New York, United States of America
86Department of Population and Family Health, Mailman School of Public Health, New York, United States of America
87Institute of Epidemiology, Disease Control and Research (IEDCR), Bangladesh
88Center for International Health, Education, and Biosecurity, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, United States of America
89Division of Epidemiology and Prevention, Institute of Human Virology, University of Maryland School of Medicine
90Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
91Programme de Recherche sur les maladies infectieuses, Centre MURAZ, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso
92Institut Supérieur des Sciences de la Santé, Université Nazi Boni, Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso
93Instituto de Ciencias e Innovación en Medicina, Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile
94Department of Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
95J.D. MacLean Centre for Tropical Diseases, McGill University Health Centre, Quebec, Canada
96Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Medical Microbiology, McGill University Health Centre, Quebec, Canada
97Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada
98Institute for Public Health, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Malaysia
99 Faculty of Public Health, University of Lomé
‡Deceased
Supporting Files
Supplementary Materials
Section S1: PRISMA Checklist. Section S2: Supplementary Methods. Section S.2.1 Additional Methods Description. Table S1: Study and Estimate-level Classification Decisions. Section S.2.2: Criteria for WHO Unity-alignment of sero-epidemiological investigations. Table S2: Unity-aligned vs. not unity-aligned sero-epidemiological studies. S.2.3: SeroTracker inclusion and exclusion criteria. Table S3: Criteria for including evidence. Table S4: Criteria for excluding evidence. Section S.2.4: Search Strategy. Section S.2.5: Risk of Bias Tool Breakdown. Section S3: Supplementary analysis information. Section S.3.1: Estimate Prioritization. Section S.3.2: Additional analysis description. Section S4: Supplementary Results. Section S.4.1: Studies included for descriptive analysis, meta-analysis, and ascertainment estimation. Table S5: Studies used in ascertainment analysis. Table S6: Additional studies used in meta-analysis and meta-regression. Table S7: Additional studies used in descriptive analysis. Section S.4.2: Risk of bias breakdown for all studies. Table S8: Risk of bias breakdown for all studies. Section S.4.3: Additional figures and results. Figure S1: WHO Member States with seroprevalence data identified. Figure S2: Risk of Bias Assessment for Included Studies. Figure S3: Asymptomatic Prevalence for Included Studies. Table S9: Estimated seroprevalence over time by reion and globally (uncorrected for test characteristics). Table S10: Estimated seroprevalence over time by region and globally (corrected for test characteristics). Table S11: Meta-regression results and model comparison. Section S5: References for all included studies. Section S6: PROSPERO Protocol Registration. Section S7: References cited in supplementary file.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by WHO through funding from the WHO COVID-19 Solidarity Response Fund and the German Federal Ministry of Health COVID-19 Research and Development Fund. IB, LS, AnV, LA, AR, JO, TA, PW, LL, AiV, RP, MVK are employed by WHO, and HCL, AN, MV, BC are WHO consultants. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WHO concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement.
SeroTracker (led by RKA, including MW, HW, ZL, XM, TY, CC, MYL, JP, MPC, DB, ML, MS, GRD, NI, CZ, SP, HPR, TY, KCN, DK, SAA, ND, CD, NAD, EL, RKI, ASB, ELB, AS, JC) is grateful for support from WHO, Canada’s COVID-19 Immunity Task Force through the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Robert Koch Institute, and the Canadian Medical Association Joule Innovation Fund. RKA additionally thanks the Rhodes Trust for its support.
We thank colleagues at partner organizations including WHO/Dubai Logistics Team; Myrna Charles, Kathleen Gallagher, Amen Ben Hamida, Christopher Murrill, Toni Whistler, Venkatachalam Udhayakumar (US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention); Eeva Broberg, Erika Duffell, Maria Keramarou and Pasi Penttinen (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control), Vincent Richard (Institut Pasteur and the Institut Pasteur International Network); WHO regional offices (Jacob Barnor, Alina Guseinova, Jason M Mwenda, Dmitriy Pereyaslov, Harimahefa Razafimandimby, and WHO HQ (Michael Ryan). We also thank team members from Gabon: Rafiou Adamou, Ayola A Adegnika, Samira Z Assoumou, Rosemary A Audu, Paulin E Ndong, Paulin N Essone, Edgard B Ngoungou.
We would especially like to thank all WHO Unity Studies members, who are also named co-authors of this paper and listed in the section below. These and other collaborators, in all the countries who embarked in this global response effort to COVID-19, are recognized on a dedicated webpage on the Unity and WHO website,(61), as well as all individuals who supported, conducted or participated in each of the studies supported.
Footnotes
↵** Full group author list is listed in the acknowledgements section
Extended search, initially was from Jan 2020 to Oct 2021 in v1, then covering the full first two years of the pandemic (Jan 2020-Dec 2021) in v2, and now covering Jan 2020-May 2022 search dates in v3.