Abstract
Background Serological surveys have been the gold standard to estimate the numbers of SARS-CoV-2 infections, epidemic dynamics, and disease severity. Serological assays have decaying sensitivity with time that can bias their results, but there is a lack of guidelines to account for this phenomenon for SARS-CoV-2.
Aim Our goal is to assess the sensitivity decay of seroassays for detecting SARS-CoV-2 infections, the dependence of this decay on assay characteristics, and to provide a simple method to correct for this phenomenon.
Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of SARS-CoV-2 serology studies. We included studies testing previously diagnosed individuals, without any SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, and excluded studies of cohorts highly unrepresentative of the general population (e.g. hospitalised patients).
Results Of the 488 screened studies, 76 studies reporting on 50 different seroassays were included in the analysis. Sensitivity decay depends strongly on the antigen and the analytic technique used by the assay, with average sensitivities ranging between 26% and 98% at 6 months after infection, depending on assay characteristics. We find that a third of the included assays depart considerably from manufacturer specifications after 6 months.
Conclusions Seroassay sensitivity decay depends on assay characteristics, and for some types of assays it can make manufacturer specifications highly unreliable. We provide a tool to correct for this phenomenon, and to assess the risk of decay for a given assay. Our analysis can guide the design and interpretation of serosurveys for SARS-CoV-2 and other pathogens, and quantify systematic biases in the existing serology literature.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive specific funding from any source.
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:
All the data used in this manuscript were openly available in previously published studies and official reports. Links to the original data sources are found in the associated GitHub page.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Footnotes
We add new analyses of the robustness of our results, we add an analysis of assay specificity, and an estimation of risk of bias in the serological literature due to seroreversion.
Data Availability
All data is available at the associated GitHub page.
