Current challenges of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence studies among blood donors: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood donors are increasingly being recognized as an informative resource for surveillance. We aimed to review severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 seroprevalence studies conducted among blood donors to investigate methodological biases and provide guidance for future research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed and preprint publications between January 2020 and January 2021. Two reviewers used standardized forms to extract seroprevalence estimates and data on methodology pertaining to population sampling, periodicity, assay characteristics, and antibody kinetics. National data on cumulative incidence and social distancing policies were extracted from publicly available sources and summarized. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies representing 1,323,307 blood donations from 20 countries worldwide were included (sample sizes ranged from 22 to 953,926 donations). The majority of the studies (79%) reported seroprevalence rates <10% (ranging from 0% to 76% [after adjusting for waning antibodies]). Overall, less than 1 in 5 studies reported standardized seroprevalence rates to reflect the demographics of the general population. Stratification by age and sex were most common (64% of studies), followed by region (48%). A total of 52% of studies reported seroprevalence at a single time point. Overall, 27 unique assay combinations were identified, 55% of studies used a single assay and only 39% adjusted seroprevalence rates for imperfect test characteristics. Among the nationally representative studies, case detection was most underrepresented in Kenya (1:1264). CONCLUSION: By the end of 2020, seroprevalence rates were far from reaching herd immunity. In addition to differences in community transmission and diverse public health policies, study designs and methodology were likely contributing factors to seroprevalence heterogeneity.

An international comparison of anti-SARS-COV-2 assays used for seroprevalence surveys from blood component providers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Access to large pools of healthy adult donors advantageously positions blood component providers to undertake anti-SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies. While numerous seroprevalence reports have been published by blood operators during the COVID-19 pandemic, details on the assay used has not been well documented. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the diversity of assays being used by blood operators and assess how this may affect seroprevalence estimates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed 49 blood component providers from 39 countries. Questionnaire included information on the number and identity of assays used, the detected immunoglobulin(s) and target antigen, and performance characteristics (sensitivity, specificity). RESULTS: Thirty-eight of the 49 contacted blood suppliers provided at least partial responses. The results indicate that 19 commercial and five in-house serology assays have been used by surveyed blood operators. The Abbott SARS-CoV-2 IgG assay was the most commonly used kit and utilized by 15 blood suppliers. Two assays did not detect IgG, but detected either IgM/IgA or IgM. 68·2% of assays targeted the spike protein and 50% the nucleocapsid protein, while 18·2% targeted both viral proteins. The sensitivity and specificity of IgG-specific assays ranged from 71·9% to 100% and from 96·2% to 100%, respectively. As of 18 October 2020, the seroprevalence was below 5% in 10 of 14 countries reporting. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the diversity of assays being used. Analyses comparing blood donor seroprevalence across countries should consider assay characteristics with optimization of signal/cut-off ratios and consistent methodology to adjust for waning antibody.

Research initiatives of blood services worldwide in response to the covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While coronavirus (COVID-19) is not transfusion-transmitted, the impact of the global pandemic on blood services worldwide is complex. Convalescent plasma may offer treatment, but efficacy and safety are not established. Measuring seroprevalence in donors would inform public health policy. Here, we survey blood services around the world to assess the different research programmes related to COVID-19 planned or in progress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Blood collection services were surveyed in June 2020 to determine whether they were participating in serosurveys or convalescent plasma collection and clinical trials. RESULTS: A total of 48 countries (77% of those contacted) responded. Seroprevalence studies are planned or in progress in 73% of countries surveyed and in all continents, including low- and middle-income countries. Most aimed to inform public health policy. Convalescent plasma programmes have been initiated around the globe (79% of surveyed), about three quarters as clinical trials in high-, middle- and low-income countries. CONCLUSION: Blood services around the world have drawn upon their operational capacity to provide much-needed seroprevalence data to inform public health. They have rapidly implemented preparation of potential treatment when few treatments are available and mostly as clinical trials. At the same time, they must continue to provide blood products for recipients despite challenges of working in a state of emergency. It is important to track and coordinate research efforts across jurisdictions to gain a composite evidence-based view that will influence future practice and preparative strategies.