tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
Int J Infect Dis
. 2021 Dec 27;S1201-9712(21)01251-0.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.353. Online ahead of print.
Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in India, March 2020-August 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Nuzrath Jahan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Adarsh Brahma[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Muthusamy Santhosh Kumar[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Bhavani Shankara Bagepally[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Manickam Ponnaiah[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tarun Bhatnagar[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Manoj V Murhekar[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Abstract
Introduction: India experienced two waves of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] and reported second highest caseload globally. Seroepidemiological studies were done to track the course of the pandemic. We systematically reviewed and synthesized seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among Indian population.
Methods: We included studies reporting seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to August 11, 2021 and excluded studies done only among COVID-19 patients, and vaccinated individuals. We searched published databases, preprint servers and government documents using a combination of keywords and Medical subheading (MeSH) terms of "Seroprevalence AND SARS-CoV-2 AND India". We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa scale, the Appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool and WHO's statement on the Reporting of Seroepidemiological Studies for SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S). We calculated pooled seroprevalence along with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) during the first (March 2020 to February 2021) and second wave (March to August 2021). We also estimated seroprevalence by selected demographic characteristics.
Results: We identified 3821 studies and included 53 studies with 905,379 participants after excluding duplicates, screening of titles and abstracts and full-text screening. Of the 53, 20 studies were of good quality. Some of the reviewed studies did not report adequate information on study methods [sampling=24% (13/53); laboratory=83% (44/53)]. Studies of 'poor' quality had more than one of the following issues: unjustified sample size, non-representative sample, non-classification of non-respondents, results unadjusted for demographics and methods insufficiently explained to enable replication. Overall pooled seroprevalence was 20.7% in the first (95% CI=16.1 to 25.3) and 69.2% (95% CI=64.5 to 73.8) in the second wave. Seroprevalence did not differ by age in first wave, whereas in second, it increased with age. Seroprevalence was slightly higher among females in second wave. In both the waves, the estimate was higher in urban than in rural areas.
Conclusion: Seroprevalence increased by threefold between the two waves of the pandemic in India. Our review highlights the need for designing and reporting studies using standard protocols.
. 2021 Dec 27;S1201-9712(21)01251-0.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.353. Online ahead of print.
Seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in India, March 2020-August 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Nuzrath Jahan[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Adarsh Brahma[SUP] 2 [/SUP], Muthusamy Santhosh Kumar[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Bhavani Shankara Bagepally[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Manickam Ponnaiah[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Tarun Bhatnagar[SUP] 1 [/SUP], Manoj V Murhekar[SUP] 1 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 34968773
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2021.12.353
Abstract
Introduction: India experienced two waves of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] and reported second highest caseload globally. Seroepidemiological studies were done to track the course of the pandemic. We systematically reviewed and synthesized seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among Indian population.
Methods: We included studies reporting seroprevalence of IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from March 1, 2020, to August 11, 2021 and excluded studies done only among COVID-19 patients, and vaccinated individuals. We searched published databases, preprint servers and government documents using a combination of keywords and Medical subheading (MeSH) terms of "Seroprevalence AND SARS-CoV-2 AND India". We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa scale, the Appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies (AXIS), the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool and WHO's statement on the Reporting of Seroepidemiological Studies for SARS-CoV-2 (ROSES-S). We calculated pooled seroprevalence along with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) during the first (March 2020 to February 2021) and second wave (March to August 2021). We also estimated seroprevalence by selected demographic characteristics.
Results: We identified 3821 studies and included 53 studies with 905,379 participants after excluding duplicates, screening of titles and abstracts and full-text screening. Of the 53, 20 studies were of good quality. Some of the reviewed studies did not report adequate information on study methods [sampling=24% (13/53); laboratory=83% (44/53)]. Studies of 'poor' quality had more than one of the following issues: unjustified sample size, non-representative sample, non-classification of non-respondents, results unadjusted for demographics and methods insufficiently explained to enable replication. Overall pooled seroprevalence was 20.7% in the first (95% CI=16.1 to 25.3) and 69.2% (95% CI=64.5 to 73.8) in the second wave. Seroprevalence did not differ by age in first wave, whereas in second, it increased with age. Seroprevalence was slightly higher among females in second wave. In both the waves, the estimate was higher in urban than in rural areas.
Conclusion: Seroprevalence increased by threefold between the two waves of the pandemic in India. Our review highlights the need for designing and reporting studies using standard protocols.