ABSTRACT
Serosurveys are a key resource for measuring SARS-CoV-2 population exposure. A growing body of evidence suggests that asymptomatic and mild infections (together making up over 95% of all infections) are associated with lower antibody titers than severe infections. Antibody levels also peak a few weeks after infection and decay gradually. We developed a statistical approach to produce estimates of cumulative incidence from raw seroprevalence survey results that account for these sources of spectrum bias. We incorporate data on antibody responses on multiple assays from a post-infection longitudinal cohort, along with epidemic time series to account for the timing of a serosurvey relative to how recently individuals may have been infected. We applied this method to produce estimates of cumulative incidence from five large-scale SARS-CoV-2 serosurveys across different settings and study designs. We identify substantial differences between raw seroprevalence and cumulative incidence of over two-fold in the results of some surveys, and provide a tool for practitioners to generate cumulative incidence estimates with pre-set or custom parameter values. While unprecedented efforts have been launched to generate SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence estimates over this past year, interpretation of results from these studies requires properly accounting for both population-level epidemiologic context and individual-level immune dynamics.
ABSTRACT
Antibody testing for determining the SARS-CoV-2 serostatus was rapidly introduced in early 2020 and since then has been gaining special emphasis regarding correlates of protection. With limited access to representative samples with known SARS-CoV-2 infection status during the initial period of test development and validation, spectrum bias has to be considered when moving from a "test establishment setting" to population-based settings, in which antibody testing is currently implemented. To provide insights into the presence and magnitude of spectrum bias and to estimate performance measures of antibody testing in a population-based environment, we compared SARS-CoV-2 neutralization to a battery of serological tests and latent class analyses (LCA) in a subgroup (n = 856) of the larger population based TiKoCo-19 cohort (n = 4185). Regarding spectrum bias, we could proof notable differences in test sensitivities and specificities when moving to a population-based setting, with larger effects visible in earlier registered tests. While in the population-based setting the two Roche ELECSYS anti-SARS-CoV-2 tests outperformed every other test and even LCA regarding sensitivity and specificity in dichotomous testing, they didn't provide satisfying quantitative correlation with neutralization capacity. In contrast, our in-house anti SARS-CoV-2-Spike receptor binding domain (RBD) IgG-ELISA (enzyme-linked-immunosorbant assay) though inferior in dichotomous testing, provided satisfactory quantitative correlation and may thus represent a better correlate of protection. In summary, all tests, led by the two Roche tests, provided sufficient accuracy for dichotomous identification of neutralizing sera, with increasing spectrum bias visible in earlier registered tests, while the majority of tests, except the RBD-ELISA, didn't provide satisfactory quantitative correlations.
ABSTRACT
Biased seroprevalence estimates can occur using serological assays optimized with validation sets unrepresentative of disease spectrum in the general population. Correct interpretation of serosurveys for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 requires quantifying variations in sensitivity with disease severity and over time.