No abstract

Background Many studies report the seroprevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies. We aimed to synthesize seroprevalence data to better estimate the level and distribution of SARS-CoV-2 infection, identify high-risk groups, and inform public health decision making. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched publication databases, preprint servers, and grey literature sources for seroepidemiological study reports, from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020. We included studies that reported a sample size, study date, location, and seroprevalence estimate. We corrected estimates for imperfect test accuracy with Bayesian measurement error models, conducted meta-analysis to identify demographic differences in the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, and meta-regression to identify study-level factors associated with seroprevalence. We compared region-specific seroprevalence data to confirmed cumulative incidence. PROSPERO: CRD42020183634. Results We identified 968 seroprevalence studies including 9.3 million participants in 74 countries. There were 472 studies (49%) at low or moderate risk of bias. Seroprevalence was low in the general population (median 4.5%, IQR 2.4–8.4%); however, it varied widely in specific populations from low (0.6% perinatal) to high (59% persons in assisted living and long-term care facilities). Median seroprevalence also varied by Global Burden of Disease region, from 0.6% in Southeast Asia, East Asia and Oceania to 19.5% in Sub-Saharan Africa (p<0.001). National studies had lower seroprevalence estimates than regional and local studies (p<0.001). Compared to Caucasian persons, Black persons (prevalence ratio [RR] 3.37, 95% CI 2.64–4.29), Asian persons (RR 2.47, 95% CI 1.96–3.11), Indigenous persons (RR 5.47, 95% CI 1.01–32.6), and multi-racial persons (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.60–2.24) were more likely to be seropositive. Seroprevalence was higher among people ages 18–64 compared to 65 and over (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.11–1.45). Health care workers in contact with infected persons had a 2.10 times (95% CI 1.28–3.44) higher risk compared to health care workers without known contact. There was no difference in seroprevalence between sex groups. Seroprevalence estimates from national studies were a median 18.1 times (IQR 5.9–38.7) higher than the corresponding SARS-CoV-2 cumulative incidence, but there was large variation between Global Burden of Disease regions from 6.7 in South Asia to 602.5 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Notable methodological limitations of serosurveys included absent reporting of test information, no statistical correction for demographics or test sensitivity and specificity, use of non-probability sampling and use of non-representative sample frames. Discussion Most of the population remains susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Public health measures must be improved to protect disproportionately affected groups, including racial and ethnic minorities, until vaccine-derived herd immunity is achieved. Improvements in serosurvey design and reporting are needed for ongoing monitoring of infection prevalence and the pandemic response.

Québec Health Research Fund and BD Diagnostic Systems.

hMPV and RSV severity risk factors may differ slightly. These findings will inform hMPV prevention strategies.

Accurate serologic tests to detect host antibodies to severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) will be critical for the public health response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Many use cases are envisaged, including complementing molecular methods for diagnosis of active disease and estimating immunity for individuals. At the population level, carefully designed seroepidemiologic studies will aid in the characterization of transmission dynamics and refinement of disease burden estimates and will provide insight into the kinetics of humoral immunity. Yet, despite an explosion in the number and availability of serologic assays to test for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2, most have undergone minimal external validation to date. This hinders assay selection and implementation, as well as interpretation of study results. In addition, critical knowledge gaps remain regarding serologic correlates of protection from infection or disease, and the degree to which these assays cross-react with antibodies against related coronaviruses. This article discusses key use cases for SARS-CoV-2 antibody detection tests and their application to serologic studies, reviews currently available assays, highlights key areas of ongoing research, and proposes potential strategies for test implementation.

eRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) rapid antigen detection tests (RADT) are extensively used in clinical laboratories. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of RADTs for diagnosis of RSV infection and to determine factors associated with accuracy estimates. We searched EMBASE and PubMed for diagnostic-accuracy studies of commercialized RSV RADTs. Studies reporting sensitivity and specificity data compared to a reference standard (reverse transcriptase PCR [RT-PCR], immunofluorescence, or viral culture) were considered. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics, diagnostic-accuracy estimates, and study quality. Accuracy estimates were pooled using bivariate random-effects regression models. Heterogeneity was investigated with prespecified subgroup analyses. Seventy-one articles met inclusion criteria. Overall, RSV RADT pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76% to 83%) and 97% (95% CI, 96% to 98%), respectively. Positive-and negative-likelihood ratios were 25.5 (95% CI, 18.3 to 35.5) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.24), respectively. Sensitivity was higher in children (81% [95% CI, 78%, 84%]) than in adults (29% [95% CI, 11% to 48%]). Because of this disparity, further subgroup analyses were restricted to pediatric data (63 studies). Test sensitivity was poorest using RT-PCR as a reference standard and highest using immunofluorescence (74% versus 88%; P < 0.001). Industry-sponsored studies reported significantly higher sensitivity (87% versus 78%; P ‫؍‬ 0.01). Our results suggest that the poor sensitivity of RSV RADTs in adults may preclude their use in this population. Furthermore, industry-sponsored studies and those that did not use RT-PCR as a reference standard likely overestimated test sensitivity.A cute respiratory infection (ARI) due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a leading cause of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations in infants and children (1-3). RSV also produces substantial morbidity and mortality among the elderly and adults with underlying medical conditions (4, 5).Accurate and prompt diagnosis of RSV ARI can have important benefits for patient care. Because concurrent serious bacterial infection with RSV is uncommon, especially in children (6), a timely diagnosis of RSV ARI should diminish unnecessary antibiotic use (7)(8)(9). It may also minimize ancillary testing (10), decrease hospital stay durations (11), and permit prompt implementation of cohort assignment for the purpose of limiting nosocomial transmission within hospitals and long-term-care facilities (13)(14)(15)(16)57). Laboratory testing of respiratory secretions is required for confirmation of RSV infection because its seasonality and nonspecific clinical manifestations may overlap those of other viral and bacterial causes of ARI (17,18).There are currently four RSV diagnostic modalities in clinical use. Viral culture was long considered the gold standard for RSV diagnosis, but it has a turnaround time of 3 to 7 day...

No abstract

SummaryBackgroundRespiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is an important cause of pneumonia mortality in young children. However, clinical data for fatal RSV infection are scarce. We aimed to identify clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of children aged younger than 5 years with RSV-related mortality using individual patient data.MethodsIn this retrospective case series, we developed an online questionnaire to obtain individual patient data for clinical and socioeconomic characteristics of children aged younger than 5 years who died with community-acquired RSV infection between Jan 1, 1995, and Oct 31, 2015, through leading research groups for child pneumonia identified through a comprehensive literature search and existing research networks. For the literature search, we searched PubMed for articles published up to Feb 3, 2015, using the key terms “RSV”, “respiratory syncytial virus”, or “respiratory syncytial viral” combined with “mortality”, “fatality”, “death”, “died”, “deaths”, or “CFR” for articles published in English. We invited researchers and clinicians identified to participate between Nov 1, 2014, and Oct 31, 2015. We calculated descriptive statistics for all variables.FindingsWe studied 358 children with RSV-related in-hospital death from 23 countries across the world, with data contributed from 31 research groups. 117 (33%) children were from low-income or lower middle-income countries, 77 (22%) were from upper middle-income countries, and 164 (46%) were from high-income countries. 190 (53%) were male. Data for comorbidities were missing for some children in low-income and middle-income countries. Available data showed that comorbidities were present in at least 33 (28%) children from low-income or lower middle-income countries, 36 (47%) from upper middle-income countries, and 114 (70%) from high-income countries. Median age for RSV-related deaths was 5·0 months (IQR 2·3–11·0) in low-income or lower middle-income countries, 4·0 years (2·0–10·0) in upper middle-income countries, and 7·0 years (3·6–16·8) in high-income countries.InterpretationThis study is the first large case series of children who died with community-acquired RSV infection. A substantial proportion of children with RSV-related death had comorbidities. Our results show that perinatal immunisation strategies for children aged younger than 6 months could have a substantial impact on RSV-related child mortality in low-income and middle-income countries.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.